Goreski v Hurstville City Council (No. 2) [2012] NSWLEC 1026

Goreski v Hurstville City Council (No. 2) [2012] NSWLEC 1026

The proposed dual occupancy development, despite being on a lot slightly below the minimum size, has a scale and density that are compatible with the existing streetscape. The differences in density, scale, or appearance do not disrupt the harmony of the area. Because the objective in cl 11A(1)(d)(iii) is satisfied, strict compliance with the minimum allotment size is unnecessary and unreasonable; the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and development consent may be granted.

Parties
Applicants: Paul and Valentina Goreski; Respondent: Hurstville City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Remitted Hearing Following Partial Allowance of an Appeal Under S 56 a Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved with conditions
Legal Topics
Development Control, Minimum Allotment Size, Dual Occupancy, Streetscape Compatibility, SEPP 1 Objections
Environmental Law Planning Law Development Control Minimum Allotment Size Dual Occupancy Streetscape Compatibility SEPP 1 Objections

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul and Valentina Goreski

Applicants

Hurstville City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Remitted Hearing Following Partial Allowance of an Appeal Under S 56 a Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed dual occupancy development on a lot below the minimum size has a scale and density compatible with the existing streetscape as required by cl 11A(1)(d)(iii) of Hurstville LEP 1994
  2. 2 Whether the SEPP 1 objection is well founded permitting consent to a lot below the development standard

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed dual occupancy development, despite being on a lot slightly below the minimum size, has a scale and density that are compatible with the existing streetscape. The differences in density, scale, or appearance do not disrupt the harmony of the area. Because the objective in cl 11A(1)(d)(iii) is satisfied, strict compliance with the minimum allotment size is unnecessary and unreasonable; the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and development consent may be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved with conditions

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development Application 09/DA-228 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a dual occupancy development and Torrens Title subdivision at 165 Carrington Avenue Hurstville is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".