DOMINIC WYKANAK v. ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL [1998] NSWLEC 160 (20 July 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 73

DOMINIC WYKANAK v. ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL [1998] NSWLEC 160 (20 July 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 73

The challenges to LEP 142 and DC 226/96 were precluded by ss 35 and 104A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because the applicant did not establish bad faith or another Hickman exception. In any event, the applicant failed to prove denial of natural justice, denial of statutory public participation, improper purpose, failure to consider submissions, or that a plan of management was a prerequisite to reclassification. The council complied with the statutory reclassification process, and reclassification for the purpose of enabling sale of public land was contemplated by the Local Government Act 1993.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application Challenging the Validity of Draft LEP 142, LEP 142 and Development Consent 226/96 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['community and Operational Land Reclassification' 'validity of Local Environmental Plan' 'privative Clauses' 'natural Justice' 'public Participation' 'improper Purpose' 'development Consent']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'local Government' 'administrative Law'] ['community and Operational Land Reclassification' 'validity of Local Environmental Plan' 'privative Clauses' 'natural Justice' 'public Participation' 'improper Purpose' 'development Consent']

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 4 Application Challenging the Validity of Draft LEP 142, LEP 142 and Development Consent 226/96 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ss 35 and 104A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 precluded the applicant from challenging LEP 142 and DC 226/96.' 'Whether the council denied natural justice or procedural fairness in the reclassification process.' 'Whether the public was denied statutory participation in the making of LEP 142.' 'Whether the council acted in bad faith or for an improper or ulterior purpose in reclassifying the land.' 'Whether the council failed to consider relevant submissions.' 'Whether the absence of a plan of management for community land invalidated the reclassification process.' 'Whether development consents were invalid if LEP 142 was invalid.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenges to LEP 142 and DC 226/96 were precluded by ss 35 and 104A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because the applicant did not establish bad faith or another Hickman exception. In any event, the applicant failed to prove denial of natural justice, denial of statutory public participation, improper purpose, failure to consider submissions, or that a plan of management was a prerequisite to reclassification. The council complied with the statutory reclassification process, and reclassification for the purpose of enabling sale of public land was contemplated by the Local Government Act 1993.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'I reserve the question of costs.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']