Goldcoral Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council [2023] NSWLEC 1540

Goldcoral Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council [2023] NSWLEC 1540

The cumulative effect of the amendments proposed by the Applicant constitutes changes so significant that they go beyond the scope of cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, amounting to a new development application rather than an amendment; therefore, leave to amend is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Goldcoral Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager appointed); First Respondent: Richmond Valley Council; Second Respondent: Simone Barker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 – Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Development Application
Outcome
Application for leave to amend refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Development Application, Statutory Construction – Power to Amend, Procedural Discretionary Powers
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Amendment of Development Application Statutory Construction – Power to Amend Procedural Discretionary Powers

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldcoral Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager appointed)

Applicant

Richmond Valley Council

First Respondent

Simone Barker

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 – Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to the development application is within the power allowed by cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
  2. 2 Whether the amendments constitute a new application or are within the original development as proposed
  3. 3 Whether discretion should be exercised to allow the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of the amendments proposed by the Applicant constitutes changes so significant that they go beyond the scope of cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, amounting to a new development application rather than an amendment; therefore, leave to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend the development application is refused.
  • The Notice of Motion is dismissed.