Bechara v Plan Urban Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWLEC 594

Bechara v Plan Urban Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWLEC 594

The applicant did not establish that the Council delegate misdirected himself, failed to form the necessary statutory states of satisfaction, or reached opinions that were not reasonably open. The delegate gave accepted evidence that he considered s 96(1A), the relevant impacts, the prior submissions, the plans and Moto Projects, and formed the opinions that the modified development was substantially the same, the modification was of minimal environmental impact, and notification was not required under the development control plan. Those opinions were not so devoid of plausible justification as to amount to an abuse of power.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Judgment on Application for Declaration That Modification of Development Consent 220/2004 Approved by Notice Dated 24 August 2006 Was Invalid and of No Effect
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent Under S 96(1 A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'substantially the Same Development' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'notification Under a Development Control Plan' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'misdirection in Law']
['environmental Planning Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['modification of Development Consent Under S 96(1 A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'substantially the Same Development' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'notification Under a Development Control Plan' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'misdirection in Law']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Judgment on Application for Declaration That Modification of Development Consent 220/2004 Approved by Notice Dated 24 August 2006 Was Invalid and of No Effect

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Council failed to form the state of satisfaction required by s 96(1A)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because it misdirected itself in law.' 'Whether it was reasonably open to the Council to be satisfied that the development as modified would be substantially the same development as the development originally consented to, as required by s 96(1A)(b).' 'Whether it was reasonably open to the Council to be satisfied that the proposed modification was of minimal environmental impact, as required by s 96(1A)(a).' "Whether the approval breached s 96(1A)(c) because the Council's decision that the development control plan did not require notification of the second modification application was not reasonably open."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish that the Council delegate misdirected himself, failed to form the necessary statutory states of satisfaction, or reached opinions that were not reasonably open. The delegate gave accepted evidence that he considered s 96(1A), the relevant impacts, the prior submissions, the plans and Moto Projects, and formed the opinions that the modified development was substantially the same, the modification was of minimal environmental impact, and notification was not required under the development control plan. Those opinions were not so devoid of plausible justification as to amount to an abuse of power.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The class four application is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings as agreed or as assessed." 'Order that exhibit 4 be returned to the fourth respondent.']