Gosford City Council v Dabski and Anor [2002] NSWLEC 166

Gosford City Council v Dabski and Anor [2002] NSWLEC 166

Condition 2 only requires written consent of owners of lot 246 before works commence upon lot 246, not for works on subdivision land; since no works were carried out on lot 246, there was no breach of condition 2 when construction activities proceeded on subdivision land; these works are valid for physical commencement and prevent the lapse of the development consent.

Parties
Applicant: Gosford City Council; First Respondent: Leszek Dabski; Second Respondent: Maria Helena Dabski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Declaration / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted (development consent has not lapsed); Applicant's claim refused; Respondents' claim partially granted; invalidity declaration refused.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Construction Certificates, Subdivision, Interpretation of Conditions, Validity of Conditions
Planning and Environment Development Consent Construction Certificates Subdivision Interpretation of Conditions Validity of Conditions

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gosford City Council

Applicant

Leszek Dabski

First Respondent

Maria Helena Dabski

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Declaration / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of condition 2 imposed on construction certificate
  2. 2 Validity of condition 2 under relevant legislation

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 2 only requires written consent of owners of lot 246 before works commence upon lot 246, not for works on subdivision land; since no works were carried out on lot 246, there was no breach of condition 2 when construction activities proceeded on subdivision land; these works are valid for physical commencement and prevent the lapse of the development consent.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted (development consent has not lapsed); Applicant's claim refused; Respondents' claim partially granted; invalidity declaration refused.

Orders

  • I declare that development consent granted by this Court on 21 July 1995 in respect of lot 1 DP 816220 known as 11A The Sanctuary, Umina has not lapsed.
  • I reserve the question of costs.