Development applications in Upper Hunter Shire Council
We have no rezoning amendments on record for this council yet, but we track its development applications. The figures below are counted directly from the development application register over the last 12 months.
Development applications · last 12 months
Applications lodged in this council in the trailing 12 months, by current status. Counted directly from the development application register.
- Total lodged
- 180
- last 12 months
- Lodged
- 0
- Under assessment
- 28
- Determined
- 148
- Withdrawn
- 4
See all development applications in Upper Hunter Shire Council
Decision speed
How quickly this council determines a development application, measured from lodgement to determination across every decided application that carries both dates.
- Median time to decision
- 28 days
- half are decided faster than this
- Average
- 46 days
- a few slow cases pull this up
- Based on
- 356
- determined applications
Planning disputes
10 on recordPlanning and environment court and tribunal matters naming Upper Hunter Shire Council, newest first. Each links to the full public judgment.
| Matter | Court | Decided |
|---|---|---|
| David Casson trading as Casson Planning & Development Services v Upper Hunter Shire Council (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 149 APPEAL - proposed subdivision - proposal to subdivide an undersized rural allotment into two allotments - alleged errors of law by Commissioner - Commissioner concluded that two provisions of a local environmental plan (LEP) were not available to permit approval of the subdivision - Commissioner further considered that, if one of the provisions of the LEP was available, as a matter of discretion, its provisions were not satisfied - case run | NSWLEC | 13 Nov 2017 |
| Darley Australia Pty Ltd v Walfertan Processors Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 48 LOCAL GOVERNMENT - building control - development application - principles - whether application in respect of "designated development" - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 77A - identification of "existing or approved development" - Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) Sch 3, Pt 2, cl 35 APPEAL - appeal from Land and Environment Court - whether order or decision on question of law - where decision required formation of opinion appeal available if deci | NSWCA | 22 Mar 2012 |
| Walfertan Processors Pty Limited v Upper Hunter Shire Council & Ors (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 108 APPEAL :- section 56A appeal of commissioners' decision in class 1 proceedings - whether commissioners erred in considering environmental impacts of alterations and additions to existing effluent disposal system from tannery to determine if not designated development by virtue of cl 35 Sch 3 of EP&A Regulation - whether failure to consider intensification of existing use provisions of EP&A Act in relation to tannery - whether errors of fact can be raised as questions of law - whether issue not r | NSWLEC | 31 Aug 2010 |
| Walfertan Processors Pty Limited v Upper Hunter Shire Council & Ors (No 5) [2010] NSWLEC 109 COSTS :- whether fair and reasonable to order costs be paid in class 1 proceedings in exercise of court's discretion - consideration of court rule on costs in class 1 proceedings - whether either party acted unreasonably - whether applicant failed to bring forward information necessary to enable consideration of its development application - need to consider overall circumstances of litigation in determining how discretion ought be exercised | NSWLEC | 31 Aug 2010 |
| Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 104 APPEAL :- objector appeal against Council's decision to grant consent to limestone quarry - conditions of consent | NSWLEC | 23 June 2010 |
| Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010] NSWLEC 48 APPEAL :- objector appeal against Council’s decision to grant consent to limestone quarry – whether species impact statement (‘SIS’) required - whether endangered ecological community (‘EEC’) present on project site - whether vulnerable species listed under Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 present on project site – whether likely significant impact on EEC or listed vulnerable species - no likely significant impact on EEC or vulnerable species – no SIS required - uncertainty as to presenc | NSWLEC | 31 Mar 2010 |
| Walfertan Processors Pty Limited v Upper Hunter Shire Council & Ors (No 3 - Joinder) [2010] NSWLEC 28 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- whether s 56A appeal against interlocutory | NSWLEC | 9 Mar 2010 |
| WATERLOO HOLDINGS PTY LTD v TIMSO [1997] NSWCA 335 | NSWCA | 28 Aug 1997 |
| L E STEWART INVESTMENTS PTY LTD v MERCEDES-BENZ (NSW) PTY LTD [1992] NSWCA 127 | NSWCA | 14 Feb 1992 |
| DUPAL v THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1990] NSWCA 56 | NSWCA | 26 Apr 1990 |
Discovery signals matched on council name. We link to the public judgment; we do not reproduce its text.
How these numbers are computed
- Development applications are counted directly from the development application register over the trailing 12 months, grouped by their current canonical status. The full list is on the applications page.