El-Hachem v Bankstown City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1039

El-Hachem v Bankstown City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1039

The Court held that although the site does not comply with the frontage requirement under clause 46(3)(b) of the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001, the SEPP 1 objection is well founded because the objectives of the standard are met. Therefore, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. The development is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1, is compatible with the character and amenity of adjoining land, and satisfies the requirements regarding privacy, solar access, and amenity. The application is approved subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'villa Development' 'amenity' 'overdevelopment' 'solar Access' 'privacy']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'villa Development' 'amenity' 'overdevelopment' 'solar Access' 'privacy']

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

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development complies with the frontage requirements of Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001 Clause 46(3)(b)' 'Whether an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards is well founded' 'Whether the development represents overdevelopment and has unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties' 'Whether the amenity for future residents is satisfactory']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although the site does not comply with the frontage requirement under clause 46(3)(b) of the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001, the SEPP 1 objection is well founded because the objectives of the standard are met. Therefore, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. The development is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1, is compatible with the character and amenity of adjoining land, and satisfies the requirements regarding privacy, solar access, and amenity. The application is approved subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "Development Application 676/2011 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and associated outbuildings and construction of four villa homes with strata subdivision is approved subject to conditions in Annexure 'A'." 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, C, E and 1, may be returned.']