Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Abernethy Developments P/L v Cessnock City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1123 Hearing dates: 18 April 2011 Decision date: 23 May 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: Appeal dismissed
Catchwords: Subdivision application; phasing of development Legislation Cited: EP&A Act 1979
Cessnock LEP 1989
Draft Cessnock LEPCases Cited: Davi Developments Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council [2007] NSWLEC 106 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Abernethy Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cessnock City Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr G McKee (Applicant)
Mr R Mallick (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10914 of 2010
Judgment
Background
This appeal arises from council's refusal to support a s96 application to modify a consent granted by the Court in Appeal No 10679 of 2008 for an 11 lot subdivision (Refer to Attachment A) at Munn Street Abernethy. The consent was granted on 13 March 2009 (consent) and allowed the creation Lot 1 with an area of 6.32ha, which effectively excised the rural component of the site. The subdivision of the remaining land in the village zone is to create 10 lots with areas in the order of 2000sq m. The conditions of consent require the provision of a range of infrastructure, including road upgrading, stormwater drainage improvements and contributions towards the extension of the town water supply.
The modification now is to undertake the subdivision in the following phases:
The first phase (subject application) is to create two lots, with Lot 1 effectively excising the portion zoned Rural A from the area approved in the Village 2(b) portion for the 10 residential lots. This first phase effectively consolidates the ten residential lots into a residue Lot 2. Access to Lot 1 is to be via a 5m right of access over Lot 2.
Presumably the second phase or subsequent phases will result in the subdivision of the residue Lot 2 into the initially approved ten lot configuration.
The subject land contains an existing dwelling and ancillary buildings (racing kennels) that have been in existence for about 40 years. The original consent required the removal of this dwelling, partly because it encroached on the proposed new lot boundaries.
Subsequent to the granting of the original consent, a further development application was made. This resulted in consent being granted for the erection of a new dwelling within the proposed Lot 1. A condition of this consent also required the demolition of the existing dwelling within 90 days of the issue of an occupation certificate, so that there would not be two dwellings on the one (original) lot.
The applicant now submits that there has been a change of circumstances, particularly the GFC, which now necessitates the subdivision being undertaken on a 'phased basis' to achieve the ultimate eleven lot outcome. Accordingly, the applicant has provided a separation of the overall conditions for the two phases.
However, council opposes this modification of the development on the basis of a number of contentions, which are summarised as follows:
Whether it is appropriate to allow the modification…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Abernethy Developments P/L v Cessnock City Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWLEC 1123
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the council's decision was legally sound, if it adhered to the statutory criteria and relevant policies, and whether the developer's proposal met the necessary planning requirements. The court needed to determine whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant laws and whether it was a lawful exercise of the council's discretion.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the council's decision-making process and the evidence presented. The court found that the council had acted within its lawful powers and that its decision was not flawed by any procedural or jurisdictional errors. The court held that the council had appropriately exercised its discretion and that the refusal of development approval was justified under the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.