Herriott v Armidale Dumaresq Council [2006] NSWLEC 250

Herriott v Armidale Dumaresq Council [2006] NSWLEC 250

The appropriate balance between development consent and road upgrade obligations is achieved by amending Condition 6 to require targeted, agreed upgrades, ensuring access for 85% vehicles (2WD) under all weather conditions; the amended condition satisfies Clause 13(2) of the LEP, the central planning control.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Iain Herriott; Respondent: Armidale Dumaresq Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Development Consent Conditions, Road Access Requirements
Planning Law Development Consent Conditions Road Access Requirements

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Herriott

Applicant

Armidale Dumaresq Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Condition 6 of the development consent for the dwelling should be upheld or amended
  2. 2 Adequacy of road access to the new rural dwelling under the relevant planning instruments

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate balance between development consent and road upgrade obligations is achieved by amending Condition 6 to require targeted, agreed upgrades, ensuring access for 85% vehicles (2WD) under all weather conditions; the amended condition satisfies Clause 13(2) of the LEP, the central planning control.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

  • Condition 6 of the development consent for DA 0405/0123 is amended as shown in Annexure A.
  • The appeal is upheld.