Kotsifas & anor v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1326

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kotsifas & anor v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1326 Hearing dates: 25 July 2016 Date of orders: 11 August 2016 Decision date: 01 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See paragraph [47] Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: Conditions of consent; rear lane vehicular access to extended family unit/ secondary dwelling; pedestrian safety; emergency access Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 1998 Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWLEC 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nicholas and Maria Kotsifas (Applicants) Georges River Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Ms LM Saw (Barrister) Respondent: Mr K Webber (Solicitor)

Solicitors/Agent: Applicant: Australian Town Planning Pty Ltd Respondent: Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers File Number(s): 156135 of 2016

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: On 26 February 2013, Kogarah City Council, as it then was, granted conditional consent to Development Application No. 306/2012 for a detached extended family unit with pergola and new in-ground swimming pool at 78 Stuart Street, Blakehurst (the site). 2. In March 2013, the applicants lodged an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) seeking the modification of the development consent by deleting of conditions 6 and 27. Council refused modification application 306/2012/1A on 22 April 2013. 3. In July 2014 the applicants lodged another modification application, 306/2012/2, seeking to delete the same conditions of consent. Following the removal of a legal impediment to one aspect of the surrounding site, in October 2015 council approved Modification Application 306/2012/3 subject to a range of conditions of consent, most of which were the conditions originally imposed on the original consent. 4. In April 2016, the applicants filed the Class 1 application with the Court seeking to modify and or delete a number of conditions of consent. 5. In essence, the applicants seek to delete conditions of consent which prevent them from obtaining vehicular access to the extended family unit via a new crossover and driveway from River Street; the street onto which the property backs.