NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Dodevski [2021] NSWLEC 93 Hearing dates: 12 July 2021 Date of orders: 27 August 2021 Decision date: 27 August 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pain J Decision: (1) The Court declares that development consent for development application 2020/090 for the construction of a dwelling house on Lot 195 in DP 755564 is invalid and of no effect. (2) The Court orders that costs and consequential orders are reserved. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – failure of council to comply with precondition in local environmental plan in granting development consent for a dwelling on rural zoned land less than 100 ha in area an error of law – no entitlement to build a dwelling on under sized lot in rural landscape zone –development consent invalid Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4.15, 4.16, 4.68, 8.3, 9.45 Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ss 22, 731 Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1986 cl 16 Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 cll 5, 14 Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 cll 2.3, 4.2A, Land Use Table Penrith Local Environmental Plan No 231 State Environmental Planning Policy No 4 – Development Without Consent Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 1983 cl 19 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 59.10 Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 Yarrowlumla Local Environmental Plan 2002 cl 22 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards Cases Cited: Bungendore Residents Group Inc v Palerang Council (No 3) [2007] NSWLEC 251 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135; [2000] HCA 5 Currey v Sutherland Shire Council (1998) 100 LGERA 365 Franklins Ltd v Penrith City Council [1999] NSWCA 134 Lloyd v Wollongong City Council [2015] NSWLEC 146 Lomman v Windbelt Pty Ltd (2018) 237 LGERA 1; [2018] NSWLEC 29 Woolworths Ltd v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707; [2004] NSWCA 422 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Karen Davis (Applicant) Igor Dodevski (First Respondent) Jyoti Elanor Fraya Durrant (Second Respondent) Nambucca Valley Council (Third Respondent) Representation: COUNSEL: S Berveling (Applicant) N/A (First to Third Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate