Hollis v Shellharbour City Council [2002] NSWLEC 83

Hollis v Shellharbour City Council [2002] NSWLEC 83

Because the development comprised substantial and independent water management works (including artificial waterbodies within 40 metres of a natural waterbody) exceeding the designated development threshold under the Regulation, the original consent was invalid for failure to comply with statutory requirements, including the requirement for an EIS. As the consent was void ab initio due to jurisdictional error, no valid consent existed to be modified, rendering both the original and modified consents invalid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application allowed. Declarations of invalidity of both the original and modified development consents granted.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error of Fact' 'designated Development' 'modification of Development Consent' 'requirements for Environmental Impact Statement' 'interpretation of Development Consents']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['jurisdictional Error of Fact' 'designated Development' 'modification of Development Consent' 'requirements for Environmental Impact Statement' 'interpretation of Development Consents']

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

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How should the development the subject of DA 336 of 2000 be characterised?' 'Is the development designated development under Sch 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994?' 'If it is designated development, can it be modified?' 'If it can be modified, is the modified development designated development?']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the development comprised substantial and independent water management works (including artificial waterbodies within 40 metres of a natural waterbody) exceeding the designated development threshold under the Regulation, the original consent was invalid for failure to comply with statutory requirements, including the requirement for an EIS. As the consent was void ab initio due to jurisdictional error, no valid consent existed to be modified, rendering both the original and modified consents invalid.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Declarations of invalidity of both the original and modified development consents granted.

Orders

  • ['Declares that the original and modified development consents are invalid.' 'Declares that no valid development application was made within the meaning of s 78A of the EP&A Act and that the Council had no power to grant the consents.' 'Restrains the Second Respondent from carrying out development pursuant to the...