Dabbagh v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 1052

Dabbagh v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 1052

Because the jurisdictional prerequisites for consent were satisfied, the cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the minor contravention of the minimum lot size development standard, and the agreed outcome was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the written request, upholding the appeal, and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da2021/0253 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Written request upheld; appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'residential Development' 'dual Occupancy' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent Conditions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Appeal' 'residential Development' 'dual Occupancy' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent Conditions']

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 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da2021/0253 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was a decision 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 the written request under cl 4.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 adequately justified contravention of the minimum lot size development standard in cl 4.1A.' 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jurisdictional prerequisites for consent were satisfied, the cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the minor contravention of the minimum lot size development standard, and the agreed outcome was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the written request, upholding the appeal, and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Written request upheld; appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Written Request under cl 4.6 HLEP dated 15 December 2021 relating to the development standard set out in cl. 4.1A HLEP (Lot Size for Dual Occupancies) is upheld.' 'The Appeal is upheld.' 'The application for demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two (2) storey dual occupancy...