Kouklidis v Bayside Council [2020] NSWLEC 1413

Kouklidis v Bayside Council [2020] NSWLEC 1413

The Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one it could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied: the site was considered suitable regarding contamination, BASIX certificates were provided, dual occupancies, demolition and subdivision were permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, the amended proposal did not contravene RLEP 2011 development standards, notification requirements were satisfied, and no re-notification was necessary. Accordingly, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Residential Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application No. DA 2019/103 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement on Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['residential Development' 'demolition' 'strata Subdivision' 'conciliation Conference' 'sepp 55 Remediation of Land' 'basix' 'local Environmental Plan Compliance' 'development Control Plan Compliance']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Appeals'] ['residential Development' 'demolition' 'strata Subdivision' 'conciliation Conference' 'sepp 55 Remediation of Land' 'basix' 'local Environmental Plan Compliance' 'development Control Plan Compliance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Residential Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application No. DA 2019/103 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement on Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979" 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent were satisfied, including contamination consideration under SEPP 55, BASIX requirements, permissibility and development standards under Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011, and notification requirements']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one it could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied: the site was considered suitable regarding contamination, BASIX certificates were provided, dual occupancies, demolition and subdivision were permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, the amended proposal did not contravene RLEP 2011 development standards, notification requirements were satisfied, and no re-notification was necessary. Accordingly, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is given leave to amend the Development Application DA 2019/103 to rely on the amended architectural plans and documents referred to in the Table at condition 2 of the conditions of consent at Annexure A.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Consent is granted to Development Application DA 2019/103 subject to...