Raza v Fairfield City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1119

Raza v Fairfield City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1119

The Court may substitute a development control order if agreement is reached under s 34 and orders are otherwise within power; the substituted orders provide for future demolition contingent on application, which addresses planning controls and resolves the initial concerns.

Parties
Applicant: Saulat Raza; Respondent: Fairfield City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment/orders After S 34 Conciliation Agreement
Outcome
Appeals upheld and substituted development control orders made by consent.
Legal Topics
Development Control Order, Unauthorised Building Works, Land Use – Demolition, Appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
Planning and Environment Development Control Order Unauthorised Building Works Land Use – Demolition Appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saulat Raza

Applicant

Fairfield City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment/orders After S 34 Conciliation Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Development Control Orders for demolition were properly issued under the EPA Act
  2. 2 Whether substituted orders consistent with s 34 agreement and lawful exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court may substitute a development control order if agreement is reached under s 34 and orders are otherwise within power; the substituted orders provide for future demolition contingent on application, which addresses planning controls and resolves the initial concerns.

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld and substituted development control orders made by consent.

Orders

  • In proceedings 2024/209625, the appeal is upheld and the development control order is substituted as set out in Annexure A.
  • In proceedings 2024/209626, the appeal is upheld and the development control order is substituted as set out in Annexure B.