Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Blackman v Dungog Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1792 Hearing dates: 5-6 December 2024 Date of orders: 9 December 2024 Decision date: 09 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development Application No. DA 128/2023 for a boarding or training establishment comprising 28 breeding dogs at 241 Fishers Hill Road, Fishers Hill is determined by way of refusal.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits 4, A-C, which are retained.
Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – dog breeding establishment – noise amenity considerations – visual amenity considerations
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Dungog Local Environmental Plan 2014, cl 6.12,
Cases Cited: Jonah Pty Limited v Pittwater Council (2006) 144 LGERA 40; [2006] NSWLEC 99
Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2005] NSWLEC 315
Texts Cited: Dungog Development Control Plan 2013
NSW Environment Protection Authority, Noise Guide for Local Government 2023
NSW Environment Protection Authority, Noise Policy for Industry 2017
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cherilyne Blackman (First Applicant)
Frederick Blackman (Second Applicant)
Dungog Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Hammond (Applicants)
M Harker (Respondent)
SWS Lawyers (Applicants)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/270130 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This judgment relates to a Class 1 appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal by Dungog Shire Council (Council) of Development Application DA 128/2023 (DA) for “an animal boarding or training establishment (dog breeding)”.
Site and setting
-
The development is proposed on Lot 1 DP 794530 known as 241 Fishers Hill Road, Fishers Hill (site).
-
The locality is generally comprised of large rural lots with dwellings and associated agricultural uses.
Procedural background
-
This contested hearing comes before me after I had previously been delegated to conduct a conciliation conference in relation to the appeal under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The conciliation conference commenced on 25 November 2024, with a site inspection and the hearing of a number of objecting submissions. Council's bundle of documents (Ex 1) also included documentation in relation to objecting submissions (Ex 1, Tabs 23, 25, 27, 28-34).
-
During a subsequent case management appearance on 3 December 2024, after the conciliation conference had been terminated, the parties agreed that the evidence from the conciliation conference would be admissible in these hearing proceedings.
-
There is no dispute that dog kennels operate at the site now and have done for a number of years.
-
While the matter was listed for hearing over two days, much of Day One was spent in an iterative process, where the applicant prepared amendments to the application and responsive expert reports where prepared. I note that at the commencement of Day Two of the proceedings, Council advised the Court that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Blackman v Dungog 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
- [2024] NSWLEC 1792
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the proposed development met the criteria for a boarding or training establishment under the relevant planning scheme and local environment plan. It also considered the impact of the proposed facility on the surrounding environment and community, including potential noise, odour, and animal welfare concerns. The court needed to determine whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and supported by proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and community interests.
The court found that the proposed development did not align with the intended use of the land under the applicable planning scheme and local environment plan. Additionally, the court concluded that the council's refusal of the application was reasonable and lawful, taking into account the potential adverse impacts on the environment and community. The court upheld the council's decision and dismissed the appeal. As a result, the court determined the development application by way of refusal and ordered that the exhibits be returned, except for certain specified documents which were to be retained.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development Application No. DA 128/2023 for a boarding or training establishment comprising 28 breeding dogs at 241 Fishers Hill Road, Fishers Hill is determined by way of refusal.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits 4, A-C, which are retained.
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.