Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Abramovich v Byron Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1149 Hearing dates: 10,11 May 2012 Decision date: 04 June 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown ASC Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. DA 10.2010.274.1 for the subdivision of land at 40 Corkwood Crescent Suffolk Park into 4 lots is refused.
3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; subdivision - whether SEPP 1 objection to minimum lot size of Lots 1 and 2 is well founded -whether Lots 3 and 4 allow the erection of a dwelling - contrary to the Restriction as to User - loss of trees Legislation Cited: Byron Local Environmental Plan 1998 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
State Environment Planning Policy No 1Cases Cited: Lonergan v Byron Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1059
Parrott v Kiama [2004] NSWLEC 77
Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] 156 LGERA 446Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dr David R Abramovich (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr D Sweet, agent (Applicant)
Ms K Gerathy, solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10034 of 2012
Judgment
ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Byron Shire Council of DA 10.2010.274.1 for the subdivision of land at 40 Corkwood Crescent Suffolk Park into 4 lots.
The contentions raised by the council can be summarised as:
1. Lots 1 and 2 does not satisfy the minimum lot size development standard of 40 ha and the SEPP 1 objection is not well founded,
2. Lots 3 and 4 do not satisfy the minimum lot size of 900 sq m for hatchet shaped lots,
3. inadequate area is available in the designated building envelope for Lots 3 and 4 to allow the construction of a dwelling given the building envelopes and the likely impact on the character with the area,
4. the subdivision is contrary to the Restriction as to User that prohibits the further subdivision of the 2(a) zoned area of the site, and
5. the removal of vegetation.
The site
The site is Lot 268 in DP 867786. It is an irregularly shaped lot with a 42.421 m frontage to Corkwood Crescent. It has a northern boundary of 97.525 m and a southern boundary of 127.505 m and a site area of 6,795 sq m. Currently, the site is vacant although civil works associated with an approval granted by the Court in March 2010 (Lonergan v Byron Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1059) (the 2010 approval) for a 2 residential lot and single community title lot subdivision have been largely completed.
The site slopes steeply from the west with a change in level from the street of approximately 30 m. An easement for drainage purposes of variable width generally follows a watercourse that runs across the site near the Corkwood Crescent frontage. The site is also burdened by a Restriction as to User that prohibits the further subdivision of the site for…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Abramovich v Byron Shire 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
- [2012] NSWLEC 1149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address included the interpretation and application of the Byron Shire Local Environmental Plan 2012, specifically in relation to lot dimensions and setbacks, and whether the Byron Shire Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court also had to consider whether the council's decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence, and whether the refusal was proportionate to the objectives of the local planning laws.
The court found that the Byron Shire Council's decision to refuse the development application was correct. The subdivision did not comply with the requirements of the Byron Shire Local Environmental Plan 2012, particularly concerning lot dimensions and setbacks. The court held that the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and evidence. The refusal was deemed to be reasonable and lawful, and no procedural unfairness was found in the decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The exhibits were ordered to be returned, except for exhibit 1.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. DA 10.2010.274.1 for the subdivision of land at 40 Corkwood Crescent Suffolk Park into 4 lots is refused.
3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1.
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.