Vollmer v Port Stephens Council

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vollmer v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWLEC 1428
Hearing dates: 4 April 2025
Date of orders: 17 June 2025
Decision date: 17 June 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Washington C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development Application DA 16-2024-290-1 for a boundary adjustment between Lot 579 in DP 1209777 and Lot 580 in DP 116016 at 70 Wallalong Road and 83 Clarence Street, Wallalong 2320 is determined by way of refusal.

(3) All exhibits are retained.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – subdivision – statutory construction – subdivision by way of boundary adjustments between lots – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Interpretation Act 1987, s 33

Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 2.6, 4.1, 4.1E, 4.6, 5.16

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, s 2.75

Cases Cited:

Cumberland Council v Tony Younan; Cumberland Council v Ronney Oueik; Cumberland Council v H & M Renovations Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 145

McCabe v Blue Mountains City Council (2006) 145 LGERA 86; [2006] NSWLEC 176

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Tony David Vollmer (First Applicant)
David Adam Vollmer (Second Applicant)
Port Stephens Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Shearer SC (Applicants)
H Irish (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bick & Steele (Applicants)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/315226
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

  1. Tony and David Vollmer own a rural property in Wallalong that stretches between the town and the Patterson River. The property consists of two lots: a large lot of 96.61ha (Lot 579 DP 1209777), and a small lot of 4,491.56m2 within it (Lot 580 DP 1160616) (figure 3). The smaller lot is irregular in shape, and is landlocked within the site towards the north-western corner, accessed by a right of carriageway leading from Clarence Street to its east. The Vollmers wish to change this pattern of subdivision by moving the smaller Lot 580 some 140m to the far eastern edge of Lot 579, and altering its shape and size (figures 1 and 2).

  2. In a conciliation conference prior to this hearing, the majority of issues in contention between the applicant Vollmers and the respondent Port Stephens Council were resolved. The remaining issues that are the subject of this hearing are whether the consent authority has power under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2013 (PSLEP) to grant consent to this subdivision, and subsequently, whether the proposed development meets the requirements of cl 4.1E of the PSLEP.

  3. The proposed lots are as follows:

  1. Proposed Lot 1: 4000m2 in area, rectangular in shape, with regular dimensions of 90 x 50m. This proposed lot is vacant of any structures, and will have direct frontage to Clarence St on its eastern boundary (figures 1 and 2)

  2. Proposed Lot 2: 96.65ha in area, retaining the existing farm buildings and existing external boundaries, with the exception of the corner where it is modified by proposed Lot 1 (figure 1)

  1. The land, which is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the PSLEP, is subject…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2025] NSWLEC 1428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vollmer v Port Stephens Council is a case before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, involving a dispute over a boundary adjustment development application. The applicant, Vollmer, sought to adjust the boundary between Lot 579 in DP 1209777 and Lot 580 in DP 116016, located at the intersection of Wallalong Road and Clarence Street in Wallalong. The application was opposed by the Port Stephens Council and other affected property owners, leading to a hearing before the Court.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the compliance of the development application with the relevant planning schemes, the effect of the proposed boundary adjustment on neighbouring properties, and whether the application met the necessary criteria for approval under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The Court had to consider the specific provisions of the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2016, the merits of the application, and the potential impacts on adjoining properties and the broader community.

The Court found that the development application did not comply with the requirements of the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2016. Specifically, the Court noted that the application did not meet the criteria for boundary adjustment set out in the plan, and that the proposed adjustment would result in significant adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. The Court held that the application was not in accordance with the planning scheme and was not in the public interest. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and refused the development application.

In summary, the Court's decision in Vollmer v Port Stephens Council reflects a strict interpretation of the planning scheme and a cautious approach to boundary adjustments that may adversely impact neighbouring properties. The Court's orders include the dismissal of the appeal, the refusal of the development application, and the retention of all exhibits for future reference.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development Application DA 16-2024-290-1 for a boundary adjustment between Lot 579 in DP 1209777 and Lot 580 in DP 116016 at 70 Wallalong Road and 83 Clarence Street, Wallalong 2320 is determined by way of refusal.

(3) All exhibits 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.