Designlink International v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [1999] NSWLEC 218

Designlink International v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [1999] NSWLEC 218

The Senior Commissioner erred in law because s 80(3) assumes that final consent has been granted to an identifiable development and only defers the operation of that consent pending satisfaction of an external matter. By requiring minor corrections to drawings concerning basement carparking, ramp gradients, headroom and staircase access, and by requiring the parties to return to the Court to have the development consent confirmed, the Commissioner left the final determination open rather than granting a final deferred commencement consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Section 56 a Appeal / Appeal From the Senior Commissioner's Ex Tempore Decision Delivered on 27 May 1999
Outcome
The Court found that the Senior Commissioner erred in law and directed that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for determination according to the evidence as it stands and any further evidence allowed in the proper exercise of discretion.
Legal Topics
['deferred Commencement Consent' 'finality of Development Consent' 'development Application Conditions' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 S 80(3)']
['planning and Development Law' 'environmental Law'] ['deferred Commencement Consent' 'finality of Development Consent' 'development Application Conditions' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 S 80(3)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Section 56 a Appeal / Appeal From the Senior Commissioner's Ex Tempore Decision Delivered on 27 May 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 could be used to grant deferred commencement consent where the Commissioner required corrections to drawings and later confirmation by the Court.' "Whether the Senior Commissioner's determination was a final development consent or an impermissible postponement of the final decision." 'Whether deferred commencement conditions may accommodate changes to the form of the development itself.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Senior Commissioner erred in law because s 80(3) assumes that final consent has been granted to an identifiable development and only defers the operation of that consent pending satisfaction of an external matter. By requiring minor corrections to drawings concerning basement carparking, ramp gradients, headroom and staircase access, and by requiring the parties to return to the Court to have the development consent confirmed, the Commissioner left the final determination open rather than granting a final deferred commencement consent.

Court Disposition

The Court found that the Senior Commissioner erred in law and directed that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for determination according to the evidence as it stands and any further evidence allowed in the proper exercise of discretion.

Orders

  • ["The matter is referred back to the Commissioner for determination in accordance with the Court's findings according to the evidence as it now stands, together with any further evidence that the Commissioner may allow in the proper exercise of discretion."]