In Abata Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 1774, the NSW Land and Environment Court reinforced that not every home-based business automatically qualifies for planning exemptions.
This case concerned a dog minding business on residential land. While administrative tasks occurred inside the house, the primary activities (caring for dogs) were carried out outdoors in a paddock that was too far away from the house to be considered part of the “curtilage of the dwelling”. As a result, the Court confirmed that the business was not a “home occupation” or “home business” under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or the Kiama Local Environmental Plan 2010. The Council’s Stop Use Order was also upheld, although the Court allowed additional time for compliance because the business was the applicant’s main source of income.
The Court also clarified that the dog kennels on the property were not “buildings” for development consent purposes because they were not of a considerable size and were not affixed to the ground.
The practical takeaway is that even small, home-based businesses must consider planning rules carefully. As residential and business uses increasingly overlap, property owners should seek advice to ensure that their operations comply with the law.