Townsend & Anor v Evans Shire Council & Ors [2000] NSWLEC 163

Townsend & Anor v Evans Shire Council & Ors [2000] NSWLEC 163

The consent granted to the second respondents was invalid because "Willow Grove" was not an existing holding with its own concessional allotment entitlement; the remaining entitlement attached to the retained land. The council's rescission of the applicants' earlier consent was valid because the Mayor's informal oral statement was not a formal authenticated notice of determination, no effective development consent had been communicated, and the rescission motion was lodged before the council was required to issue a notice of determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Declarations and Orders
Outcome
The first declaration sought by the applicants was made; the second declaration was refused; the consent granted to the second respondents was set aside; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'subdivision' 'concessional Allotment' 'existing Holding' 'notice of Determination' 'rescission of Council Resolution']
['planning and Environment' 'local Government' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'subdivision' 'concessional Allotment' 'existing Holding' 'notice of Determination' 'rescission of Council Resolution']

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

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Declarations and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development consent granted to the second respondents for a two-lot subdivision was invalid because "Willow Grove" had no concessional lot entitlement under Interim Development Order No.1- Shire of Evans.' "Whether the council's resolution on 1 October 1999 rescinding its previous resolution to grant consent to the applicants was invalid because the consent had been communicated to the applicants informally by the Mayor after the meeting."]

Ratio Decidendi

The consent granted to the second respondents was invalid because "Willow Grove" was not an existing holding with its own concessional allotment entitlement; the remaining entitlement attached to the retained land. The council's rescission of the applicants' earlier consent was valid because the Mayor's informal oral statement was not a formal authenticated notice of determination, no effective development consent had been communicated, and the rescission motion was lodged before the council was required to issue a notice of determination.

Court Disposition

The first declaration sought by the applicants was made; the second declaration was refused; the consent granted to the second respondents was set aside; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['A declaration that the consent granted by notice of determination dated 14 October 1999 by the first respondent to K Richardson & Associates Pty Limited on behalf of the second respondents for a two-lot subdivision, DA No. 126/99, subdividing lot 1 in DP 620809 is invalid.' 'The consent described in the...