Rod Zoby Group Pty Ltd t/a ZTA Group v Canterbury- Bankstown Council [2019] NSWLEC 1566

Rod Zoby Group Pty Ltd t/a ZTA Group v Canterbury- Bankstown Council [2019] NSWLEC 1566

Granting consent to the development application, with variations to minimum lot size and height standards, is justified as the cl 4.6 written request demonstrates sufficient planning grounds, there are no adverse impacts, and the proposal is not inconsistent with local planning objectives or the character of the area.

Parties
Applicant: Rod Zoby Group Pty Ltd t/a ZTA Group; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Post Conciliation Decision Following Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; consent granted with conditions; order for costs
Legal Topics
Development Application, Minimum Lot Size Non Compliance, Height Non Compliance, Clause 4.6 Written Request, Consent Orders, Conciliation Conference
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Minimum Lot Size Non Compliance Height Non Compliance Clause 4.6 Written Request Consent Orders Conciliation Conference

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rod Zoby Group Pty Ltd t/a ZTA Group

Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Post Conciliation Decision Following Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent should be granted to the proposed multi-dwelling development given non-compliance with lot size and height standards under Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015
  2. 2 Whether the clause 4.6 written request adequately justifies the variations sought

Ratio Decidendi

Granting consent to the development application, with variations to minimum lot size and height standards, is justified as the cl 4.6 written request demonstrates sufficient planning grounds, there are no adverse impacts, and the proposal is not inconsistent with local planning objectives or the character of the area.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; consent granted with conditions; order for costs

Orders

  • The applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon specified amended plans and documents.
  • The applicant is to forthwith pay the thrown away costs of the respondent in the amount of $5000.00, pursuant to section 8.15(3) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.