Planning precedents from Land and Environment Court decisions

A number of Land and Environment Court decisions have relied significantly on development control plans to refuse applications that were inconsistent with the area.

In Stockland Development Pty Limited v Manly Council, McClellan CJ states:

‘A development control plan is a detailed planning document which reflects a council’s expectations for parts of its area which may be a larger area or confined to an individual site. The provision of a development control plan must be consistent with the provisions of any relevant local environmental plan. However, a development control plan may operate to confine the intensity of development otherwise permitted by a local environmental plan’.

In Bespoke Properties Pty Limited v Gosford City Council, Commissioner Brown refused development application No 35452/2008 for the construction of a new retail, commercial and residential development at 58- 62 Araluen Drive, Hardys Bay

Commissioner Brown held that ‘Put simply, the Ordinance and DCP159 are to be considered conjunctively rather than preference given to one document over the other. It must also be remembered that the development standards in the Ordinance are maximums and that the natural qualities of the site are relevant matters to take into account when considering development options.’

In North Sydney Council v Lygon 302 Pty Limited, Cole JA upheld the ability of a development control plan to constrain a development.

Other cases in support of the status of development control plans include:

  1. Winten Property Group Ltd v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46
  2. Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] 115 LGERA 373v.