Brown v Gosford City Council (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1032

Brown v Gosford City Council (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1032

The Court accepted the proposed modification because, although Lot 1 would have a greater departure from the minimum lot size development standard than previously approved, the departure from the approved Lot 1 was not significant, the reconfiguration would provide more orderly lot shapes allowing greater opportunities for siting dwellings and potentially greater amenity, and no objections were received when the modification application was advertised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning an Application to Modify a Development Consent / Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
The appeal was upheld and the development consent was modified by consent.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'subdivision Boundary Reconfiguration' 'dual Occupancy Conversion' 'development Standards' 'consent Orders']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'subdivision Boundary Reconfiguration' 'dual Occupancy Conversion' 'development Standards' 'consent Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning an Application to Modify a Development Consent / Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Application No 2747/2005 should be modified under s 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to reconfigure the approved two lot subdivision boundary.' 'Whether the existing dual occupancy on approved Lot 1 should be converted into a single occupancy with an attached non-habitable studio.' 'Whether the further departure from the minimum lot size development standard was acceptable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the proposed modification because, although Lot 1 would have a greater departure from the minimum lot size development standard than previously approved, the departure from the approved Lot 1 was not significant, the reconfiguration would provide more orderly lot shapes allowing greater opportunities for siting dwellings and potentially greater amenity, and no objections were received when the modification application was advertised.

Court Disposition

The appeal was upheld and the development consent was modified by consent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The consent granted by the Court on 26 October 2006 to Development Application No 2747/2005 ("the Consent") for the property at 715 The Scenic Road, McMaster\'s Beach is modified pursuant to s 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to reconfigure the approved boundary of...