Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Bailey v Oberon Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 815 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Daniel Bailey
Oberon Shire CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10630 of 2006 CORAM: Moore C KEY ISSUES: Development Application - Subdivision :-
Compliance with EPA licences
Noise
DustLEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Oberon Local Environmental Plan 1998
Oberon Development Control Plan 2001CASES CITED: Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675;
Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 337 ;
Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472;
Terrace Tower Holdings Pty v Sutherland Shire Council (2003) 129 LEGRA 195DATES OF HEARING: 13 and 14 December 2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12/14/2006 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Mr C McEwen SC
INSTRUCTED BY
Staunton Beattie
Mr M Baird, barrister
INSTRUCTED BY
McIntosh McPhillamy & Co
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESMOORE C
14 December 2006
06/10630 Daniel Bailey v Oberon Shire Council
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.
JUDGMENTThe consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at
1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal on 9 May 2006 by Oberon Council (the council) of Development Application 170/06.
2 The application is to subdivide an allotment which has an existing single residence on it which allotment is located at 12 Parkes Street, Oberon (the site). The site’s Real Property Act descriptors are Lot 3 Deposited Plan 1078889.
3 It is proposed that the existing single allotment will be divided so that it will create a large allotment upon which the present dwelling will remain; three individual residential allotments to the west of that (each of which will be a little in excess of 3,300 sq m); and, at the western end of the existing allotment, a proposed light industrial/commercial allotment of a little over 8,700 sq m in area.
4 The site is slightly undulating.
5 Although the present access to the existing residence is via Parkes Street, the site has an extensive frontage to Albion Street, which is the main truck bypass for Oberon.
6 Although the site is generally cleared, it contains a number of gentle slopes; a modest hillock towards its western end; and a depression incorporating very dry dam approximately in its southern centre.
7 Access to the three new residential allotments is…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bailey v Oberon 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
- [2006] NSWLEC 815
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's refusal of development consent was justified. The court needed to assess whether the appellant's proposed development complied with the relevant planning policies and environmental regulations, including any applicable zoning laws. Additionally, the court considered whether the refusal was unreasonable, taking into account the merits of the application and any potential impacts on the surrounding environment and community. The court also had to determine whether the appellant's application should be approved, and if so, what conditions should be imposed to mitigate any potential adverse effects.
The court found that the Council's refusal of development consent was not justified, as the appellant's proposed development did not contravene the relevant planning policies and environmental regulations. The court determined that the appellant's application was reasonable and should be approved, subject to detailed conditions that were designed to mitigate any potential adverse effects on the surrounding environment and community. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the appellant's right to develop their property with the need to protect the interests of the community and the environment. Ultimately, the court granted development consent to the appellant, subject to the imposition of detailed conditions.
The court's orders include the grant of development consent to the appellant, subject to detailed conditions that are available for inspection at the Council and may be obtained from the Court's registry upon payment of a fee. The court's decision provides important guidance on the application of planning policies and environmental regulations in the context of development approvals, and highlights the need for a balanced and reasoned approach to decision-making in this area.
Orders
Orders of the court
The consequence of the Court's decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court's Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court's registry upon payment of a fee.
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.