Abdul-Rahman v Bankstown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1190

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdul-Rahman v Bankstown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1190 Hearing dates: 9 October 2013 Decision date: 11 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: See paragraphs 43 and 44 Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT CONSENT - non compliance with floor space ratio control, impact of bulk and scale, consistency with suburban character of the area, adequacy of private open space. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2001 Cases Cited: Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298. North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 468. Tipalea Watson Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (2003) 129 LGERA 351. Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (Land and Environment Court, Stein J, 24 February 1992); Category: Principal judgment Parties: Abdul-Rahman (Applicants)

Bankstown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr G McKee of Mckees Legal Solutions (Applicant)

Mr A Seton of Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10574 of 2013

Judgment 1This is an appeal against the refusal by Bankstown City Council (council) of an application under s 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to modify Development Consent (DA-1139/2011) for the "demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision" (Development Consent) at 227 Wangee Road, Greenacre (site). 2The contentions raised by council are whether: (i)the development is substantially the same development as that approved in the Development Consent; (ii)the increase in floor space ratio (FSR) is excessive; (iii)the bulk and scale of the development results in unaccptable visual bulk; (iv)the proposal is inconsitent with the existing and likely future character of the area; (v)the private open space is adequate. 3The contentions in relation to the landscaping in the front setback area (Contention 6), the internal width of the garage (Contention 7), on site detention (Contention 8) and the public interest (Contention 9) were resolved through amendments to the plans, the agreement of experts and conditions or were not pressed by council.