Condor Design Pty Limited v Bankstown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1009

Condor Design Pty Limited v Bankstown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1009

The proposed development was not a dual occupancy as defined in Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001 because, whether the dwellings were attached or detached, both dwellings had to face the street and Unit 2 did not. Unit 2 was behind Unit 1, largely obscured from the street, and addressed the common wall between the units. The dwellings also did not have a single common wall because each wall was within its own allotment and the units could be constructed independently. The proposal was therefore not permissible in the 2(a) Residential zone, so consent could not be granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'dual Occupancy' 'permissibility of Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'private Open Space' 'solar Access']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'dual Occupancy' 'permissibility of Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'private Open Space' 'solar Access']

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 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development was permissible as a dual occupancy under Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001.' 'Whether the proposed dwellings were attached or detached dwellings with a single common wall.' 'Whether Unit 2 faced the street.' 'Whether the proposed private open space was adequate.' 'Whether the proposed private open space received sufficient solar access.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development was not a dual occupancy as defined in Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001 because, whether the dwellings were attached or detached, both dwellings had to face the street and Unit 2 did not. Unit 2 was behind Unit 1, largely obscured from the street, and addressed the common wall between the units. The dwellings also did not have a single common wall because each wall was within its own allotment and the units could be constructed independently. The proposal was therefore not permissible in the 2(a) Residential zone, so consent could not be granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application (1385/2014) for the construction of a dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision at 4 Compton Street, Bass Hill, is refused.' 'The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, are returned.']