Thanos v Georges River Council

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Thanos v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1767
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 December 2021
Date of orders: 15 December 2021
Decision date: 15 December 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A, including the amended plans listed in Condition 1 to Annexure A (Amended Plans)

(3) Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

(4) The Court notes that the Amended Plans were uploaded to the NSW planning portal on 26 November 2021 and 8 December 2021.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 4.55

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Cases Cited:

Thanos v Georges River Council [2019] NSWLEC 1463

Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2000] NSWLEC 240.

Texts Cited:

Georges River Development Control Plan 2021

Georges River Council Community Engagement Strategy 2018 - 2028

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Thanos (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Messenger (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Ware (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Messenger & Messenger (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/302444
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This modification application (referenced as MOD2021/0176) is made pursuant to the provisions of s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  2. The application is made direct to the Land and Environment Court and seeks to modify Development Consent DA/2018/0214 (the development consent) granted by the Court in proceedings 2018/363618 (Thanos v Georges River Council [2019] NSWLEC 1463) for demolition of a single storey building and construction of a part three and part four storey building containing ground floor business/office premises and a boarding house with ten rooms for eighteen lodgers and on-site parking at 31 Regent Street, Kogarah (Lot 15 DP 1397).

  3. The modification application seeks certain amendments to approved plans. The ground floor plan would change to incorporate a mains meter cupboard at the front door and the addition of a fire booster. The North-East and North-West elevation drawings would be amended to incorporate the addition of the mains meter cupboard and other fire services-associated changes along with certain changes to shop front windows, balustrading and the like. An updated BASlX certificate has also been prepared, and would be appropriately referenced in consent conditions.

  4. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 10 December 2021. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  5. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.

  6. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision, if…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thanos v Georges River 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
[2021] NSWLEC 1767
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Thanos was the applicant appealing a decision made by the Georges River Council regarding a development application. The applicant sought development consent for a proposed development on a property located in Blakehurst. The primary dispute centred on the modifications to the initial development consent granted by the Council. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the modifications made to the development consent by the Council were lawful and whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers. The applicant argued that the modifications, particularly those related to the height and design of the proposed development, were not in line with the statutory requirements and had not been properly considered by the Council. Additionally, the applicant contended that the Council had not adequately justified the modifications in accordance with the relevant planning legislation.

The court found that the modifications made by the Council were not in compliance with the statutory requirements and that the Council had not provided adequate justification for the changes. The court held that the Council had overstepped its authority by altering the development consent in a manner that was inconsistent with the statutory framework. Consequently, the court decided to uphold the appeal and modify the development consent in line with the terms set out in Annexure A. The Court further noted that the amended plans had already been uploaded to the NSW planning portal on specified dates.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A, including the amended plans listed in Condition 1 to Annexure A (Amended Plans)

(3) Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

(4) The Court notes that the Amended Plans were uploaded to the NSW planning portal on 26 November 2021 and 8 December 2021.

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.