Memel Holdings Pty Limited v Pittwater Council (No 3) [2001] NSWLEC 240

Memel Holdings Pty Limited v Pittwater Council (No 3) [2001] NSWLEC 240

The Applicant's objection under SEPP No 1 is not well founded as the proposed subdivision does not fulfil or satisfy the objectives of the minimum lot size development standard in the LEP, nor does it maintain the existing character of the locality or improve residential amenity or enhance the environment. The proposal is inconsistent with prevailing subdivision patterns and would have unacceptable heritage and amenity impacts. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and development consent refused for non-compliance with cl 11(2) of the Pittwater LEP 1993.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused
Legal Topics
['development Standard' 'subdivision' 'heritage Conservation' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1' 'minimum Lot Size' 'local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Impact' 'access Arrangements']
['planning Law' 'environmental Law' 'local Government Law'] ['development Standard' 'subdivision' 'heritage Conservation' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1' 'minimum Lot Size' 'local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Impact' 'access Arrangements']

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 Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the objection pursuant to SEPP No 1 to compliance with the minimum lot size prescribed by Pittwater LEP 1993 should be upheld' 'Whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives and planning controls including heritage provisions' "Impact of proposal on heritage items including 'The Moorings' and Florida Road Conservation Area" 'Appropriateness of access to proposed Lot 11 via Livistona Lane']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's objection under SEPP No 1 is not well founded as the proposed subdivision does not fulfil or satisfy the objectives of the minimum lot size development standard in the LEP, nor does it maintain the existing character of the locality or improve residential amenity or enhance the environment. The proposal is inconsistent with prevailing subdivision patterns and would have unacceptable heritage and amenity impacts. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and development consent refused for non-compliance with cl 11(2) of the Pittwater LEP 1993.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Development consent refused.' 'Exhibits be returned.' 'No order as to costs.']