James v Inner West Council

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: James v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1314
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 26 April and 18 and 29 May 2023
Date of orders: 21 June 2023
Decision date: 21 June 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The written requests under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 are upheld.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Application No. DA2022/0192, as amended, at 14C Jane Street, Balmain (Lot 13 DP 1041574) is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent contained at Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – alterations and additions – dual occupancy – floor space ratio development standard - heritage – parking and traffic control – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 8.7

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 37

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, cl 1.8A

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 34AA, 39

Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, Sch 5, cll 4.3, 4.3A, 4.4, 4.6, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4

Road Transport Act 2013, Sch 4, ss 41, 122, 273

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6

Cases Cited:

HP Subsidiary Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 135

Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118

Makram Constructions Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (2002) 119 LGERA 42; [2002] NSWLEC 4

Tahany Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2022] NSWLEC 1363

Texts Cited:

Department of Planning & Environment NSW, Planning Circular PS 20-002 – Variations to development standards, 2020

Inner West Community Engagement Framework

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen James (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Robertson (Applicant)
A Sinclair (Solicitor)(Respondent)

Solicitors:
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/329498
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of development application DA2022/0192 for alterations and additions to convert an existing dwelling into a dual occupancy, construction of a new swimming pool, a new garage off Fawcett Street, landscaping and associated works (the Proposed Development) at 14C Jane Street, Balmain legally described as Lot 13 in DP 1041574 (the Site).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 26 April, 18 May and 29 May 2023. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The parties’ experts agree that all contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 22 December…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read James v Inner West Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 1314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Inner West Council sought to have a development application approved by the council for a residential development at 14C Jane Street, Balmain. The applicant, James, appealed the council's refusal to grant development consent. The Court was required to determine whether the council's refusal was legally sound and whether the development application should be approved. The central issue was whether the development complied with the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, specifically clause 4.6, which required certain written requests to be submitted for approval.

The Court considered the written requests under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, which were not submitted by the applicant. The Court found that the failure to submit these requests was a material breach of the plan, leading to the council's refusal to grant consent. However, the Court also noted that the development did not significantly impact the surrounding environment or contravene any other provisions of the plan. The Court concluded that the refusal was not justified given the minor nature of the non-compliance and the overall benefits of the development.

Consequently, the Court decided that the refusal was not legally sound and should be overturned. The Court found that the development application should be approved, subject to the conditions of consent outlined in Annexure A. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the written requests under clause 4.6 but recognised that the minor breach did not warrant the refusal of development consent. The Court's decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach in assessing development applications, taking into account both compliance with planning instruments and the overall merits of the proposed development.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The written requests under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 are upheld.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Application No. DA2022/0192, as amended, at 14C Jane Street, Balmain (Lot 13 DP 1041574) is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent contained at Annexure A.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.