Pideski v Wagga City Council & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1006

Pideski v Wagga City Council & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1006

The application must be refused because the applicants failed to justify the development of prime crop and pasture land for non-agricultural purposes and the proposed subdivision does not comply with the 'Right to Farm' setback requirements in the DCP, and no justification for varying these requirements was provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Control Plan' 'local Environmental Plan' 'subdivision of Land' 'right to Farm']

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

Development Application Appeal / Judgment at First Instance

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants justified the development of prime crop and pasture land for purposes other than agriculture as required by the zone objectives in the LEP' "Whether the proposed subdivision complies with 'Right to Farm' provisions (cl 7.5.33) in Part B of the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2005"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application must be refused because the applicants failed to justify the development of prime crop and pasture land for non-agricultural purposes and the proposed subdivision does not comply with the 'Right to Farm' setback requirements in the DCP, and no justification for varying these requirements was provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed' 'Development Application DA07/0383 to subdivide an existing land holding comprising two existing allotments at 15 Brucedale Road, Brucedale, into five rural residential allotments is determined by the refusal of development consent' 'The exhibits, other than Exhibit 3, are returned']