Rein Warry & Company v Wollondilly Shire Council & Anor [2004] NSWLEC 58

Rein Warry & Company v Wollondilly Shire Council & Anor [2004] NSWLEC 58

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because compliance with the 2 hectare minimum lot size standard was unnecessary in the circumstances. The underlying object of maintaining a rural residential character consistent with the 2 hectare standard would not be undermined because the subject site was a large corner lot, the two proposed lots would have different street frontages and a settlement pattern generally consistent with the surrounding area, and the proposal would not impact the rural edge of East Bargo. Precedent and de facto rezoning concerns were not determinative given the site-specific qualities of the land and the resulting lot sizes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'subdivision' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'development Standards' 'minimum Lot Size' 'concurrence']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'subdivision' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'development Standards' 'minimum Lot Size' 'concurrence']

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

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the 2 hectare minimum lot size development standard was well founded.' 'Whether compliance with the development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the proposed subdivision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because compliance with the 2 hectare minimum lot size standard was unnecessary in the circumstances. The underlying object of maintaining a rural residential character consistent with the 2 hectare standard would not be undermined because the subject site was a large corner lot, the two proposed lots would have different street frontages and a settlement pattern generally consistent with the surrounding area, and the proposal would not impact the rural edge of East Bargo. Precedent and de facto rezoning concerns were not determinative given the site-specific qualities of the land and the resulting lot sizes.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. I1004-02 to subdivide the property at 90 Ironbark Road, Bargo, into two lots is approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.' 'The Exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits A and 2.']