Notaras, Irene v Waverly Council and Levitt, Erroll Wilfred [2006] NSWLEC 669

Notaras, Irene v Waverly Council and Levitt, Erroll Wilfred [2006] NSWLEC 669

The development consent was not so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable consent authority could have granted it. The Council had informed itself, considered objections and relevant planning issues, obtained and assessed information on height, floor space ratio, overshadowing, solar access, parking and access, and was left with a choice between opinions. The applicant's complaints went to the merits of the consent rather than establishing jurisdictional error or manifest unreasonableness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging a Development Consent / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondent.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'judicial Review' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'development Control Plan' 'overshadowing and Solar Access']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'judicial Review' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'development Control Plan' 'overshadowing and Solar Access']

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 Challenging a Development Consent / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Waverley Council's decision to grant development consent was manifestly unreasonable." 'Whether the Council took into account incorrect shadow diagrams and survey information.' 'Whether the Council failed to take into account non-compliance with Waverley Development Control Plan 2 – Dwelling Houses Development in relation to height, floor space ratio, setbacks and car parking.']

Ratio Decidendi

The development consent was not so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable consent authority could have granted it. The Council had informed itself, considered objections and relevant planning issues, obtained and assessed information on height, floor space ratio, overshadowing, solar access, parking and access, and was left with a choice between opinions. The applicant's complaints went to the merits of the consent rather than establishing jurisdictional error or manifest unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondent.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' 'That the applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondent.' 'The exhibits be returned.']