Issa v Burwood Council [2004] NSWLEC 431
The two lots held in common ownership constituted a single allotment for the purposes of the relevant planning instruments. As the dual occupancy approval was properly regarded as being on a single allotment, clause 78Q prohibited further subdivision into two lots each for one dwelling. Thus the applicant's subdivision development application is prohibited.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 August 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Proceedings / Question of Law Determination
- Outcome
- Application for subdivision prohibited under clause 78Q.
- Legal Topics
- ['dual Occupancy Development' 'local Environmental Plan' 'subdivision Prohibition' "interpretation of 'allotment'"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings / Question of Law Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the proposed subdivision is prohibited under cl 78Q of Burwood Local Environmental Plan No 56/Burwood Planning Scheme Ordinance because it relates to 'dual occupancy development'" "Meaning of 'single allotment of land' in this statutory context"]
Ratio Decidendi
The two lots held in common ownership constituted a single allotment for the purposes of the relevant planning instruments. As the dual occupancy approval was properly regarded as being on a single allotment, clause 78Q prohibited further subdivision into two lots each for one dwelling. Thus the applicant's subdivision development application is prohibited.
Court Disposition
Application for subdivision prohibited under clause 78Q.
Orders
- ['DA273/03 is prohibited development as a consequence of clause 78Q of the Burwood Planning Scheme Ordinance.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment