Johnson v Coffs Harbour City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Johnson v Coffs Harbour City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1094
Hearing dates: 25 January 2018, written submissions received on 2 and 12 February 2018
Date of orders: 28 February 2018
Decision date: 28 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The development application (0795/17DA) for the subdivision of lots 200 and 201 DP 1183461 at 7 Dirty Creek Road, Dirty Creek, is refused.
(3) Exhibits A and 3 are returned.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL - Sub-division of two lots by adjusting the boundary – existing irregular lot configuration – alteration sought to boundary to align with physical characteristics of land - whether the alteration constitutes a boundary adjustment
Legislation Cited: Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 79, 97
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 34
Cases Cited: Barnes v Dungog Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1021
McCabe & Others v Blue Mountains City Council (2006) 145 LGERA 86; [2006] NSWLEC 176
Ousley Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council [1999] NSWLEC 143
Sutherland Shire Council v Benedict Industries Pty Ltd (No 8) [2017] NSWLEC 4
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Coral Jean Johnson (Applicant)
Coffs Harbour City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R Fox, Solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M Winram, Solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Fishburn Watson O’Brien (Applicant)
Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/266514
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: About 45km north of Coffs Harbour, Ms Johnson owns two lots of land at 7 Dirty Creek Road, Dirty Creek, legally identified as Lots 200 and 201 in DP 1183461. Presently, Lot 201 is divided into 3 parcels of land separated by road and by Lot 200. She seeks development consent to change the boundaries of the two lots so that they reflect the physical separation of Lot 200 and the northern parts of Lot 201 by Solitary Islands Way from the southern part of Lots 201. Her development application was refused by Coffs Harbour City Council (“the Council”) on 18 August 2017. Ms Johnson appeals against that decision pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”).

  2. The appeal was listed before me for a conciliation conference pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (“LEC Act”), which commenced with a site view on 25 January 2018. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at the conciliation, but agreed to me disposing of the proceedings on the basis of what occurred at the conciliation pursuant to s 34(4)(b) of the LEC Act. Both parties also made further submissions following the site view.

  3. The current configuration of lots 200 and 201 is depicted in Figure 1, and Figure 2 depicts the new boundaries that are sought in the development application.

  4. The consequence of the applicable planning framework, which is set out below, is that the only way in which the proposal is permissible with…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnson v Coffs Harbour 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1094
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Coffs Harbour City Council involved the applicant, Johnson, who sought to appeal the council's decision to refuse a development application for the subdivision of two lots. The applicant aimed to subdivide lots 200 and 201 at 7 Dirty Creek Road, Dirty Creek. The Coffs Harbour City Council denied the application, which Johnson then sought to appeal. The Supreme Court of New South Wales presided over the appeal, examining whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and justifiable.

The legal issues central to the appeal revolved around whether the council had correctly applied the Development Control Plan and relevant statutory provisions in making its decision. Johnson argued that the council had improperly applied these provisions and failed to adequately consider specific factors. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was made according to the law and whether there was any procedural unfairness or material error in the assessment.

The court found that the council's decision was made in accordance with the law and was both lawful and reasonable. It held that the council had correctly applied the Development Control Plan and relevant statutory provisions. The court was satisfied that the council had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the decision-making process was fair and free from error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's refusal of the development application was upheld. Additionally, the court ordered that the exhibits submitted in the case be returned to the council.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The development application (0795/17DA) for the subdivision of lots 200 and 201 DP 1183461 at 7 Dirty Creek Road, Dirty Creek, is refused.

(3) Exhibits A and 3 are returned.

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.