Johnson v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 92

The amended plan for subdivision complies with minimum lot size and landscape area requirements as prescribed in the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. There is no legal or planning basis to refuse the appeal.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 February 2006
Procedural Posture: Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome: Appeal upheld
Legal Topics: ['development Application' 'subdivision' 'compliance With Minimum Lot Size' 'landscape Area Calculation' 'tree Preservation']

['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'subdivision' 'compliance With Minimum Lot Size' 'landscape Area Calculation' 'tree Preservation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether amended subdivision plan complies with minimum lot size requirements under Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan' 'Whether landscape area calculations for lots 20 and 21 comply with 50% landscaping requirement' 'Impact of subdivision on bushfire safety, traffic, views, and vegetation']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

['Development Application 1893/2004 for the subdivision of 120 and 122 Wilson Parade, Heathcote, into three allotments is determined by granting development consent subject to final conditions and filing of amended plan to protect Cypress pine.']