Brookwood Land Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1019

Brookwood Land Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1019

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the OEH concurrence conditions requiring retention of medium and high value hollow bearing trees, resulting in unacceptable environmental impacts—particularly loss of threatened species habitat—that outweighed the zoning and conservation lot benefits, and warranted refusal of consent under the relevant legislative framework.

Parties
Applicant: Brookwood Land Pty Ltd; Respondent: Shoalhaven City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal (development Application) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; consent refused
Legal Topics
Development Application, Appeal, Subdivision, Biodiversity, Threatened Species, Zoning, Conditions of Consent
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Appeal Subdivision Biodiversity Threatened Species Zoning Conditions of Consent

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brookwood Land Pty Ltd

Applicant

Shoalhaven City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal (development Application) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed subdivision is consistent with threatened species related concurrence conditions
  2. 2 Whether benefits of the subdivision outweigh its adverse environmental impacts
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of OEH concurrence conditions regarding hollow bearing trees

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the OEH concurrence conditions requiring retention of medium and high value hollow bearing trees, resulting in unacceptable environmental impacts—particularly loss of threatened species habitat—that outweighed the zoning and conservation lot benefits, and warranted refusal of consent under the relevant legislative framework.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; consent refused

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • SF9821, seeking development consent for subdivision of lot 222 DP 1224712 at Sittella Circuit, Bangalee and associated tree clearing and civil works, is refused.