Cottle, B v Goulburn Mulwaree Council and the Director-General of the Department of Planning [2007] NSWLEC 9

Cottle, B v Goulburn Mulwaree Council and the Director-General of the Department of Planning [2007] NSWLEC 9

Although the Court was satisfied that the proposed subdivision could be economically serviced by reticulated electricity supply, the SEPP1 objection was not well founded because it failed to address the totality of the restrictive planning regime in cl 12 of the MLEP, including the 100ha and 40ha minimum allotment standards and the aims and Rural 1(a) zone objectives of the MLEP. The proposed undersized lots would fragment rural land, would not be in a locality identified for rural smallholdings or near an existing village, would not encourage efficient delivery of services, and would create an undesirable precedent. Consent therefore could not be granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of an Integrated Development Application for Rural Subdivision / Judgment Dismissing Appeal and Refusing Consent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; SEPP1 objection not upheld; integrated development application refused consent.
Legal Topics
['state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standards' 'reticulated Electricity Supply' 'integrated Development' 'rural 1(a) Zoning']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Applications' 'rural Subdivision'] ['state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standards' 'reticulated Electricity Supply' 'integrated Development' 'rural 1(a) Zoning']

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

Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of an Integrated Development Application for Rural Subdivision / Judgment Dismissing Appeal and Refusing Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the land may be economically serviced by a reticulated electricity supply for the purposes of cl 12(6) of the Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 1995.' 'Whether the State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the development standards in cl 12 of the Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 1995 should be upheld.' 'Whether the proposed six-lot rural subdivision should receive consent despite non-compliance with minimum allotment size standards.' 'Whether the nearby airstrip provided a reason to refuse the application or impose conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court was satisfied that the proposed subdivision could be economically serviced by reticulated electricity supply, the SEPP1 objection was not well founded because it failed to address the totality of the restrictive planning regime in cl 12 of the MLEP, including the 100ha and 40ha minimum allotment standards and the aims and Rural 1(a) zone objectives of the MLEP. The proposed undersized lots would fragment rural land, would not be in a locality identified for rural smallholdings or near an existing village, would not encourage efficient delivery of services, and would create an undesirable precedent. Consent therefore could not be granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; SEPP1 objection not upheld; integrated development application refused consent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is dismissed.' 'The State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the development standards in cl 12 of the Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 1995 is not upheld.' 'Integrated development application No 454/0405 lodged with the...