Maxcel Pty Ltd ATF Maxcel Trust v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2022] NSWLEC 1410

Maxcel Pty Ltd ATF Maxcel Trust v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2022] NSWLEC 1410

The appeal is upheld and consent granted as the development is permissible in the zone, satisfies minimum lot size for subdivision, and, per cl 4.6, strict compliance with front building line width is unreasonable in the circumstances of the site. Environmental planning grounds and objectives are met. The parties' agreement is one the Court could have made in proper exercise of its functions.

Parties
Applicant: Maxcel Pty Ltd ATF Maxcel Trust; Respondent: Canterbury Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld, development consent granted
Legal Topics
Development Application, Dual Occupancy, Subdivision, Development Consent, Variation of Standards
Planning and Environment Development Application Dual Occupancy Subdivision Development Consent Variation of Standards

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxcel Pty Ltd ATF Maxcel Trust

Applicant

Canterbury Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development application for demolition and construction of dual occupancy with subdivision complies with relevant planning controls
  2. 2 Whether the proposal should be approved despite not meeting minimum width at front building line under cl 4.1A
  3. 3 Consideration of written request for variation under cl 4.6 of the LEP

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is upheld and consent granted as the development is permissible in the zone, satisfies minimum lot size for subdivision, and, per cl 4.6, strict compliance with front building line width is unreasonable in the circumstances of the site. Environmental planning grounds and objectives are met. The parties' agreement is one the Court could have made in proper exercise of its functions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld, development consent granted

Orders

  • Applicant granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA-709/2021 and rely upon amended plans and updated clause 4.6 variation.
  • Applicant to pay respondent's section 8.15(3) costs in the agreed amount of $3,000.