Alexander v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1165

Alexander v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1165

The appeal was dismissed because the development application was deficient and inaccurate in essential respects, including incorrect contours, unshown setbacks, incorrectly calculated lot areas, lack of a survey plan prepared by a registered surveyor, lack of a preliminary stormwater concept plan, and lack of an erosion and sediment control plan. Given the slope of the land and potential stormwater impacts on adjoining properties, those matters needed to be addressed in the application to enable assessment, and the proposal did not comply with the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Conciliation Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Failed and Proceedings Continued on Site
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'residential Subdivision Development Control Plan' 'allotment Design' 'stormwater Management' 'insufficient Application Information']
['planning and Development' 'local Government' 'land and Environment'] ['development Application Refusal' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'residential Subdivision Development Control Plan' 'allotment Design' 'stormwater Management' 'insufficient Application Information']

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

Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Conciliation Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Failed and Proceedings Continued on Site

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant provided adequate and accurate information to support the proposed subdivision application.' 'Whether stormwater disposal, erosion and sediment control, survey, demolition and architectural information had to be provided with the application rather than addressed later by conditions of consent.' 'Whether the proposed 3 m wide right of access was acceptable under the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan.' 'Whether the proposed subdivision complied with the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan in relation to density, allotment design, setbacks, private open space, accessway design, soil and water management and drainage control.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the development application was deficient and inaccurate in essential respects, including incorrect contours, unshown setbacks, incorrectly calculated lot areas, lack of a survey plan prepared by a registered surveyor, lack of a preliminary stormwater concept plan, and lack of an erosion and sediment control plan. Given the slope of the land and potential stormwater impacts on adjoining properties, those matters needed to be addressed in the application to enable assessment, and the proposal did not comply with the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application number DA/809/2011 to subdivide and existing allotment into two allotments at No. 8 Frith Avenue Normanhurst, is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1, 2 and A.']