Cleary v Gosford City Council - [2007] NSWLEC 89

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Cleary v Gosford City Council [2007] NSWLEC 89

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Richard James Cleary
RESPONDENT
Gosford City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10867 of 2006

CORAM: Hussey C

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Subdivision application, SEPP 1 objection to minimum lot size, amenity impacts, desired future character

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1
Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004

CASES CITED: Winton Property Group v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46

DATES OF HEARING: 20/12/2006 and 21/02/2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
2 March 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr B Goldsmith, agent
RESPONDENT
Mr R Bryd, solicitor
SOLICITORS
P J Donnellan & Company

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

2 March 2007

10867 of 2006 Robert James Cleary v Gosford City Council
JUDGMENT

Background

1 This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for a boundary adjustment/subdivision at 114 – 116 Daley Avenue, Daleys Point.

2 The development site comprises:

- Lot 50, DP 5562; with a frontage of 14.385 m to Daley Avenue and total area of 1701 sq m.

· This lot contains an existing 3-storey dwelling that is located in relatively close proximity to Daley Avenue from which it has a direct accessway to carparking areas. Alterations and additions to this dwelling have been approved by council.
- Lot 51, DP 5562; with a frontage of 14.4 m to Daley Avenue and total area of 1726 sq m.

This lot contains an existing dwelling that is located towards the foreshore area. It has direct access to a timber jetty.

3 These properties are bound by Daley Avenue to the north, Brisbane Water to the south and private properties to the east and west. The development site is irregular in shape and has a southern aspect with the slope of approximately 39%. It contains a number of large eucalypt trees.

The Proposal

4 This proposal is for the adjustment of the common boundary between Lots 50 and 51 to create:

Lot 502; which contains the existing building on No. 114 and has a total area of 726.8 sq m. This lot is to retain access to the foreshore of Brisbane Water via the creation of a 2 m wide “ right of footway” on the northern side of the site.

Lot 501; which annexes the waterfront portion of Lot 50 to provide a total area of 2675 sq m and an effective waterfrontage of approximately 40 m.

Planning Controls

Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance (GPSO)

5 Under this instrument, the development site is zoned 9(c) Restricted Development (Steep Land). The objective of this zone is:

to ensure that buildings for residential use on land in the zone identified as being steep or unstable are suitably located and constructed.

6 The relevant subdivision controls for over the 9(c) zone are contained in cl 30AAA and provide that council shall not consent to the subdivision of land;

unless the area of any allotment to be created by the subdivision is not less than 1850 sq m.

Development Control Plan No. 159 – Character

7 The allotment site is located within the Daleys Point “Place 1 - Woodland Foreshores” precinct. Existing and desired character statements are contained in DCP. Of relevance are the following Desired Character extracts:

These should remain very leafy, low density residential foreshores, conserving natural and scenic qualities of the bushland backdrops that are fundamental features of Gosford City's identity, where prominent landscape settings are not dominated by new development. …

Conserve natural and scenic characters of wooded foreshore properties plus unformed road verges by retaining existing natural slopes and the continuity of tree-canopy that is provided by existing bushland remnants. Complement the established tree canopy by new plantings that are predominantly indigenous, and do not plant any identified noxious or environmental weeds.

Promote a natural character for all waterfront backdrops by avoiding structures that would visibly compromise the existing bushy foreshore character. Avoid disturbing natural slopes and trees by appropriate siting of structures plus low-impact construction such as suspended floors and decks rather than extensive cut-and-fill. On the steeper sites, locate parking next to the street in structures that are designed to blend with their natural setting. Also avoid tall retaining walls, elevated structures such as terraces or pools, steep driveways or opaque fences. Identify all boundaries by hedges or fences that are low or see-through.
On properties with direct waterfrontage, ensure that new boatsheds are modestly-scaled and reflect the architectural features of traditional timber-framed sheds. New jetties should be compatible with the style and visual impact of traditional timber piers.
Avoid the appearance of a continuous wall of development along any foreshore or street by setting all building works back from exposed shores or ridges, and maintaining front setbacks that are similar to the surrounding properties. Also provide at least one wide side setback or step the shape of front and rear facades.

Development Control Plan No. 128 - Public Notification of Development Applications,
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards,
State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas,
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection.

The Evidence

8 Detailed evidence on behalf council was presented by:

Mr P Drew, town planner with Gosford City Council.

9 For the applicant, detailed evidence was presented by:

Mr A Tuxworth, consulting town planner. His evidence included a SEPP 1 objection to the minimum subdivision lot size standard contained in cl 30AAA of the GPSO.

10 The planners conferred, resulting in the joint planning report (Exhibit 1). The threshold matter in this case concerns the non-compliance with the minimum lot size for subdivision and the adequacy of the SEPP 1 objection.

11 It was agreed by the planners that cl 30AAA imposes a development standard of 1850 sq m for subdivision of land in the 9(c) zone. Furthermore, that there are no stated objectives for this standard.

12 Accordingly, the planners agreed that the underlying objectives of the development standard are:

To ensure that allotments are of an adequate size to accommodate the location and construction of single dwelling houses, including the provision of ancillary structures and proper amenity, having regard to the restrictive characteristic of the site; and

To control the density of allotments (and therefore dwellings) in the 9(c) zone, having regard to the characteristics of the land.

13 However, in the SEPP 1 objection, Mr Tuxworth says that standard of the underlying objective of the minimum lot size is:

to ensure that allotments are of an adequate size to accommodate the location and construction of single dwelling houses, including the provision of ancillary structures and proper amenity, having regard to the restrictive characteristic of the particular site including the slope of the land and location of native vegetation and to allow for development of the land that would be consistent with desired future character of the area as contained in DCP 159 (Amendment 1).

14 On this basis, Mr Tuxworth says in the SEPP 1 objection that compliance with development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the following circumstances:

14.1 Improved Compliance is proposed

14.2 Land Capability and Planning Objectives

The proposed development is consistent with the underlying objectives of the development standard in that the proposed lots are of an adequate size to accommodate the location and construction of single dwelling houses whilst allowing suitable area for ancillary structures, recreation and retention of vegetation on the land having regard to the slope of the land and location of the existing trees on the site. Further development of the land could be carried out to comply with the requirements of DCP 159 Character (Amendment 1).

The proposed development generally complies with the objectives of the 9(c) zone under the GPSO which is to ensure that buildings for residential use on land in the zone identified as being steep or unstable are suitably located and constructed. The two allotments are currently occupied by single dwelling houses that have been approved by Council. The existing dwelling on Lot 50 is located close to the road whilst the existing dwelling on Lot 51 is located further down slope towards the centre of the site.

Density

Development Potential - Likely Impacts

Proposed Lot 502 which has an area of 726 sq m has an adequate area to allow for any future alterations and additions to the existing dwelling or redevelopment of the site without impacting on the amenity of adjoining dwellings and to be consistent with the future character of the area identified in DCP 159 Character (Amendment 1).

The subject site is located within an area identified in Sch 2 of Development Control Plan 159 as Daleys Point 1: Woodland Foreshores. A copy of the extract describing the Existing Character and Desired Character for the locality is Annexure A to this SEPP 1.

The thrust of the Desired Character for the locality is to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the area by minimising the bulk and scale of development so that it is not visually prominent.

Any proposed additions to the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 502 or redevelopment of this site could be designed so as to minimise the bulk and scale of the development and ensure that it was not visually prominent. The location of the existing trees on the proposed lot would allow for the development of the lot without the need to remove these trees. There are a number of trees located close to the foreshore and at the rear of the dwelling that screen the existing and any future development when viewed from Brisbane Water at the rear of the site.

Development consent has recently been granted by council to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 502. A copy of the approved plans is Annexure B to this SEPP 1. This proposal is consistent with the Desired Character of the Area.

The requirements of DCP 155 Single Dwellings and Ancillary Structures provide for a maximum floor space ratio for single dwellings of 0.5:1. The proposed site area of 726.8 sq m on Lot 502 would allow a dwelling to have a floor area of 363 sq m which is considered adequate. A dwelling of this floor area could be designed to limit the disturbance to the site and comply with the Desired Character of the locality.

The proposed boundary adjustment will provide a wide, reasonably level, cleared area of land adjacent to the existing dwelling on 116 Daley Avenue to enable the construction of a modest addition to one of the remaining existing small single storey dwellings in the area. A separate application has been prepared for the proposed addition and was submitted to Council at the same time as the application for the boundary adjustment. This proposal has been used in the assessment as to whether the proposed boundary adjustment is acceptable. Plans of the proposed additions are Annexure C to this SEPP 1 objection. This development will preserve the scenic qualities of the site and will not dominate the landscape. This proposal will therefore be consistent with the Desired Character for the area.

Subdivision Pattern

The existing lots were in existence when the land was zoned 9(c) under Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance . It is clear that the zoning of the land related to the topography of the site and had no regard to the size or shape of the existing lots. It is likely that due to the age of the subdivision (DP for the land in Daley Avenue was registered in January 1909) that the lots having frontage to the water may have only had water access and properly constructed roads were provided at a later date.

The smaller lots in Fishermans Parade are likely to have been provided to allow for the construction of boat sheds to be used by the owners of the larger lots that did not have any access to the water. Many of the lots in Fishermans Parade were not developed until more recent times when the sewer was provided to the land as the land was not large enough to accommodate on site effluent disposal.

The original subdivision occurred in 1909 before any planning controls were in place which has resulted in a subdivision pattern where there is no consistency of lot size. It is apparent that a number of lots adjacent to Empire Bay Drive, to the west of the subject land, were reduced in size to allow for the construction of the Rip Bridge in 1975.

The shape and size of the proposed lots are consistent with the subdivision pattern within the locality in that the majority of lots zoned 9(c) along Daleys Avenue have an area less than Council's minimum site area requirement of 1850 sq m. The majority of lots zoned 9(c) along nearby Fishermans Parade, Daleys Point, which is located to the south east of the subject site, have a site area below Council's minimum area requirement of 1850 sq m. Lots 440 and 441 DP807303, 102 and 102a Daleys Avenue and 38 and 38a Daleys Avenue have been subdivided in the recent past to create lots that have an area less than Council's minimum area requirement of 1850 sq m.

Details of the location and size of each of the lots in the area that are zoned 9(c) is Annexure D to this SEPP 1 objection. A review of this information indicates that there are 42 lots in Fishermans Parade located to Coastplan Consulting the south east of the subject sites which have areas ranging from 291 sq m to 3278 sq m. Only one lot in this street has an area greater than the minimum lot size of 1850 sq m. It is clear that there are a large percentage of the lots in Fishermans Parade that are very small (i.e. approximately 350 m) which has resulted in a number of lots in this area being consolidated to accommodate larger dwellings. However, these consolidated lots have areas less than the minimum lot size.

There are also 62 Lots in Daley Avenue that are zoned 9(c) including the subject sites. These lots have an area of between 575 sq m and 2567sq m. There are 15 lots that have an area in excess of the minimum lot size of 1850 sq m. Two of the lots have been subdivided in the recent past (38 and 102 Daley Avenue) the resultant lots have areas of 664, 1289, 969 and 1090 sq m which is less than the minimum lot size required in the zone.

It is evident that the majority of the lots (85 of 101 lots) in the area that are zoned 9(c) have an area less than the prescribed minimum lot size
of 1850 sq m.

The existing lots in the area have little relevance to the minimum lot size in the 9(c) zone with only 16 of the 101 lots being in excess of the minimum lot size. It is my opinion that the proposed boundary adjustment that will create a lot that has an area of 726.8 sq m which is consistent with the size of the existing lots and subdivision pattern in the in the locality zoned 9(c).

It is clear that it was Councils intention when zoning this land 9(c) and having a minimum lot size of 1850 sq m that they wanted to restrict further subdivision of the land, as has occurred in the 2(a) zone to the north of the land zoned 9(c) in Daley Avenue. However, as the majority of the sites within the zone are less than the minimum lot size there appears to be no reason why lots could not be smaller than the minimum size provided that development of the land is consistent with the objectives of the zone and complies with the DCP 159 Character and DCP 155 Single Dwellings and Ancillary Structures. There are a number of existing dwellings that have been erected in the vicinity of the proposed development that clearly do not comply with the current DCP 159 and 155 as consent was issued prior to these controls coming into effect.

Compliance with the objectives of the zone appears to have been achieved in most cases on the existing lots zoned 9(c) in Daley Avenue with only a few notable exceptions including a number of large dwellings and boatsheds. However, this type of development cannot be attributed to the lots being below the minimum lot size but rather to the lack of proper assessment by council.

15 Against this, Mr Drew contends that:

whilst the proposal does not involve the creation of any additional allotments, approval of the proposal will more likely promote further subdivision of proposed Lot 501 and other properties in the immediate area which will have implications of the density and scenic qualities of the area, thereby undermining current control,
there are no compelling circumstances which justify the boundary adjustment to enable an appropriate dwelling to be built on the existing lots. In his opinion, there is an alternative design solution which is available for a dwelling addition of reasonable size on Lot 51, which does not require a significant reduction (if any) to the area of Lot 50,
the proposed variation to the development standard results in a 61% reduction in the minimum area for annual allotment, which he considers excessive.

16 Apart from the expert evidence, a number of objections were received from residents in the neighbourhood, which can be summarised as follows:

the development application is out of character with the area and existing developments,

if approved, it will be the first residential development effectively spanning two blocks in the threatened "Woodland Foreshore" section of the Daleys Point,
the character statement acknowledges the predominant medium to large foreshore allotments that are often deep and narrow and the proposal is inconsistent with this,
as the purpose of the subdivision is to enable the development of a larger dwelling spanning both the waterfront portions of Lots 50 and 51, it is likely this new development will impact on views and privacy for neighbouring properties,
the approval of the subdivision is likely to raise expectations for the further subdivision of the proposed Lot 501, considering its area relative to the proposed Lot 502, whose area would be deemed appropriate for a dwelling in this 9(c) zone.

Conclusions

17 Having considered the evidence, the submissions and undertaken view I do not consider this application merits consent. The primary hurdle concerns the SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size of 1850 sq m for subdivision in this 9(c) Restricted Development (Steep Land).

18 The planners agree that this is a development standard and have identified the underlying objectives of standard, in the absence of specific objectives in the GPSO, although Mr Tuxworth is more explicit saying that regard should be given "to the restrictive characteristic of the particular site including the slope of the land and location of native vegetation and to allow for development of the land and will be consistent with desired future character of the area as contained in DCP 159".

19 It seems to me that the character statements recognise the existing subdivision lot pattern in this precinct. For the purposes of the subject appeal, I am satisfied that the area of impact can be confined to the catchment area, ‘Place 1 - Woodland Foreshores’ between 90 – 126 Daley Avenue and therefore I give little weight to references about development in other 9(c) zones because they have different access arrangements and are in a different visual catchment area.

20 In this ‘Place 1’ there is a high degree of consistency in the longitudinal subdivision pattern and areas of the included lots, which mainly varies from 1619 - 2384 sq m, except for Nos. 100/102a, which were apparently created unintentionally. Consequently, this lot pattern has resulted in substantial development in this very attractive waterfront area, with an obvious “vertical type” building form being multi-storey, stepping down the steep lots.

21 These developments have varying setbacks to Daley Avenue and are generally interspersed with the existing vegetative cover. The residential developments are also generally well setback from the foreshore, except for some very intrusive boatsheds.

22 Consequently, the proposed subdivision would facilitate the building of a significantly wider dwelling, in close proximity to the foreshore, notwithstanding the applicant's agreement to impose a restrictive covenant on the building envelope for any such dwelling. In my assessment, this form of building would be uncharacteristic of the existing development in ‘Place 1’ and that envisaged in the Future Character Statement.

23 Instead, the desired future character is to promote a natural character for all waterfront backdrops by avoiding structures that would visually compromise the existing bushy foreshore character. In this regard, but I particularly note that the development site is situated towards the northern end of ‘Place 1’ where more mature vegetation remains intact. This is in contrast to the more recent development midway in ‘Place 1’ where the woodland character has been significantly diminished. Presumably the vacant areas on these lots will be used in part to “complement the established tree canopy by new planting”:

24 My assessment is that the approval of the subdivision is more likely to compromise the desired future character, because it allows more building massing, together with the essential ancillary works such as garages, courtyards and access driveway closer to the waterfront area.

25 The DCP seeks “to avoid the appearance of a continuous wall” of building. In contrast, the existing steep, narrow blocks generally have restricted development closer to the waterfront, probably due in part to restricted access availability in the steep topography. Consequently, this achieves building separation from the waterfront without unduly compromising the existing bushy foreshore character.

26 Insofar as Mr Tuxworth refers to the proper management and orderly and economic use of land in s 5 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and says that:

"this is achieved by maximising the potential use of the land whilst ensuring that the resultant development does not have any unreasonable adverse impacts. In this case required compliance would be contrary to the above as it would require a consolidation of the existing lots to form one lot and require the demolition of the existing dwelling on one of the lots."

27 Mr Tuxworth also says that any alterations to the existing dwelling on the proposed Lot 502, or redevelopment could be designed so as to minimise its bulk and scale. In this context he says that DCP 155 would allow a floor space ratio of 0.5:1, which would permit a dwelling to have 363 sq m, that is adequate for the site.

28 However, it seems to me that this approach is flawed because there is a fundamental difference in character between a dwelling on the long narrow allotment of approximately 1800 sq m (albeit a large stepped dwelling) and a dwelling with an FSR near 0.5:1. The larger allotment provides a higher level of amenity in terms of the siting of a dwelling, access to private open space and retention and augmentation of native vegetation, for the individual lot owner. Whereas the smaller allotment is likely to have a different level of amenity associated with conventional low-density residential areas.

29 On this basis then, I do not accept Mr Tuxworth’s submission that there is no reason why lots could not be smaller than the minimum size provided that development of the land is consistent with the objectives of the zone and complies with the DCP 159 Character and DCP 155 provisions. In those circumstances, it seems to me that fundamentally different character would be created, which is more consistent with any of the other ‘Places 2 – 7’ listed in DCP 159, where alternative densities are allowed e.g. ‘Place 5 – Medium Density Hillsides’.

30 Importantly, it appears that the SEPP 1 objection is substantially based on the absence of any environmental harm, which is not sufficient to found an objection.

31 Another area of concern in the SEPP 1 relates to the comments that:

"It is clear that the zoning of the land related to the topography of the site and had no regard to the size or shape of the existing lots. It is likely that due to the age of subdivision (DP for the land in Daley Avenue was registered in January 1909) …”

The existing lots in the area have little relevance to the minimum lot size in the 9(c) zone with only 16 of the 101 lots being in excess of the minimum lot size. It is my opinion that the proposed boundary adjustment will create a lot that hasn't area of 726 8 sq m which is consistent with the size of the existing lots and subdivision pattern in the localities zone 9(c).
It is clear that it was council’s intention when zoning this land 9(c) and having a minimum lot size of 1850 sq m that they wanted to restrict further subdivision of the land, as has occurred in the 2(a) zone to the north of the land zoned 9(c) in Daley Avenue. However, as the majority of the sites within the zone are less than the minimum lot size there appears to be no reason why lots could not be smaller than the minimum size provided that development of the land is consistent with the objectives of the zone and complies with DCP 159 … and DCP155."

32 On the contrary, it is more likely that the controls recognised the historical subdivision pattern, and the resultant character they created. The reality is that they could remain whilst still allowing appropriate dwellings to be built thereon, but not be subdivided to less than the general minimum lot size of 1850 sq m. Therefore, I accept that this minimum lot size has been imposed to restrict residential development on the larger steeper lots to provide a character of stepped dwellings, in a woodland setting. In my assessment, application of Mr Tuxworth’s approach to allow smaller allotments could most probably lead to a change in character and zoning, which is contrary to the intention of SEPP 1.

33 I also have some concerns about Mr Tuxworth’s dealing with the aims of SEPP 1 in terms of the following objectives set out in ss 5a(i) and (ii):

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,
(ii) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

34 From this, Mr Tuxworth expressed the opinion:

" that ‘proper management’ and ‘orderly and economic use’ of land is achieved by maximising the potential use of the land whilst ensuring that the resultant development does not have any unreasonable adverse amenity impacts. In this case required compliance would be contrary to the above as it would require a consolidation of the existing lots form one lot and require the demolition of the existing dwelling on one of the lots."

35 When this application of maximising the potential use of land is considered in conjunction with the application of FSR, I do not consider this is appropriate in the context of this 9(c) restricted development zone. Obviously more dwellings could be achieved on this land, if the objective was to maximise the use of the land. However the zoning is clearly restrictive and I do not consider its objective is to maximise residential development on these large environmentally constrained allotments, where the desired future character is to allow space to complement the established tree canopy by new planting. In my opinion the proposed Lot 502 does not reasonably allow this.

36 The planners made reference to the following SEPP 1 tests in Winton Property Group v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46. Based on these tests, my findings are:

Test 1: The minimum subdivision lot size of 1850 sq m in the 9(e) zone is a development subdivision,
Test 2: The derived underlying objectives of the development subdivision can be taken as:

To ensure that allotments are of an adequate size to accommodate the location and construction of single dwelling houses, including the provision of ancillary structures and proper amenity, having regard to the restrictive characteristic of the site; and

To control the density of allotments (and therefore dwellings) in the 9(c) zone, having regard to the characteristics of the land.

Test 3: It seems to me that compliance with the development standard would be consistent with the aims of the Policy, whereby the planning controls recognise the historical land subdivision pattern and environmental constraints and prescribe the minimum lot size to be achieved in any subdivision, for orderly and economic development in this particular location. In this regard, I do not accept Mr Tuxworth’s opinion that the orderly economic use of the land is achieved by maximising its potential use, whilst ensuring the development does not have any unreasonable environmental impacts.

Test 4: The foregoing evidence indicates to me that to satisfy the desired future character outcomes, then compliance with the development standard would not be unreasonable or necessary. It seems to me that a complying development is not unnecessary and unreasonable as there are other forms of subdivision available to achieve the development standard, or alternative building designs are possible, according to Mr Drew.
Test 5: For these reasons, I do not consider the SEPP 2 objection is well founded.

37 Reference was also made to the provisions of the Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004. From my assessment of the evidence, I do not consider this subdivision would result in a better environmental outcome. The approval of the development enables a wider, more prominent dwelling to be erected closer to the waterfront which the controls seek to restrict.

38 Therefore I accept Mr Drew’s opinion that:

The proposed variation is unnecessary as an alternative design solution may be achieved for the extension of the existing dwelling on Lot 51 without requiring the extent of variation sought.

The lot layout is not considered to be of exceptional design quality.

The proposal does not offer any obvious social or economic benefit to the community.

39 Insofar as I give determining weight to the provision of SEPP 1, nevertheless assessment under the Draft SEPP results in a negative aspect of the proposal.

40 For these reasons then, I do not consider the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and therefore it should not be allowed.

Court Orders

41 Therefore the orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The SEPP 1 objection to the minimum subdivision lot size development standard in cl 30AAA of the Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance is disallowed.
3. Development consent for DA 30294/2006 for a 2 lot subdivision of Lots 50 and 51, DP 5562, Daleys Point, is refused.
4. The exhibits may be returned except for 1, 4, 6, A and D.

___________________

R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
rjs

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Cleary v Gosford City Council [2007] NSWLEC 89

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

4

Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46

CITATION:	Cleary v Gosford City Council [2007] NSWLEC 89
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Richard James Cleary RESPONDENT Gosford City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10867 of 2006
CORAM:	Hussey C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- Subdivision application, SEPP 1 objection to minimum lot size, amenity impacts, desired future character
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004
CASES CITED:	Winton Property Group v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46
DATES OF HEARING:	20/12/2006 and 21/02/2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 March 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr B Goldsmith, agent RESPONDENT Mr R Bryd, solicitor SOLICITORS P J Donnellan & Company