Csillag v Woollahra Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 135

Csillag v Woollahra Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 135

The evidence showed that the ordered re-notification and re-advertising were undertaken in accordance with the Court's orders and the relevant development control plan, that submissions were considered, and that there was substantive reconsideration of the amended development application. The terms imposed by the Court on 25 February 2011 had therefore been substantially complied with, making it open to the Council's delegates to revoke and regrant the consent with alterations under s 103(3), and appropriate for the Court to make declarations and revoke the suspension order under s 25C(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceeding; Consequential Orders / Notice of Motion Filed by Woollahra Municipal Council on 4 May 2012 Seeking Orders Under S 25 C(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Suspension of Development Consent
Outcome
Council's motion granted; declarations made that the terms were complied with, the development consent was validly regranted, the suspended consent was revoked, and the suspension order was revoked; costs ordered by consent.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'suspension of Development Consent' 'regrant of Development Consent' 'notification and Advertising of Development Applications' 'substantial Compliance' 'consequential Orders']
['environment and Planning' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'suspension of Development Consent' 'regrant of Development Consent' 'notification and Advertising of Development Applications' 'substantial Compliance' 'consequential Orders']

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

Class 4 Proceeding; Consequential Orders / Notice of Motion Filed by Woollahra Municipal Council on 4 May 2012 Seeking Orders Under S 25 C(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Suspension of Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the terms specified under s 25B(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 by the Court's orders of 25 February 2011 had been substantially complied with." 'Whether development consent no. 256/2008/1 had been validly regranted with alterations under s 103(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the suspended development consent had been revoked and the order of suspension should be revoked under s 25C(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed that the ordered re-notification and re-advertising were undertaken in accordance with the Court's orders and the relevant development control plan, that submissions were considered, and that there was substantive reconsideration of the amended development application. The terms imposed by the Court on 25 February 2011 had therefore been substantially complied with, making it open to the Council's delegates to revoke and regrant the consent with alterations under s 103(3), and appropriate for the Court to make declarations and revoke the suspension order under s 25C(2).

Court Disposition

Council's motion granted; declarations made that the terms were complied with, the development consent was validly regranted, the suspended consent was revoked, and the suspension order was revoked; costs ordered by consent.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the terms specified under s 25B(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 as set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Order 1 made by the Court on 25 February 2011 have been complied with.' 'Declare that development consent no. 256/2008/1 granted by Woollahra Municipal Council on 6 July 2009 was...