Khouri v Burwood Council and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 124

Khouri v Burwood Council and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 124

The differences between the original and proposed plans, including the change from one building to two towers above a podium, altered stepping and configuration, reduced residential accommodation, changed commercial areas, and revised parking arrangements, were so substantial that the amended plans were not for the same development but represented a new development. They therefore could not be treated as amendments to the development application called in under s 88A and were rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Application for Leave to File and Rely on Amended Plans at the Hearing of the Appeal
Outcome
Amended plans rejected as plans for a new development rather than amendments to the existing development application.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'amended Plans' 'new Development Application' 'ministerial Direction Under S 88 A' 'leave to Rely on Amended Plans']
['planning and Environment Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application' 'amended Plans' 'new Development Application' 'ministerial Direction Under S 88 A' 'leave to Rely on 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 Development Application Appeal / Application for Leave to File and Rely on Amended Plans at the Hearing of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended plans were amendments to the development application or constituted a separate, distinct and new application.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on the amended plans in the Class 1 appeal.' "What effect the characterisation of the amended plans would have on the Minister's direction under s 88A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

The differences between the original and proposed plans, including the change from one building to two towers above a podium, altered stepping and configuration, reduced residential accommodation, changed commercial areas, and revised parking arrangements, were so substantial that the amended plans were not for the same development but represented a new development. They therefore could not be treated as amendments to the development application called in under s 88A and were rejected.

Court Disposition

Amended plans rejected as plans for a new development rather than amendments to the existing development application.

Orders

  • ['The plans presented to the Court by way of amendment are rejected.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']