Ritchie v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1376

Ritchie v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1376

The site is not within an accessible area as defined by SEPP ARH due to the absence of safe, practicable pedestrian routes to bus stops within 400m. Therefore, SEPP ARH does not apply to the proposed dual occupancy development, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Gregg Ritchie; Respondent: The Hills Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Dual Occupancy, Accessible Area Definition, Affordable Housing
Planning and Environment Development Consent Dual Occupancy Accessible Area Definition Affordable Housing

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregg Ritchie

Applicant

The Hills Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the site at 34 Bruhn Circuit, Kellyville qualifies as being within an 'accessible area' under cl 4 of SEPP ARH
  2. 2 Whether SEPP ARH applies to the proposed dual occupancy development and subdivision

Ratio Decidendi

The site is not within an accessible area as defined by SEPP ARH due to the absence of safe, practicable pedestrian routes to bus stops within 400m. Therefore, SEPP ARH does not apply to the proposed dual occupancy development, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Exhibits returned.