Amine, Mouhamad & Anor v Bankstown City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1188

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Amine, Mouhamad & Anor v Bankstown City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1188 Hearing dates: 2 - 3 September 2014 Decision date: 10 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development Application No. 63/2014 for three villas at 66 Victoria Street, Revesby, is refused. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibit 2, are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: infill affordable rental housing; whether the proposal is permissible; compatibility with the character of the local area. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Revelop Projects Pty Limited v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1167 Succar v Bankstown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1255 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mouhamad Amine & Yassar Amine as trustee for Amine Family Trust (Applicant) Bankstown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Ms Fenja Berglund Barrister (Applicant) Mr Carlo Zoppo Solicitor (Respondent) Susan Hill & Associates Lawyers (Applicant) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 10270 of 2014

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Development Application No. 63/2014, by Bankstown City Council (the Council), for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of three villas as infill affordable housing (the proposal) at 66 Victoria Street, Revesby (the site). 2The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation on 23 June 2014, in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference was terminated on 23 June 2014, pursuant to s 34(4) of the LEC Act, as the parties did not reach agreement. The proposal was amended following the conciliation conference and leave was granted by the Court for the applicant to rely on the amended proposal. 3The proposal was further amended prior to the hearing, to correct some drafting inconsistencies and leave was granted for the applicant to rely on the further amended plans. Notwithstanding that corrections had been made to the plans, additional drafting errors and inconsistencies were identified during the hearing.