Hill v Blacktown City Council [2007] NSWLEC 108

Hill v Blacktown City Council [2007] NSWLEC 108

The proposal satisfied the test in cl 14(1) of the Growth Centres Policy—particularly that a dwelling house could be carried out under the LEP, that the aims of the Policy are not contravened given the degraded condition of the site and proposed rehabilitation conditions, and that the Court can grant consent notwithstanding departmental non-concurrence provided a deed of release regarding future compensation is imposed as a condition. The SEPP 1 objection would also be upheld if necessary, as strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in this case.

Parties
Applicant: William Hill; Respondent: Blacktown City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Development Application, Minimum Lot Size, Growth Centres Policy, Environmental Conservation, Local Environmental Plans, Concurrence Requirement
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Application Minimum Lot Size Growth Centres Policy Environmental Conservation Local Environmental Plans Concurrence Requirement

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Hill

Applicant

Blacktown City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development satisfies the minimum 10-ha land size requirement in cl 12(3) of the LEP
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development complies with the aims and objectives of the Growth Centres Policy, particularly regarding environmental conservation
  3. 3 Whether concurrence is required and can be granted under the Growth Centres Policy for the development

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal satisfied the test in cl 14(1) of the Growth Centres Policy—particularly that a dwelling house could be carried out under the LEP, that the aims of the Policy are not contravened given the degraded condition of the site and proposed rehabilitation conditions, and that the Court can grant consent notwithstanding departmental non-concurrence provided a deed of release regarding future compensation is imposed as a condition. The SEPP 1 objection would also be upheld if necessary, as strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in this case.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development Application No. 04-424 for construction of a single storey detached dwelling at 93 Barton Street, Marsden Park, is determined by granting development consent subject to conditions in Annexure 'A'.