Rettenmaier v Transitional Coastal Panel [2018] NSWLEC 1678

Rettenmaier v Transitional Coastal Panel [2018] NSWLEC 1678

The appeal was upheld and the development consent granted because the repairs are permissible with consent, jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, adequate and legally compliant conditions are imposed (including funding and monitoring), and the development does not unreasonably impede public access or increase coastal hazard risks, as supported by expert evidence and agreed between the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Final Orders After Conciliation Conference Under S 34 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted as per parties' agreement and annexed conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'coastal Protection Works' 'conciliation Conference' 'statutory Interpretation' 'environmental Planning Instruments']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'coastal Protection Works' 'conciliation Conference' 'statutory Interpretation' 'environmental Planning Instruments']

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 (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Final Orders After Conciliation Conference Under S 34 Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed repairs to the seawall comply with relevant planning and environmental legislation and instruments' 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent are satisfied under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Coastal Protection Act 1979, Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988, and SEPP 71' 'Whether the development impedes public access or increases the risk of coastal hazards in breach of the applicable planning controls']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld and the development consent granted because the repairs are permissible with consent, jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, adequate and legally compliant conditions are imposed (including funding and monitoring), and the development does not unreasonably impede public access or increase coastal hazard risks, as supported by expert evidence and agreed between the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted as per parties' agreement and annexed conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application number CP 17-009 to undertake repairs to the existing seawall located on Crown Land immediately seaward of the private property at Lots 35-36 Section 3 of DP 1623, 4 Childe Street, Byron Bay, is approved subject to the conditions found in Annexure A.' 'Except in...