Harlingen Pty Ltd v Wingecaribee Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1273

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harlingen Pty Ltd v Wingecaribee Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1273 Hearing dates: 23 August 2012 Decision date: 23 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: 1. The Appeal is upheld. 2. Development application No LUA 10/05025.01 for a two lot subdivision at Lairds Corner 4398 Illawarra Highway is approved subject to conditions in Annexure 'A'. 3. The exhibits may be returned except for 1,3,4 & B. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Non-compliance with 40 ha minimum lot size, restriction on erection of new dwelling on additional lot Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 1989 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards Category: Principal judgment Parties: Harlingen Pty Ltd (Applicant) Wingecaribee Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Gleeson (Applicant) Mr Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors: RMB Lawyers with Morton & Harris (Applicant) B Bilinsky & Co Solicitors (Respondent) File Number(s): 10001 of 2012

Judgment

Background 1. This appeal was lodged against Councils refusal of a DA for a two - lot subdivision application being No. LUA10/0502. The proposed subdivision is for the existing Lot 1 DP 386255 to be subdivided into two new allotments, with proposed Lot 11 containing an existing commercial development (The Robertson Pie Shop), having an area of 7,340 sqm and proposed lot 10, containing an existing dwelling house having a proposed area of 5.47 hectares. As the proposed subdivision calls for two new lots to be created each having an area of less that the 40 hectares minimum standard required under Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 1989 Clause 12 (2) (a) for the 7(b) Environmental Protection (Landscape Conservation) Zone, the application was accompanied by a SEPP 1 Objection. 2. The appeal commenced by way of a s 34 Conference which was subsequently terminated because there was no agreement between the parties. However after further consideration of a Joint Expert Planning report the parties now agree to consent orders to grounds subject to conditions.