Bryson and Blake v Ballina Shire Council (First Respondent) and Director General of the Department of Planning (Second Respondent) [2009] NSWLEC 1306

Bryson and Blake v Ballina Shire Council (First Respondent) and Director General of the Department of Planning (Second Respondent) [2009] NSWLEC 1306

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded as the development does not achieve the objectives of the minimum allotment size standard; compliance was not unreasonable or unnecessary, and the proposed development would diminish agricultural productivity and set an undesirable precedent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Standards' 'minimum Allotment Size' 'sepp 1 Objections']
['environmental Planning' 'local Government Law'] ['development Standards' 'minimum Allotment Size' 'sepp 1 Objections']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is compliance with the 40 hectare minimum lot size standard in cl 12(3)(a)(ii) of Ballina Local Environmental Plan 1987 unreasonable or unnecessary under SEPP 1?' 'Is the SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment size development standard well founded?']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded as the development does not achieve the objectives of the minimum allotment size standard; compliance was not unreasonable or unnecessary, and the proposed development would diminish agricultural productivity and set an undesirable precedent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application (2008/620) to construct a dwelling and associated infrastructure at lot 191 DP 755741, Fernleigh Road, Tintenbar, is refused.' 'The exhibits, except exhibits 6, C, D and R1 are returned.']