Sarich v Pittwater Council [2012] NSWLEC 1225
The proposed subdivision does not satisfy the minimum allotment size requirement for internal lots under clause 11(3)(b) of the Pittwater LEP 1993, the SEPP1 objection is not well-founded as the applicant failed to demonstrate fulfilment of the objectives of the standard, and the site is unsuitable for the proposed subdivision due to adverse impacts and inadequate access.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['subdivision' 'minimum Allotment Size' 'sepp1 Objection' 'consent for Subdivision']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether proposed lot meets minimum allotment size under clause 11(3) of the Pittwater LEP 1993' 'Whether SEPP1 objection to minimum lot size is well-founded' 'Adequacy of access to the proposed lot' 'Environmental and amenity impacts']
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed subdivision does not satisfy the minimum allotment size requirement for internal lots under clause 11(3)(b) of the Pittwater LEP 1993, the SEPP1 objection is not well-founded as the applicant failed to demonstrate fulfilment of the objectives of the standard, and the site is unsuitable for the proposed subdivision due to adverse impacts and inadequate access.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application 384/11 for the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 11356 (84 Nareen Parade, North Narrabeen) into two lots is refused consent.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, B, C, F, H and 1, can be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment