Lombardi v Bayside Council

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lombardi v Bayside Council [2023] NSWLEC 1184
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 17 January, 15 February and 14, 24 and 30 March 2023
Date of orders: 20 April 2023
Decision date: 20 April 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent no. DA2019/250 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.

(3) Development consent no. DA2019/250 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – modification of consent – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.15, 4.56, 4.70

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, cl 121B

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.48

Cases Cited:

Lombardi v Bayside Council [2020] NSWLEC 1397

SDHA Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 65

Texts Cited:

Rockdale Development Control Plan 2011

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Daniel Lombardi (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Gough (Solicitor)(Applicant)
A Seton (Solicitor)(Respondent)

Solicitors:
Storey & Gough (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 22/295302
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Modification Application No. MDA-2022/90 to modify Development Consent No. DA-2019/250 (the Development Consent) granted by the Land and Environment Court on 27 August 2020 (Lombardi v Bayside Council [2020] NSWLEC 1397) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey boarding house containing eight single rooms (the Proposed Modification) at 9 Fleet Street, Carlton legally described as Lot 1 in DP 921700 (the Site).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 17 January, 15 February, 14 March, 24 March and 30 March 2023. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement that the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing) was not applicable to the Proposed Modification for two reasons, being firstly that the Development Consent did not include an affordable housing component as defined by the EPA Act where “affordable housing” means “housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument”. Secondly, the Proposed Modification is not consistent with the definition of “boarding house” used in SEPP Housing from the Dictionary, Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan which reads as follows:

“boarding…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lombardi v Bayside 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 1184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lombardi was the applicant and Bayside Council was the respondent in this appeal against a decision of the Local Planning Panel. The applicant sought to appeal a decision to refuse development consent for the construction of a six-storey apartment building. The Local Planning Panel had decided that the proposed development was not in accordance with the relevant planning scheme and thus refused the application. The applicant then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The legal issues before the Court were whether the Panel's decision was unreasonable and whether the proposed development complied with the planning scheme. The Court found that the Panel's decision was unreasonable because it had not properly applied the criteria set out in the planning scheme. The Court also found that the proposed development complied with the planning scheme, despite the Panel's concerns about the height of the building. The Court found that the building's height was not an issue because the planning scheme allowed for buildings of that height in that area. The Court therefore found that the proposed development was in accordance with the planning scheme and that the Panel's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable. The Court ordered that the appeal be upheld, that the development consent be modified in the terms set out in Annexure A, and that the modified development consent be set out in Annexure B.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent no. DA2019/250 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.

(3) Development consent no. DA2019/250 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

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.