NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Darwich v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2022] NSWLEC 1206 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference held 14, 28 February, and 15 March 2022, final agreement filed 30 March 2022 Date of orders: 19 April 2022 Decision date: 19 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pullinger AC Decision: The Court orders that: (1) Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend Development Application DA-313/2021 and rely on the amended plans and documents listed at condition 1.1 of Annexure A. (2) Pursuant to Section 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of amending the Development Application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders. (3) The Applicant's written request, pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 (BLEP), seeking to vary the development standard for minimum lot width as set out at cl 4.1A(2)(a) of the BLEP, is upheld. (4) The appeal is upheld. (5) Consent is granted to Development Application DA-313/2021 (as amended) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision at 21 Riga Street, Greenacre, subject to the conditions of consent contained at Annexure A. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – attached dual occupancy – cl 4.6 written request – minimum lot width – agreement between the parties – orders Legislation Cited: Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.1A, 4.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 2.22, 4.16, 8.7, 8.15 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, cl 7 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Texts Cited: Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (December 2021) Canterbury-Bankstown Community Participation Plan Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sam Darwich (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Gough (Solicitor) (Applicant) M Bonanno (Solicitor) (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate