Lollback v The Hills Shire Council [2011] NSWLEC 1345

Lollback v The Hills Shire Council [2011] NSWLEC 1345

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded because the applicants did not establish that compliance with the 10 ha minimum lot size standard was unreasonable or unnecessary; the land retained potential for agricultural uses such as agistment and beekeeping or consolidation with adjoining land; the subdivision would create a 0.5 ha undersized lot, fragment rural land, introduce likely residential built form, adversely affect rural character, conflict with relevant Rural 1(b) zone objectives, and create an adverse planning precedent. As the objection was not upheld, the development application could not be approved and was also unacceptable on a merit assessment under s79C of the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Onsite S 34 AA Mandatory Conciliation Conference Terminated and Matter Proceeded to Hearing Onsite; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; SEPP 1 objection not upheld; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['sepp 1 Objection' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standard' 'rural 1(b) Zone Objectives' 'undesirable Planning Precedent' 'merit Assessment Under S79 C']
['planning and Environment' 'development Applications' 'land Subdivision'] ['sepp 1 Objection' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standard' 'rural 1(b) Zone Objectives' 'undesirable Planning Precedent' 'merit Assessment Under S79 C']

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 Pursuant to S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Onsite S 34 AA Mandatory Conciliation Conference Terminated and Matter Proceeded to Hearing Onsite; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the State Environmental Planning Policy No1- Development Standards objection to compliance with cl18(1)(b) of the Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005 was well founded.' 'Whether compliance with the 10 ha minimum lot size development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.' 'Whether the proposed two-lot subdivision was consistent with the underlying objective of the development standard and the Rural 1(b) zone objectives.' 'Whether approval would create an undesirable precedent or adversely affect rural character and agricultural potential.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded because the applicants did not establish that compliance with the 10 ha minimum lot size standard was unreasonable or unnecessary; the land retained potential for agricultural uses such as agistment and beekeeping or consolidation with adjoining land; the subdivision would create a 0.5 ha undersized lot, fragment rural land, introduce likely residential built form, adversely affect rural character, conflict with relevant Rural 1(b) zone objectives, and create an adverse planning precedent. As the objection was not upheld, the development application could not be approved and was also unacceptable on a merit assessment under s79C of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; SEPP 1 objection not upheld; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The State Environmental Planning Policy No1- Development Standards objection to the development standard in cl18 (1)(b) of Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005 is not upheld.' 'Development application for (DA 889/2009/ZB) for two-lot subdivision of Lot 160, DP 771416, 5 Clarke...