Keith v Randwick City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Keith v Randwick City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1011
Date of orders: 14 January 2025
Decision date: 14 January 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Porter C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application 726/2023 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey dwelling at 49 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits are returned except for A, B, 1 and 2.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – dwelling house - gross floor area calculations – floor space ratio - streetscape impacts – building envelope – bulk - setbacks

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 27, 38

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 2.3, 2.7, 4.4A, 6.2, 6.4, 6.7, 6.10

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 Ch 2, ss 2.10, 2.11, 4.6

Cases Cited:

Chami v Lane Cove Council [2015] NSWLEC 1003

Connoisseur Investments v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1181

Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80; [2005] NSWLEC 191

Texts Cited:

Randwick Development Control Plan 2023

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: John Keith (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Seymour SC (Applicant)
Mr M Astill (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/163412
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: John Keith, the Applicant, (Keith) has appealed pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against Randwick City Council’s (Council) deemed refusal of development application number 726/2023 (DA). The DA seeks development consent for a three storey dwelling house with basement, swimming pool, associated excavation and landscaping at 49 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra.

  2. The appeal is a residential appeal and in accordance with s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), commenced as a conciliation conference. As agreement could not be reached between the parties to resolve the issues, the conciliation conference was terminated, and the hearing commenced immediately.

  3. As a result of joint expert reporting and discussions between the parties, the remaining issues pressed by Council were in relation to the breach to the maximum permitted floor space ratio and the scale of development.

  4. For the reasons set out below, I find that the proposed development warrants development consent as it is consistent with the character of the area and complies with the vast majority of planning controls.

Amended Application

  1. During the hearing, Keith sought leave to amend the DA pursuant to s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2021 (EPA Reg). Unopposed by Council, the Court granted leave pursuant to s 39 of the LEC Act (amended DA). The amendments are generally described as follows:

  • Amended architectural plans prepared by MHNDU (architectural plans).

  • Lower…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Keith v Randwick 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
[2025] NSWLEC 1011
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keith and Randwick City Council were the parties involved in this case, which was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the approval of a development application concerning the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a three-storey dwelling at a specified address. Keith challenged the council's decision to reject the application, asserting that the refusal was unreasonable and that the conditions imposed were unjust.

The court had to determine whether the council's refusal to grant consent was lawful and whether the conditions imposed on the approval of the development application were appropriate. The legal issues included the interpretation of relevant planning laws and the principles of administrative law, specifically focusing on the discretionary powers of the council and the requirement for reasons for decisions. The court also had to assess whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or was otherwise unreasonable.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and that the conditions proposed by the council were not justified. The court held that the council had failed to adequately consider the applicant's submissions and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court determined that the application should be granted subject to certain conditions, which were outlined in the judgment. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the development application was approved with conditions. The exhibits were to be returned, except for those marked A, B, 1, and 2, which were to be retained for further consideration if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application 726/2023 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey dwelling at 49 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits are returned except for A, B, 1 and 2.

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.