COLSTON BUDD HUNT AND TWINEY PTY LIMITED v. CAMPBELLTOWN CITY COUNCIL [1998] NSWLEC 180 (13 August 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 53

COLSTON BUDD HUNT AND TWINEY PTY LIMITED v. CAMPBELLTOWN CITY COUNCIL [1998] NSWLEC 180 (13 August 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 53

The Council failed to prove that Development Control Plan No. 20 had been adopted by resolution of the Council as required by clause 4(1) of the Interim Development Order. Because that essential fact was not established, the proposed development was not shown to be prohibited on the basis relied upon by the Council, and the question of law was answered in the negative.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Class One Proceedings Concerning Development Consent for a Proposed Metal Recycling Facility / Question of Law Raised by the Council
Outcome
Question of law answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'development Control Plans' 'interim Development Order' 'prohibited Development' 'proof of Adoption by Council Resolution']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'development Control Plans' 'interim Development Order' 'prohibited Development' 'proof of Adoption by 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

Class One Proceedings Concerning Development Consent for a Proposed Metal Recycling Facility / Question of Law Raised by the Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development was prohibited having regard to clause 4 of Interim Development Order No. 21 - City of Campbelltown and Campbelltown City Council Development Control Plan No 20.' 'Whether Development Control Plan No. 20 had been adopted by resolution of the Council for the purposes of clause 4 of the Interim Development Order.' 'Whether Development Control Plan No. 20 was a development control plan within the meaning of clause 4 of the Interim Development Order.' 'Whether the proposed metal recycling facility fell within the ambit of Development Control Plan No. 20.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to prove that Development Control Plan No. 20 had been adopted by resolution of the Council as required by clause 4(1) of the Interim Development Order. Because that essential fact was not established, the proposed development was not shown to be prohibited on the basis relied upon by the Council, and the question of law was answered in the negative.

Court Disposition

Question of law answered in the negative.

Orders

  • ['The question of law is answered in the negative.' 'Exhibits to remain on Court file.' 'The question of costs is reserved.']