Castle Constructions Pty Limited v Director-General of the Department of Planning & Anor [2007] NSWLEC 783
Draft Amendment No 28 was an amending local environmental plan applying to the North Sydney CBD and was not a principal local environmental plan. The standard instrument made on 31 March 2006 prescribed the form and content of a principal local environmental plan only and was not an applicable standard instrument for draft Amendment No 28. Section 65(1A) was therefore not engaged and the certificates were not issued in breach of that section. In any event, if s 65(1A) had applied, the Director-General had properly formed the state of satisfaction required by cl 92 of Sch 6 that draft Amendment No 28 made a necessary amendment of a principal environmental planning instrument and that...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Class 4 Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment on Challenge to Validity of Certificates Issued Under S 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['validity of S 65 Certificates' 'standard Environmental Planning Instruments' 'local Environmental Plans' 'transitional Provisions' 'statutory Construction' "director General's State of Satisfaction"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment on Challenge to Validity of Certificates Issued Under S 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the issue of certificates for draft Amendment No 28 engaged s 65(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because the draft local environmental plan had to be prepared in accordance with an applicable standard instrument under s 33A.' 'Whether, if s 65(1A) applied, the Director-General was satisfied that draft Amendment No 28 made a necessary amendment of a principal environmental planning instrument made before the prescription of the relevant standard instrument within cl 92 of Sch 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the two s 65 certificates were invalid and of no effect.']
Ratio Decidendi
Draft Amendment No 28 was an amending local environmental plan applying to the North Sydney CBD and was not a principal local environmental plan. The standard instrument made on 31 March 2006 prescribed the form and content of a principal local environmental plan only and was not an applicable standard instrument for draft Amendment No 28. Section 65(1A) was therefore not engaged and the certificates were not issued in breach of that section. In any event, if s 65(1A) had applied, the Director-General had properly formed the state of satisfaction required by cl 92 of Sch 6 that draft Amendment No 28 made a necessary amendment of a principal environmental planning instrument and that...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The Class 4 application is dismissed.' 'The exhibits are returned.' 'Costs may be argued.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment