Anthony Johnson Good and Kristine Mary Good v Cowra Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 305

Anthony Johnson Good and Kristine Mary Good v Cowra Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 305

The land was correctly classified as 'prime agricultural land' under cl 5 CLEP per expert evidence and subsequent official mapping. As the number and size of proposed lots did not comply with cl 12 CLEP, and no SEPP1 objection had been filed, the Court had no power to approve the subdivision. Even if the land were 'non-prime', the proposal would fragment productive agricultural land and was inconsistent with key planning objectives to preserve agriculture and minimise conflict between residential and farming uses.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Johnson Good; Applicant: Kristine Mary Good; Respondent: Cowra Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment at First Instance (class 1 Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.
Legal Topics
Development Applications, Land Use Zoning, Prime Agricultural Land Classification, Local Environmental Plans, Rural Subdivision
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law Development Applications Land Use Zoning Prime Agricultural Land Classification Local Environmental Plans Rural Subdivision

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Johnson Good

Applicant

Kristine Mary Good

Applicant

Cowra Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment at First Instance (class 1 Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subject land is 'prime agricultural land' as defined in clause 5 to Cowra Local Environmental Plan 1990 (CLEP)
  2. 2 If land is 'prime agricultural land', whether the Court has power to approve the subdivision under the CLEP
  3. 3 If non-prime agricultural land, whether the proposal would be consistent with objectives of the CLEP

Ratio Decidendi

The land was correctly classified as 'prime agricultural land' under cl 5 CLEP per expert evidence and subsequent official mapping. As the number and size of proposed lots did not comply with cl 12 CLEP, and no SEPP1 objection had been filed, the Court had no power to approve the subdivision. Even if the land were 'non-prime', the proposal would fragment productive agricultural land and was inconsistent with key planning objectives to preserve agriculture and minimise conflict between residential and farming uses.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.

Orders

  • The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is dismissed.
  • Integrated development application No DA 418/04 lodged with the respondent council on 17 December 2004 to subdivide the land into eleven (11) allotments at part Lot 179, DP752948 and Lot 2, DP522956 is refused development consent.