FAST BUCK$ v BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL [1999] NSWCA 19

Reported Decision : 103 LGERA 94

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : FAST BUCK$ v BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL [1999] NSWCA 19 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40723/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 3 February; 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 February 1999

FAST BUCK$ PARTIES : v BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Giles JA at 29; Sheppard AJA at 34

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Land & Environment Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/10436A LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bignold J

COUNSEL : J B Maston (Appellant) D P Wilson (Respondent) SOLICITORS : In person (Appellant) Wilshire Webb (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - error of law - whether irrelevant considerations taken into account; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - development standard alleged to be unreasonable or unnecessary - factors relevant to determining an objection Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 ACTS CITED : Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Court Act 1979 DECISION : Dismissed with costs

15 THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40723/97 96/10436A

HANDLEY JA GILES JA SHEPPARD AJA

Friday 19 February 1999

FAST BUCK$ v BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - error of law - whether irrelevant considerations taken into account ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - development standard alleged to be unreasonable or unnecessary - factors relevant to determining an objection The appellant lodged an application with the Council for the subdivision of his land. The Council refused the application for non-compliance with a development standard in the Byron LEP despite an objection to compliance lodged under SEPP No 1. This refusal was appealed unsuccessfully to a Senior Assessor of the Land and Environment Court and then to a Judge of that Court. On further appeal by leave. HELD, dismissing the appeal: (1) There was no error of law in the assessor's finding on the appellant's objection under SEPP 1. The objectives of the zoning and the perceived purposes of the development standard were relevant considerations in determining whether compliance would be unreasonable or unnecessary. Legal and General Life of Australia Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1989) 68 LGRA 192 applied. (2) The assessor did not err in law in considering the appellant's case that the development standard in its application to this land was unreasonable or unnecessary. Legal and General Life of Australia Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1990) 69 LGRA 201 CA applied. (3) The appellant's claim that the assessor had failed to determine the SEPP 1 objection failed. The assessor had determined the SEPP 1 objection and had found that compliance with the development standard was not unreasonable or unnecessary. Brimbella Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (1985) 79 LGERA 367 CA applied. (4) The appellant's claim that the assessor had erred in taking into account Council's pending rural residential study, which was an irrelevant consideration, also failed. Legal and General Life of Australia Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1989) 68 LGRA 192; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 applied. ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.