Young v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWCA 82

Young v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWCA 82

The appeal was dismissed because the Court agreed that there was no power under cl 18 of SEPP 5 to grant the application for subdivision until the development the subject of consent had been completed. 'Carried out' in this context means completed, not merely consented to, and subdivision could only occur after the development was completed.

Parties
Appellant: Greg Young; Respondent: Parramatta City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision After Land and Environment Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
State Environmental Planning Policy 5, Subdivision of Land, Construction and Interpretation of Planning Instruments, Deferred Commencement Development Consents
Environment and Planning Law State Environmental Planning Policy 5 Subdivision of Land Construction and Interpretation of Planning Instruments Deferred Commencement Development Consents

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greg Young

Appellant

Parramatta City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision After Land and Environment Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land and Environment Court had power to approve a subdivision application under cl 18 of SEPP 5 before the relevant development had been completed
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'carried out' in cl 18 of SEPP 5 and its relationship with power to grant subdivision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Court agreed that there was no power under cl 18 of SEPP 5 to grant the application for subdivision until the development the subject of consent had been completed. 'Carried out' in this context means completed, not merely consented to, and subdivision could only occur after the development was completed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs