Fuller v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1506

Fuller v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1506

The proposed subdivision was refused because proposed Lot B, although narrow, rectangular and east-west in orientation, had an area of only 203.55 square metres and a shorter depth, which were not similar to the prevailing cadastral pattern of lots in the order of 250 to 450 square metres, 6m to 8m wide, generally rectangular and east-west oriented. The subdivision therefore did not reflect or reinforce the existing subdivision pattern required by the DCP.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'subdivision of One Lot Into Two Torrens Title Allotments' 'prevailing Cadastral Pattern' 'marrickville Development Control Plan 2011' 'car Parking and Private Open Space Controls']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Control' 'subdivision'] ['development Application Appeal' 'subdivision of One Lot Into Two Torrens Title Allotments' 'prevailing Cadastral Pattern' 'marrickville Development Control Plan 2011' 'car Parking and Private Open Space Controls']

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

Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the predominant subdivision pattern of the street.' 'Whether the subdivision should be approved where, as a consequence, the existing dwelling on proposed Lot A would not comply with car parking and private open space provisions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed subdivision was refused because proposed Lot B, although narrow, rectangular and east-west in orientation, had an area of only 203.55 square metres and a shorter depth, which were not similar to the prevailing cadastral pattern of lots in the order of 250 to 450 square metres, 6m to 8m wide, generally rectangular and east-west oriented. The subdivision therefore did not reflect or reinforce the existing subdivision pattern required by the DCP.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. 201800138 for the subdivision of Lot 1 DP 970333 known as 17 South Street, Marrickville is refused.' 'The exhibits other than Exhibit A are returned.']