Kathryn Sciberras v Mid Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1295

Kathryn Sciberras v Mid Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1295

The modification would result in a development (subdivision without dwelling entitlement) that is not substantially the same as the original consent (subdivision with dwelling entitlement); therefore, the application does not satisfy the requirements of s96(1A) and must be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Planning and Environment / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Application to modify development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'section 96(1 A) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act' 'subdivision' 'dwelling Entitlement']

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

Appeal Planning and Environment / Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact under s96(1A) EPA Act' 'Whether consent as modified would be for substantially the same development as originally granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The modification would result in a development (subdivision without dwelling entitlement) that is not substantially the same as the original consent (subdivision with dwelling entitlement); therefore, the application does not satisfy the requirements of s96(1A) and must be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Application to modify development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The application to modify development consent DA-76/2015, issued by Mid Coast Council on 17 September 2015, is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits 1, A and B.']