El-Zebde v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1082

The variation to minimum lot frontage standard is justified as compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary, sufficient environmental planning grounds exist, and the development is in the public interest according to clause 4.6 of BLEP15. The appeal is upheld and development consent granted accordingly.

Parties: Applicant: Khodr Ali El-Zebde; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 18 February 2021
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Final Orders After Conciliation Agreement
Outcome: Appeal upheld
Legal Topics: Development Application, Dual Occupancy, Variation to Development Standards, Conciliation Agreement

Planning Law Development Application Dual Occupancy Variation to Development Standards Conciliation Agreement

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Khodr Ali El-Zebde

Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Orders After Conciliation Agreement

Legal Issues

1 Whether a variation to minimum lot frontage standard for dual occupancy under clause 4.1A of BLEP15 can be justified pursuant to clause 4.6
2 Whether development consent should be granted for demolition and new dual occupancy with subdivision

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

Leave is granted to rely upon the written request under clause 4.6 of BLEP15 and revised architectural plans.
The written request seeking to justify breach of minimum frontage is considered and upheld under clause 4.6.