Mitrevski v Canterbury-Bankstown Council — Court approves Revesby dual-occupancy development

Case
Mitrevski v Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Court
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Australia)
Date Decided
27 October 2026
Citation
[2026] NSWLEC 1718
Topics
planning appeals, development consent, dual occupancy, conciliation

Background

Lube Mitrevski and Elizabeth Mitrevska sought approval for demolition, a two-storey attached dual occupancy with secondary dwellings, landscaping, and Torrens title subdivision at 103 Queen Street, Revesby.

Canterbury-Bankstown Council refused the original development application in February 2026 and then refused a review application in June 2026. The applicants appealed the review refusal to the Land and Environment Court under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

The Court’s Holding

Following a conciliation conference, the parties agreed on acceptable terms of a decision, including amended stormwater plans. Commissioner Washington held that the agreed outcome was one the Court could properly make and was therefore required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) to dispose of the proceedings accordingly.

The Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended proposal, subject to conditions in Annexure A. It accepted that the proposal was permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, met the relevant lot-size, height and floor-space-ratio controls, and satisfactorily addressed flooding, earthworks, stormwater, essential services, contamination, biodiversity and BASIX requirements.

Key Takeaways

  • A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through a conciliation agreement where the agreed result is one the Court could lawfully make.
  • The Court approved the amended development application, rather than remitting it to the Council.
  • Compliance with applicable planning controls and environmental requirements supported the grant of consent.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in giving effect to negotiated planning outcomes after satisfying itself that statutory prerequisites and relevant planning controls have been met.

For applicants and consent authorities, it also shows the utility of amending an application during conciliation to address disputed matters, including stormwater issues, and thereby reach a consent outcome subject to enforceable conditions.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top