Waite v Blacktown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 157

Waite v Blacktown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 157

The amended plans largely proposed prohibited development, including a primary fruit and vegetable market use, a segregated food bar use and an outdoor plant retail area falling within the prohibited definition of shop, and in any event the amended plans made significant changes so substantially different from the original proposal as to amount to a fresh application. The Court therefore had no utility in permitting reliance on the amended plans and no jurisdiction to entertain them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Notice of Motion to Substitute Amended Plans
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'prohibited Development' 'amended Plans' 'jurisdiction' 'discretion to Admit Amended Plans' 'blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'prohibited Development' 'amended Plans' 'jurisdiction' 'discretion to Admit Amended Plans' 'blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988']

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

Development Application Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Notice of Motion to Substitute Amended Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development shown in the amended plans was prohibited under the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988.' 'Whether the amended plans were so substantially different from the plans refused by the council as to amount to a fresh development application.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to admit the amended plans.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended plans largely proposed prohibited development, including a primary fruit and vegetable market use, a segregated food bar use and an outdoor plant retail area falling within the prohibited definition of shop, and in any event the amended plans made significant changes so substantially different from the original proposal as to amount to a fresh application. The Court therefore had no utility in permitting reliance on the amended plans and no jurisdiction to entertain them.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion dated 23 January 2004 is dismissed."]