Strathfield Municipal Council v Poynting [2001] NSWCA 270

Strathfield Municipal Council v Poynting [2001] NSWCA 270

Clause 41(2) of the Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance was a development standard insofar as it applied to erection of a single dwelling, attached dual occupancy or detached dual occupancy on Residential 2(a) land, because those developments were generally permissible with consent and clause 41(2) imposed a minimum area and width requirement in respect of an aspect of that development. However, insofar as clause 41(2) concerned multiple-unit housing, it was not a development standard because clause 22 prohibited erection of a building for that purpose on Residential 2(a) land altogether, leaving no permitted development in respect of which clause 41(2) could specify a requirement or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Planning Law Appeal Concerning a Development Application for Subdivision of Land / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Answers to Separate Questions in the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Standards' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards' 'subdivision of Land' 'minimum Allotment Area' 'residential Zoning' 'absolute Prohibition Versus Regulation']
['planning Law' 'environmental Planning and Assessment'] ['development Standards' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards' 'subdivision of Land' 'minimum Allotment Area' 'residential Zoning' 'absolute Prohibition Versus Regulation']

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

Planning Law Appeal Concerning a Development Application for Subdivision of Land / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Answers to Separate Questions in the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 41(2) of the Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance is a development standard within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and SEPP No 1.' 'Whether clause 41(2) imposes an absolute prohibition against erection of single dwellings, attached dual occupancies, detached dual occupancies or multiple-unit housing on allotments with an area of less than 560 square metres or width at the front building line of less than 15 metres within Zone No 2(a).' 'Whether clauses 24(b) and 41(2), read together, prohibit use of the proposed allotments for single dwellings, dual occupancies or multiple-unit housing if the subdivision is approved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 41(2) of the Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance was a development standard insofar as it applied to erection of a single dwelling, attached dual occupancy or detached dual occupancy on Residential 2(a) land, because those developments were generally permissible with consent and clause 41(2) imposed a minimum area and width requirement in respect of an aspect of that development. However, insofar as clause 41(2) concerned multiple-unit housing, it was not a development standard because clause 22 prohibited erection of a building for that purpose on Residential 2(a) land altogether, leaving no permitted development in respect of which clause 41(2) could specify a requirement or...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Vary the answers given by Bignold J by adding at the commencement of the answers to each of question 1 and question 2, "Save as to the erection of multiple-unit housing."' 'Vary the answers given by Bignold J by adding at the commencement of the answer to question 3, "Save as to use for...