Urch v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1732

Urch v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1732

The Court was satisfied there were no jurisdictional impediments to granting the orders sought. The clause 4.6 request justified the variation to the building height standard due to the unique topography of the Site and compliance was found to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The amended development was permissible, the parties resolved all contentions, and the proposed orders were within the Court's power under the relevant legislation.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen John Urch; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal and Building Information Certificate Appeal / Final Orders After S 34 Agreement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in No 2023/315353 (BIC appeal); appeal upheld and development consent granted in No 2023/197625 (DA appeal)
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Building Compliance, Clause 4.6 Variation, Height of Buildings Standard
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Consent Building Compliance Clause 4.6 Variation Height of Buildings Standard

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

Parties

Stephen John Urch

Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal and Building Information Certificate Appeal / Final Orders After S 34 Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether development consent should be granted for alterations and additions including proposed swimming pool, lift, and landscape works
  2. 2 Whether a Building Information Certificate appeal should be upheld
  3. 3 Whether the clause 4.6 request to vary the height of buildings standard should be accepted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied there were no jurisdictional impediments to granting the orders sought. The clause 4.6 request justified the variation to the building height standard due to the unique topography of the Site and compliance was found to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The amended development was permissible, the parties resolved all contentions, and the proposed orders were within the Court's power under the relevant legislation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in No 2023/315353 (BIC appeal); appeal upheld and development consent granted in No 2023/197625 (DA appeal)

Orders

  • Proceedings No 2023/315353: the appeal is dismissed.
  • Proceedings No 2023/197625: the appeal is upheld; Development Application No. DA-1028/2022 as amended, for alterations and additions including proposed swimming pool, lift, modified entry/stair works, use of existing structures and landscape works, is granted consent subject to conditions in Annexure A.