Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: S J Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1237 Hearing dates: 12, 13 July 2012 Decision date: 28 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: (1)The appeal is dismissed.
(2)The development application No 10.2011.368.1 for a 2 - lot subdivision of Lot 930 DP 858909, 335 Federal Road, Federal is refused.
(3)The exhibits may be returned except 1, 4 (Tab 22), 6, 7, B and C.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Small lot rural subdivision, minimum lot size under SEPP RL, fragmentation of rural land, land - use conflict Legislation Cited: Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008
State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (Development Standards)Cases Cited: Abret Pty Limited v Wingecarribbee Shire Council [2001] NSWCA 107
Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council [2009] NSWCA 285Category: Principal judgment Parties: S J Connelly CPP Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Mr N Eastman (Applicant)Mr A Seton (Respondent)
Mardens Law Group (Respondent)
Solicitors
McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s): 10112 of 2012
Judgment
Background
This appeal is against council's refusal of a development application for a 2 - lot rural subdivision at 335 Federal Road, Federal. The property has an area of 9.18ha and is situated in a rural area approximately 1 km to the south of the village of Federal. Immediately surrounding the site are variable sized grazing properties, macadamia nut farms and some smaller grazing, cropping and rural-residential properties.
The proposed 2 - lot subdivision is to create:
- Lot 1; a rural/residential lot with an area of 1.21 ha, and
- Lot 2; a 'primary production' lot with an area of 7.98ha, to be created under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 (SEPP RL).
The contentions are summarised as follows:
- Non-compliance with the minimum lot size standard
- Subdivision not necessary
- Fragmentation of rural land
- Land use conflict
- Creation of an effective 'concessional allotment'.
- Public interest
The threshold issue in this matter is whether the approval of the subdivision under the provisions of SEPP RL gives the landowner a greater chance of achieving the zone objectives under the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP).
The circumstances initially stated in this case involve the subject land being situated opposite a larger allotment comprising approximately 29 ha, which contains Coffee Union's coffee plantation with 54,000 coffee trees and processing hub. Because of the favourable climatic conditions in this area, the business plan is for significant expansion of the plantation, which includes the use of the proposed Lot 2.
Both Mr Connelly and Mr Allen refer to the use of Lot 2 as part of the coffee plantation, but it was clarified during the hearing that there is no formal arrangement to effect this. Although in this regard, I understand the owner of the subject property is also involved in the management of the plantation. However, the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read S J Connelly CPP Pty Ltd 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 1237
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court thoroughly examined the submissions of both parties and reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. It found that the Council's decision was well-reasoned and based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors. The Court was satisfied that the Council had appropriately applied the relevant legislative provisions and policies in making its decision. Furthermore, the Court noted that the developer had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable or that the Council had failed to consider significant factors. The Court held that the refusal to approve the development application was not unreasonable, and therefore the developer's appeal was dismissed. The Court also confirmed that the exhibits may be returned, except for certain documents which were to remain with the Court.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the Council's decision to refuse the development application for the two-lot subdivision of Lot 930, finding that the decision was reasonable and properly based on the relevant legislative and policy considerations. The developer's appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The Court ordered that the exhibits be returned, except for certain documents which were to remain with the Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1)The appeal is dismissed.
(2)The development application No 10.2011.368.1 for a 2 - lot subdivision of Lot 930 DP 858909, 335 Federal Road, Federal is refused.
(3)The exhibits may be returned except 1, 4 (Tab 22), 6, 7, B and C.
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.