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.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Planning and Environment / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 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.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment