Kawkab Nassif v Holroyd City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Kawkab Nassif v Holroyd City Council [2004] NSWLEC 226
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mr Kawkab Nassif

RESPONDENT
Holroyd City Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 11388, 11389, 11390, 11391 and 11392 of 2003
CORAM: Watts C
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Character of the subdivision in the area
Non-Compliance of the subdivision with the frontage width
Character in the streetscape with garages taking up more than 50% of the width of the building
Inadequate area private open space for the rear four dwellings
Inadequate manoeuvring for vehicles into the garages at the rear
Solar access to rear courtyards.
LEGISLATION CITED: Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 1991, (HLEP)
Development Control Plan No 1 - Guidelines for Parking, (DCP1)
Development Control Plan No 4 - Guidelines for Dual Occupancy, Villa/Townhouse adn Integrated Housing Development, (DCP4)
Development Control Plan No 6 - Guidelines for Subdivision, (DCP6)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 79C and 97
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING: 15/04/2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/30/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT
Mr C C Gough, solicitor

SOLICITOR
Storey and Gough

RESPONDENT
Mr A J Seton, solicitor

SOLICITOR
Marsdens



JUDGMENT:

    IN THE LAND AND
    ENVIRONMENT COURT
    OF NEW SOUTH WALES

    11388, 11389, 11390, 11391 and 11392 of 2003 Watts C 30 April 2004

    Mr Kawkab Nassif
    Applicant

    v Holroyd Council
    Respondent

    Judgment

    1 These appeals under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, are against the decision of the Holroyd City Council (the council) to refuse development applications to demolish the existing dwellings, Torrens title subdivide into four allotments, construct civil works including driveways, retaining walls and below-ground detention tanks, and erect eight dual occupancies on land at Lots 11 and 12, DP 13154 being Nos 86 - 88 Hampden Road, South Wentworthville.
    2 I visited the land in company with the parties on the morning of the hearing 15 April 2004.
    3 I have concluded that the application should succeed after being assessed under s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .

    The land
    4 The land is situated on the eastern side of Hampden Road, South Wentworthville and is a rectangular shaped allotment, with a combined frontage of 33.53m and a depth of 63.37m, and an area of 2,139m2.
    5 The land has a fall from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of about 1m.
    6 Erected on the land are two dwellings that are not listed as items of heritage. There is no significant vegetation on the land.
    7 The area is characterised by single dwellings on large allotments. There are older style dwellings nearby.
    8 To the north and abutting the land is a medium-density development containing eight units. To the south is a new two-storey dwelling. To the east and immediately adjoining are two lots of villa units. The eastern side of Hampden Road has been developed with single residences and is characterised by large lots of similar size and frontage to the subject land. On the western side, lots are…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kawkab Nassif v Holroyd City 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
[2004] NSWLEC 226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kawkab Nassif appealed to the NSW Land and Environment Court against a decision by the Holroyd City Council to refuse a development application for a car wash facility. The applicant sought to establish a car wash facility on land zoned for retail purposes. The Council refused the application on the grounds that it would not be in accordance with the relevant planning scheme and would be contrary to the council’s policies. The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application.

The court was required to determine whether the refusal of the development application was lawful and whether the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application. The court considered whether the proposed development was in accordance with the relevant planning scheme and whether the Council had properly considered the merits of the application. The court also considered whether the refusal was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court found that the refusal of the development application was unlawful and that the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application. The court found that the proposed development was in accordance with the relevant planning scheme and that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application. The court found that the refusal was unreasonable because the Council had not given proper consideration to the applicant's proposal and had not provided adequate reasons for the refusal. The court held that the refusal was not reasonably open on the material before the Council and that the appeals should be upheld.

The court ordered that the appeals under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 be upheld, and that the decision of the Council be set aside. The court remitted the matter to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

85 My orders are:

1. The appeals under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are upheld.

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.