Q & R Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2001] NSWLEC 250
Clause 26 of the 1998 SEPP 5 has a continuing effect so that development applications lodged prior to amendments are determined under the provisions in force at the application date. Therefore, the 1998 SEPP 5 applies, and land zoned 4(a) Industrial under the Sutherland Shire LEP 1993 is land to which SEPP 5 applies under cl 4(1)(b)(iv). Alternatively, even under the 2000 SEPP 5, the site qualifies as land to which SEPP 5 applies because development for the specified uses, including dwelling houses ancillary to permissible uses, is permitted.
- Parties
- Applicant: Q & R Developments Pty Ltd; Respondent: Sutherland Shire Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Question of Law / Interlocutory
- Outcome
- Preliminary questions of law answered in favour of the applicant; proceedings stood over for further hearing.
- Legal Topics
- State Environmental Planning Policy No 5, Zoning, Transitional Provisions, Interpretation of Planning Instruments
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Q & R Developments Pty Ltd
Applicant
Sutherland Shire Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Question of Law / Interlocutory
Legal Issues
- 1 Which version of clause 4 of SEPP 5 applies to the applicant's development application?
- 2 Whether land zoned 4(a) Industrial under Sutherland Shire LEP 1993 is land to which SEPP 5 applies under cl 4(1)(b)(iv)?
- 3 Whether, if the 2000 version applies, the site still falls within the description of land under cl 4(1)(b)(iv) or (i)?
Ratio Decidendi
Clause 26 of the 1998 SEPP 5 has a continuing effect so that development applications lodged prior to amendments are determined under the provisions in force at the application date. Therefore, the 1998 SEPP 5 applies, and land zoned 4(a) Industrial under the Sutherland Shire LEP 1993 is land to which SEPP 5 applies under cl 4(1)(b)(iv). Alternatively, even under the 2000 SEPP 5, the site qualifies as land to which SEPP 5 applies because development for the specified uses, including dwelling houses ancillary to permissible uses, is permitted.
Court Disposition
Preliminary questions of law answered in favour of the applicant; proceedings stood over for further hearing.
Orders
- Preliminary question 1 answered: Yes, the land is capable of permitting development under cl 4(1)(b)(iv) of SEPP 5 1998.
- Preliminary question 2 does not strictly arise, but would also be answered in the applicant's favour.
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