Jessop v WRA Willcocks Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] NSWLEC 156

Jessop v WRA Willcocks Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] NSWLEC 156

The application failed because the evidence did not establish that the Minister took the purchase of North Brother Mountain into account as an irrelevant consideration; Amendment No. 4 was not shown to alter or remove existing zonings contrary to cl.29(e), and the detailed analysis required by cl.29(b) was satisfied; the supporting material required for public exhibition was available at the Laurieton office so there was no breach of s.66; and no breach of s.68 was proved because the public hearing request was considered at the Council meeting and the Applicant did not prove that Council considered the issues significant enough to require a hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1988
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Seeking a Declaration That Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987 (amendment No. 4) Is Invalid, Null and Void and of No Effect / Final Judgment After Expedited Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['validity of Local Environmental Plan' 'procedural Ultra Vires' 'substantive Ultra Vires' 'public Exhibition of Draft Local Environmental Plan' 'public Hearing on Submissions' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'regional Environmental Plan Inconsistency']
['environmental Planning Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['validity of Local Environmental Plan' 'procedural Ultra Vires' 'substantive Ultra Vires' 'public Exhibition of Draft Local Environmental Plan' 'public Hearing on Submissions' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'regional Environmental Plan Inconsistency']

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 Proceedings Seeking a Declaration That Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987 (amendment No. 4) Is Invalid, Null and Void and of No Effect / Final Judgment After Expedited Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 2nd Respondent failed to comply with s.66 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by failing to display required supporting material with the draft local environmental plan.' 'Whether the 2nd Respondent failed to comply with s.68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by failing to properly consider a request for a public hearing and failing to hold a public hearing.' 'Whether the 3rd Respondent took into account an irrelevant consideration when making Amendment No. 4, namely the acquisition by purchase of North Brother Mountain from the 1st Respondent.' 'Whether Amendment No. 4 was repugnant to cl.29(b) and cl.29(e) of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the evidence did not establish that the Minister took the purchase of North Brother Mountain into account as an irrelevant consideration; Amendment No. 4 was not shown to alter or remove existing zonings contrary to cl.29(e), and the detailed analysis required by cl.29(b) was satisfied; the supporting material required for public exhibition was available at the Laurieton office so there was no breach of s.66; and no breach of s.68 was proved because the public hearing request was considered at the Council meeting and the Applicant did not prove that Council considered the issues significant enough to require a hearing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' 'Exhibits to be returned.']