McIntyre and Ors v Pittwater Council [2001] NSWLEC 16

McIntyre and Ors v Pittwater Council [2001] NSWLEC 16

The application before the Court was a single master plan for the overall site, integrating residential development in Sector C, industrial subdivision in Sector D, the creek line corridor and drainage land. After the proposed residential development for Sector C was rejected, approving Sector D alone as a stand alone industrial subdivision would involve consideration of a distinct and different proposal from that lodged and litigated. In the absence of agreement between the parties to deal with the matter otherwise, the development application had to be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment After Merits Hearing and Further Submissions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['master Plan' 'industrial Subdivision' 'residential Development' 'partial Approval of Development Application' 'drainage Corridor' 's 94 Contributions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land Use Zoning'] ['master Plan' 'industrial Subdivision' 'residential Development' 'partial Approval of Development Application' 'drainage Corridor' 's 94 Contributions']

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 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Merits Hearing and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a master plan development application incorporating residential use in Sector C and industrial use in Sector D could be determined by granting consent to industrial use only.' 'Whether Sector D should be considered in isolation as a stand alone industrial subdivision after the Court rejected the proposed residential development for Sector C.' 'Whether approving only one part of the development application would grant consent different from that sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application before the Court was a single master plan for the overall site, integrating residential development in Sector C, industrial subdivision in Sector D, the creek line corridor and drainage land. After the proposed residential development for Sector C was rejected, approving Sector D alone as a stand alone industrial subdivision would involve consideration of a distinct and different proposal from that lodged and litigated. In the absence of agreement between the parties to deal with the matter otherwise, the development application had to be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Application for development consent to Development Application 570/99, lodged on 23 June 1999 as subsequently amended, is refused.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'No order as to costs.']