Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lahoud v Willoughby City Council [2023] NSWLEC 117 Hearing dates: 1, 2, 3 and 4 November 2022; written submissions on 23 December 2022 and final written submissions by 23 June 2023
Date of orders: 02 November 2023 Decision date: 02 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Moore J Decision: See orders at [327]
Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW ‑ challenge to development consent for adaptive reuse of an existing commercial building, adding an additional level ‑ conversion to mixed‑use development with shop top housing ‑ development consent challenged on six separate grounds ‑ whether challenge to development consent commenced within statutory time limit ‑ challenge commenced within time limit ‑ if not within in time limit, whether challenge within Hickman principles of exceptions to compliance with time limits ‑ challenge within second of the Hickman principles
JUDICIAL REVIEW ‑ Ground 1 ‑ ground alleges approved development breaches height of building development standard set by Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP) ‑ request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the LEP to permit non‑compliance with the development standard ‑ Planning Panel approved request to permit non‑compliance but on the basis that required modification of the development for which consent had been sought ‑ three tests in cl 4.6 of the LEP required to be applied to the proposed development for which application had been made ‑ Planning Panel did not misapply the tests in cl 4.6 of the LEP ‑ granting of dispensation for non‑compliance of the Height of Building Development Standard valid ‑ Ground 1 fails
JUDICIAL REVIEW ‑ Ground 2 ‑ LEP requires that the western street frontage of the site be activated ‑ majority of the western street frontage proposed to be screening of ground level car parking ‑ consideration of extent to which activated street frontage required ‑ consideration of whether requirement for activated street frontage is a development standard ‑ held requirement for activated Street frontage is a development standard amenable to a dispensation request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the LEP ‑ no dispensation request made with the development application ‑ without a dispensation request satisfying cl 4.6 of the LEP, failure to satisfy the requirement for an activated street frontage on the western boundary of the site rendered development prohibited ‑ Planning Panel failed to give proper consideration to requirement for activated street frontage on western boundary of the site – consideration of matters of discretion - ground 2 upheld but, as a matter of discretion, relief refused
JUDICIAL REVIEW ‑ Ground 3 ‑ ground proposes shop top housing must be directly vertically above ground floor commercial premises ‑ all dwellings above ground floor commercial premises ‑ proposed dwellings not all directly vertically above ground floor commercial premises ‑ definition of shop top housing does not require vertical alignment above ground floor commercial premises ‑ Ground 3 fails
JUDICIAL REVIEW ‑ Ground 4 ‑ ground alleges breach of floor space ratio (FSR) permitted by development standard…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lahoud v Willoughby 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
- [2023] NSWLEC 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to deny the development application was lawful and whether the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment and community. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's decision was unreasonable and whether there were any errors in the application of relevant planning laws and policies.
The court found that the council's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the local planning policies and the potential impact of the proposed development on the neighbourhood. The court determined that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the local environment and character, and that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated how these impacts could be mitigated. The court also found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that there were no errors in the application of relevant planning laws. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision to deny the development application.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [327]
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.