Sioud v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2023] NSWLEC 1171

Sioud v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2023] NSWLEC 1171

The cl 4.6 written request sufficiently justified variation to the height standard as the breach was minor, primarily caused by meeting the required flood planning level, and consistent with the objectives of the LEP. The roof element met the criteria of an 'architectural roof feature' under cl 5.6 and was properly excluded from the height calculation. The resulting design was compatible with the character of the local area under cl 30A of the ARH SEPP. Therefore, development consent was granted, subject to specified conditions.

Parties
Applicant: Charbel Sioud; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Development Application (class 1) / Final Judgment and Orders on the Merits
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Building Height Standard, Variation of Development Standards, Character of Local Area, Architectural Roof Features, Public Interest, Flood Planning
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Building Height Standard Variation of Development Standards Character of Local Area Architectural Roof Features Public Interest Flood Planning

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charbel Sioud

Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Development Application (class 1) / Final Judgment and Orders on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the local area under cl 30A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
  2. 2 Whether the roof element is an 'architectural roof feature' for the purposes of cl 5.6 of the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP)
  3. 3 Whether variation of the building height standard under cl 4.6 of the LEP is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The cl 4.6 written request sufficiently justified variation to the height standard as the breach was minor, primarily caused by meeting the required flood planning level, and consistent with the objectives of the LEP. The roof element met the criteria of an 'architectural roof feature' under cl 5.6 and was properly excluded from the height calculation. The resulting design was compatible with the character of the local area under cl 30A of the ARH SEPP. Therefore, development consent was granted, subject to specified conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development consent is granted to development application no. DA-280/2021 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a four-storey mixed use development comprising a 30-room boarding house and ground floor commercial tenancy with basement parking at 68 Marion Street, Bankstown, subject to the...