Yott v Penrith City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1031

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yott v Penrith City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1031 Hearing dates: 14, 15 February 2011 Decision date: 23 February 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size development standard in cl 10A of the Penrith LEP 1998 is disallowed. 3. Development consent for DA 10/0815 for a 2 - lot subdivision of a proposed Lot 10 in an approved subdivision of Lot 1 DP 1033266 The Northern Road, Glenmore Park is refused. 4. The exhibits may be returned except for 5, 6, A and H. Catchwords: Development Application: Rural subdivision, SEPP 1 objection to minimum lot size, open space, visual amenity. Legislation Cited: Penrith LEP 1998 (PLEP) Penrith LEP 2010 Penrith LEP No 188 Penrith DCP 2006 Cases Cited: Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bob Yott (Applicant) Penrith City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Reid, Solicitor (Applicant) Mr M Fraser (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes Lawyers (Applicant) Penrith City Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 10863 of 2010

Judgment

Background 1This appeal was lodged against council's deemed refusal of a development application for a 2 - lot semi-rural subdivision at No 2021 The Northern Road (TNR), Glenmore Park. 2The proposed lots are: * Lot 100; with an area of 1705 sq m and frontage to Boldero Crescent. * Lot 101; a hatchet-shaped lot connected to Bolero Crescent and having an area of 1.027ha. 3As the current planning controls prescribe a minimum lot size of 1ha in this 2(r) zone, a SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size development standard was lodged. Consequently, a number of issues were identified, which are summarised as follows: * Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan and zone. * Whether the SEPP 1 objection should be allowed. * Consistency of the application with planning policies and the future planning direction, particularly landscape value and scenic character. * Rural landscape quality. * Site suitability. * Precedent and public interest.