Council wins planning appeal
Gosford Council has won an appeal against its decision to refuse a two-lot subdivision in North Burge Rd, Woy Woy, in the Land and Environment Court.
Council decided to defend the appeal at an approximate cost of $10,000.
Cr Craig Doyle, speaking about the need to defend decisions in the Land and Environment Court generally, said in one recent case Council was forced to pay around $24,000 in legal fees to defend its decision "even though Council won the case".
"We get taken to court by a developer and then face some very hard choices," he said.
"Council can allow unsuitable developments which do not meet policy and in many cases will be a blight on the local area for decades to come or we can refuse the development (at sometimes substantial cost).
"We are forced to defend the matter spending scarce ratepayers' dollars fighting bad development.
"I can think of a thousand other things we could do with the money we are forced to pay in Land and Environment Court costs even when we win."
Council originally refused the development with director of corporate and community services director, Mr Chris Gallagher, citing several reasons for refusal.
Mr Gallagher said the site area did not comply with the minimum size under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
Further, the available and developable width of the proposed lot one was considered unsatisfactory.
He said the total area of the current block is 903.8m2.
Council's policy under the Gosford planning scheme ordinance reads: The Council shall not grant consent to the subdivision of land within zone 2(a) unless; (a) the minimum area of any allotment is not less than 450m2; and, (b) not more than 10 per cent of the allotments in the plan of proposed subdivision have an area of less than 550m2.
Mr Gallagher said the two proposed lots each of 452m2 were 17.8 per cent too small.
The applicant said that it could "be argued that the two existing dwellings which existed before the prohibition to subdivision of dual occupancies might have the benefit of existing use right".
The applicant, represented by John Hancock Consulting, also argued that the subdivision was a rational, orderly and economic use of the land and their plans demonstrated development "consistent with the existing and likely future built environment, among other things".
"Strict adherence to the statutory development standards and adoption of those standardsÂ…is unreasonable and unnecessary and would tend to hinder the rational, orderly and economic use of the land," the applicant said.
However, the Land and Environment Court in its decision sided with Council.
Carl Spears, September 11