Howard-Jones v Leichhardt Council [2015] NSWLEC 1309

Howard-Jones v Leichhardt Council [2015] NSWLEC 1309

Although the Revision E proposal was arguably within the ambit of cl 55 of the Regulation, leave to amend was refused because the proposal went beyond addressing the Council's contentions, raised new issues, was not necessarily of lesser environmental impact, had not been assessed by Council or experts or notified to objectors, would require another vacation of hearing dates, and was not shown to be complete, final and suitable for assessment at the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application for Alterations and Additions to an Existing Dwelling / Notice of Motion Dated 28 July 2015 Seeking Leave to Amend the Application by Relying on Revision E Architectural Plans
Outcome
The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 28 July 2015 seeking leave to amend the application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Application Amendments' 'residential Development Appeals' 'leave to Amend Application' 'adjournment and Hearing Management' 'public Notification and Assessment of Amended Plans']
['planning and Environment' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Application Amendments' 'residential Development Appeals' 'leave to Amend Application' 'adjournment and Hearing Management' 'public Notification and Assessment of Amended Plans']

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 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application for Alterations and Additions to an Existing Dwelling / Notice of Motion Dated 28 July 2015 Seeking Leave to Amend the Application by Relying on Revision E Architectural Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Revision E architectural plans were within the amendment power in cl 55 of the Regulation or amounted to a fresh application.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to amend the appeal application to rely on the Revision E plans.' 'Whether the amended proposal had been properly assessed and notified and was complete and final for hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Revision E proposal was arguably within the ambit of cl 55 of the Regulation, leave to amend was refused because the proposal went beyond addressing the Council's contentions, raised new issues, was not necessarily of lesser environmental impact, had not been assessed by Council or experts or notified to objectors, would require another vacation of hearing dates, and was not shown to be complete, final and suitable for assessment at the hearing.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 28 July 2015 seeking leave to amend the application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 28 July 2015 seeking leave to amend the application is dismissed."]