Butler Street Community Network Incorporated v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2017] NSWLEC 51

Butler Street Community Network Incorporated v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2017] NSWLEC 51

The Court had jurisdiction because there was a development application before it for determination in the s 98 Class 1 objector appeal. Although the application overreached by seeking consent for works that were largely permissible without consent under SEPP Infrastructure, that did not invalidate the application. The Court, standing as the consent authority, could determine which aspects required consent and use s 80(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) to grant or refuse consent for the SEPP 14 Wetlands portion of the development.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Objector Appeal Pursuant to S 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw) Against the Grant of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicant Seeking Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Order 1 of the Motion was dismissed; the Court found that it had jurisdiction to determine the development application.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'objector Appeal' 'jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court' 'development Permissible Without Consent' 'partial Development Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 14 – Coastal Wetlands' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007']
['planning and Environmental Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['development Consent' 'objector Appeal' 'jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court' 'development Permissible Without Consent' 'partial Development Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 14 – Coastal Wetlands' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007']

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 1 Objector Appeal Pursuant to S 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw) Against the Grant of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicant Seeking Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine the development application where the bulk of the development was permissible without consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW).' 'Whether the development application was invalid because it sought consent for works that did not require development consent.' 'Whether the Court could determine only the part of the development requiring consent, being the portion located on SEPP 14 Wetlands.' 'Whether the development application needed to be amended before the Court could determine it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction because there was a development application before it for determination in the s 98 Class 1 objector appeal. Although the application overreached by seeking consent for works that were largely permissible without consent under SEPP Infrastructure, that did not invalidate the application. The Court, standing as the consent authority, could determine which aspects required consent and use s 80(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) to grant or refuse consent for the SEPP 14 Wetlands portion of the development.

Court Disposition

Order 1 of the Motion was dismissed; the Court found that it had jurisdiction to determine the development application.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 of the Motion is dismissed.' 'The parties shall make submissions in relation to Orders 2 and 3 of the Motion on Friday 5 May 2017.' 'Costs are reserved.']