/

/

Ghaleb v Strathfield Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1073 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Ghaleb v Strathfield Municipal Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1073

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-02-20|Before: Harding AC

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-02-20

Before

Harding AC

Catchwords

Development Application – Alterations and addition to dwelling
– use of building – conciliation conference –
agreement
between the parties — orders

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

Development Application – Alterations and addition to dwelling– use of building – conciliation conference –agreementbetween the parties — orders

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Ghaleb v Strathfield Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1073

Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 11 December 2025 and 2 February 2026

Date of orders: 20 February 2026

Decision date: 20 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Harding AC

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application DA2025/112 for use and partial construction of a detached dwelling house including but not limited to all levels comprising external windows, doors, all internal and external finishes, internal lift, associated site works, driveway, services, utilities, landscaping, accompanying in ground pool al fresco area and cabana on Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 506975 being 14 Llandilo Avenue, Strathfield is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords: Development Application – Alterations and addition to dwelling – use of building – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties — orders

Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 26
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 27,cl 38 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Strathfield Municipal Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.6, 5.10, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.11

COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) by Christopher Ghaleb (Applicant). The appeal was lodged based on the deemed refusal of an application being considered by Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent). The application, the subject of this appeal, is development application DA2025/112 lodged with Strathfield Municipal Council on 13 August 2025. The Respondent subsequently determined the application by way of refusal on 16 October 2025.
The development application seeks consent for the use and partial construction of a detached dwelling house including, but not limited, to all levels comprising external windows, doors, all internal & external finishes, internal lift, associated site works, driveway, services, utilities, landscaping, accompany in ground pool, alfresco area and cabana on the land known as 14 Llandilo Avenue Strathfield NSW 2135.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference and mediation between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) and s 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The conciliation conference/mediation process commenced on 11 December 2025.
At the conciliation conference the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to grant Development Consent to the development application subject to agreed outcomes and conditions.
The agreement was, in part, based on the applicant’s decision to make a number of amendments to the development application, which include:
Demolition of walls to increase the setbacks on the western side to approximately 900mm – 940mm.
provide an increased setback to the eastern rear corner of the dwelling on the upper level,
delete the arch columns from the entry way,
introduction of a garden bed with trees and groundcover on western boundary adjacent to the driveway,
introduction of a 1m wide pergola with creepers over garage door and upper floor,
additional windows on the western elevation and privacy treatment to windows throughout the dwelling,
a recess to the upper floor master bedroom ensuite and walk in robe,
increased landscaping and
change of materials and finishes to compliment the adjacent heritage items.
The agreement reached by the parties was based on amended plans and additional material that resolved the contentions before the Court. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision, the subject of the agreement, is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and how they are satisfied. The parties agree that there are no jurisdictional prerequisites in these proceedings which would prevent the Court from exercising its function under s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant Development Consent is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). In reaching that state of satisfaction, I note the following:
Owner’s consent has been supplied.
Pursuant to the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP), the subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible in this zone. Regard has been given to the R2 zone objectives in determining the application.
Clause 4.3 of the SLEP sets the height limit for development within the residential zone. The applicant has prepared a written request supporting the variation to the development standard pursuant to cl 4.6 of the SLEP.
The Clause 4.6 Request identifies the permitted building height limit for the site, under cl 4.3 of SLEP, is 9.5m. The request identifies the breach to the height limit (total height of 9.54m), noting that the proposal seeks a variation of 40mm and a 0.4% departure to the standard. The written request identifies the environmental grounds and states that they are sufficient to justify contravening of the maximum height by 40mm.
The written request sets out why the strict adherence to the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. It says that the variation is extremely minor and that the height of the adjoining dwellings exceed the proposed height in the subject development. The request states that the proposed building, with minor height variation, remains contextually appropriate. The request also notes the minimal impact on amenity.
The parties agree, and I also agree, that the written request has the required content. The parties agree to the variation.
Clause 5.10 of the SLEP relates to the conservation of the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views. The Site immediately adjoins two heritage items located east and west of the Site at 12 Llandilo Avenue (“Roubaix”) and 16 Llandilo Avenue (“Kama”).
A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by Urban Health Access & Heritage Consultants dated 22 July 2025 and Weir Phillips Heritage dated 22 July 2025 to consider the Proposal’s impact upon the significance of the items including settings and views to and from the property as a result of the proposal. The parties agree that the proposal has been amended to reflect a more appropriate design response resulting in an acceptable impact upon the adjoining heritage items and their significance in both their immediate and wider context. I am satisfied that the required heritage considerations have been met.
Clause 6.1 of the SLEP provides objectives and controls to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage. The development application relies on an Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment Report prepared by EI Australia dated on 18 July 2023. It undertook an ASS assessment for the Site, which was undertaken in conjunction with the contamination and geotechnical assessments.
The results of the laboratory analysis, in combination with the field observations, indicate that actual ASS are not present at the Site. The natural alluvial clayey sands identified indicators of potential ASS, with some unoxidised inorganic sulfides present. A generic management plan was provided within this document, which presents details for the management of ASS during development works. This plan takes into consideration potential impacts of lowering the groundwater table on surrounding properties, specific measures have been included in the management plan to control this. The parties agree, as do I, that the requirements for Acid Sulfate soils have been met.
Clause 6.2 of the SLEP sets out requirements for proposed earthworks. The parties agree that the proposed earthworks will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. The development application is supported by a geotechnical report which has assessed the site’s surface and subsurface conditions and makes recommendations to ensure that the earthworks will not have a detrimental impact of the environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. I am satisfied with the agreement of the parties that the proposed earthworks have been considered as part of the assessment process.
Pursuant to cl 6.4 - Essential Services, of the SLEP, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that the relevant services, that are essential for the development, are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available, when required. The parties agree, that as a result of the residential nature of the Site and the immediate context, the Site can be connected to the required essential services. The parties agree that the Court can be satisfied that the DA, as amended, satisfies the relevant requirements under cl 6.11 of the SLEP.