Petro v Blacktown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1299

Petro v Blacktown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1299

Development of lot 1 by itself would be so difficult that it was unlikely to happen and, if it did, would be undesirable because it would underuse the site, look odd beside the two-storey proposal, require reverse vehicle exits contrary to the DCP, worsen impacts through stack parking, and use an undesirable access point near Kalunga Lane. The applicant had not obtained an independent valuation of lot 1 and made its only written offer of $170,000 on 3 July 2008, eight months after becoming aware of the council's contention, with only one day for response. The applicant therefore failed to demonstrate that it could not purchase lot 1 on reasonable terms, so the proposal was refused because...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'deemed Refusal' 'isolation of Adjoining Property' 'sterilisation of Adjoining Land' 'reasonable Negotiations to Purchase Adjoining Land' 'feasibility of Development of Isolated Lot']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'deemed Refusal' 'isolation of Adjoining Property' 'sterilisation of Adjoining Land' 'reasonable Negotiations to Purchase Adjoining Land' 'feasibility of Development of Isolated Lot']

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 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development of lot 1 DP 851609 by itself was feasible.' 'If development of lot 1 DP 851609 by itself was not feasible, whether the applicant demonstrated that it could not purchase lot 1 on reasonable terms.' 'Whether the proposed development should be refused because it would isolate or sterilise adjoining lot 1 DP 851609.']

Ratio Decidendi

Development of lot 1 by itself would be so difficult that it was unlikely to happen and, if it did, would be undesirable because it would underuse the site, look odd beside the two-storey proposal, require reverse vehicle exits contrary to the DCP, worsen impacts through stack parking, and use an undesirable access point near Kalunga Lane. The applicant had not obtained an independent valuation of lot 1 and made its only written offer of $170,000 on 3 July 2008, eight months after becoming aware of the council's contention, with only one day for response. The applicant therefore failed to demonstrate that it could not purchase lot 1 on reasonable terms, so the proposal was refused because...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application to erect a two-storey commercial building for use as a medical centre and music centre on lot 2 DP 851609 Station Street, Rooty Hill is determined by refusal.' 'The exhibits are returned.']