Mintilakis v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2024] NSWLEC 1358


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mintilakis v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1358
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 June 2024
Date of orders: 27 June 2024
Decision date: 27 June 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Harding AC
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application DA22/0759, as amended, for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, comprising a new upper floor and other associated works at 409 Willarong Road, Caringbah South, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – new dwelling – amended plans – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 34AA

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2001, s 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 2
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards), ss 2.10, 2.11, 4.6
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.9, 6.14, 6.16, 6.17.

Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Mintilakis (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Solicitors:
P Vergotis (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Piper Alderman (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/335990
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by Michael Mintilakis (the Applicant) against the refusal of Development Application No DA22/0759, by Sutherland Shire Council (the Respondent). The Development Application, lodged on 28 July 2022, seeks for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, comprising a new upper floor and other associated works at 409 Willarong Road, Caringbah South, legally described as Lot 5 in DP 701869.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under s 34AA(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LEC Act). This was held on 13 June 2024.

  3. At the conciliation conference, an agreement was reached as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to grant Development Consent to the Development Application subject to conditions. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision, the subject to the agreement, is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  4. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and how they are satisfied. The parties agree that there are no jurisdictional prerequisites which would prevent the Court from exercising its function under s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  5. As the presiding…

Continue reading Mintilakis v Sutherland Shire Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mintilakis v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1358
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 1358
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Mintilakis v Sutherland Shire Council came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales where the appellant sought to overturn a decision made by the Sutherland Shire Council to deny development consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling. The applicant, Mintilakis, sought to add an upper floor to the property located at 409 Willarong Road, Caringbah South, along with associated works. The primary dispute centred on whether the proposed development complied with local planning laws and environmental regulations, specifically concerning height restrictions and setback requirements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed development met the criteria for approval as stipulated under the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This included assessing whether the new upper floor exceeded permissible height limits and whether it complied with setback requirements from the property boundaries. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the merits of the applicant's argument that the proposed development did not significantly impact the character of the neighbourhood and complied with broader planning objectives.

The court found that the Sutherland Shire Council had not adequately justified its refusal of development consent. It concluded that the proposed alterations and additions, including the new upper floor, were consistent with the local planning instruments. The court emphasised that the development did not breach height or setback requirements and was in line with the character of the area. Furthermore, the court held that the Council's decision did not sufficiently account for the applicant's compliance with the planning laws and the potential benefits of the proposed development. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, determining that development consent should be granted subject to specified conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application DA22/0759, as amended, for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, comprising a new upper floor and other associated works at 409 Willarong Road, Caringbah South, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

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.