Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Vollmer v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWLEC 120 Hearing dates: 21 October 2025 Date of orders: 27 October 2025 Decision date: 27 October 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The appellants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against Commissioner’s decision on question of law – subdivision of land – consolidation of existing lots and simultaneous redivision into new lots – subdivision contravenes minimum lot size development standard – development consent can be granted if boundary adjustment – meaning of boundary adjustment – subdivision not by way of boundary adjustment
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 195
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 1.5(1)(b), 6.2
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 8(b), 33
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 56(1)
Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 2.6(1), 4.1, 4.1E, 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, cl 2.75
Cases Cited: Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126; (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 53; 14 LGR (NSW) 149
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Boast v Eurobodalla Shire Council, unreported, LEC No 20110/91, 22 November 1991, Cripps J
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; [1980] HCA 16
McCabe & Others v Blue Mountains City Council (2006) 145 LGERA 86; [2006] NSWLEC 176
Randwick Municipal Council v Manousaki (1988) 66 LGRA 330
Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tony Vollmer (First Appellant)
Port Stephens Council (Respondent)
David Vollmer (Second Appellant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Shearer SC (Appellants)
H Irish (Respondent)
Bick & Steele (Appellants)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/269776 Publication restriction: NIL Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Land and Environment Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Class 1
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 17 June 2025
- Before:
- Washington C
- File Number(s):
- 2024/315226
JUDGMENT
Nature of appeal and outcome
-
Tony and David Vollmer (the Vollmers) appeal against the decision and orders of a Commissioner dismissing their appeal and refusing their development application for the subdivision of their land at Wallalong. The Vollmers’ appeal, under s 56A(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), is limited to error on a question of law.
-
The Vollmers raise two grounds in the summons commencing the appeal involving the Commissioner’s interpretation and application of cl 4.1E of the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2013 (PSLEP). Clause 4.1E(3) empowers the consent authority to grant development consent to a certain type of subdivision, being the subdivision of land by way of a boundary adjustment between adjoining lots, where cl 4.1(3) of PSLEP would otherwise prevent the grant of development consent because the size of any resulting lot would be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.
-
The subdivision of land proposed by the Vollmers…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Vollmer v Port Stephens 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
- [2025] NSWLEC 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision to deny the development application was lawful and whether the appellants' proposal complied with the relevant planning and environmental laws. The court needed to determine if the Council had correctly interpreted and applied the law in making its decision, and whether there were any errors in the assessment process that warranted a different outcome.
The Court found that the Council had properly interpreted and applied the relevant planning and environmental laws in making its decision. The Court held that the appellants' proposal did not comply with the laws, as it failed to meet certain requirements regarding environmental protection and land use. The Court also found that the Council's assessment process was thorough and that there were no errors that would warrant a different outcome. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the Court ordered that the appellants pay the Council's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The appellants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.