Vale Nominee Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2024] NSWLEC 1130
The proposed subdivision was for subdivision of land only and did not approve any use. The split zoned lots were capable of accommodating future dwellings within the R1 General Residential zoned parts in compliance with the relevant controls, and were also capable of accommodating other uses permissible in both the R1 and RE1 zones. The subdivision was therefore orderly and efficient, and the relevant preconditions to consent were satisfied. The Respondent's proposed residue-lot condition was not warranted for acquisition, land use conflict management, future subdivision, or control of prohibited residential uses, because the Applicant's proposed s 88B restriction, fencing and hedging...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/385/2023 / Principal Judgment After Hearing Following Termination of S 34 Conciliation
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development application granted consent subject to conditions in Annexure A.
- Legal Topics
- ['class 1 Development Appeal' 'subdivision to Create 61 Torrens Title Lots' 'split Zoned Lots' 'orderly and Economic Use and Development of Land' 'conditions of Consent' 'restrictive Covenant Under S 88 B Instrument' 'urban Release Area' 'biodiversity Certification' 'bushfire Prone Land' 'contaminated Land Remediation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/385/2023 / Principal Judgment After Hearing Following Termination of S 34 Conciliation
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proposed subdivision was inappropriate or not orderly development because proposed lots 4-14 and 21 would contain both R1 General Residential and RE1 Public Recreation zoned land, with dwelling houses prohibited on the RE1 land.' "Whether consent should be conditioned by requiring the RE1 Public Recreation zoned land in the split zoned lots to be held in two residue parcels, or by imposing the Applicant's proposed restrictive covenant, fencing and hedging conditions." 'Whether relevant preconditions to the grant of development consent were satisfied.']
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed subdivision was for subdivision of land only and did not approve any use. The split zoned lots were capable of accommodating future dwellings within the R1 General Residential zoned parts in compliance with the relevant controls, and were also capable of accommodating other uses permissible in both the R1 and RE1 zones. The subdivision was therefore orderly and efficient, and the relevant preconditions to consent were satisfied. The Respondent's proposed residue-lot condition was not warranted for acquisition, land use conflict management, future subdivision, or control of prohibited residential uses, because the Applicant's proposed s 88B restriction, fencing and hedging...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development application granted consent subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application DA/385/2023 (as amended on 28 August 2023) for subdivision (61 lots), environmental works and associated infrastructure and works at 77-91 Warnervale Road, Warnervale (Lot 72 DP 7091) is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.'...
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