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:
Solicitors:
Mr M Seymour SC (Applicant)
Mr M Astill (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/163412 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1011
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.