Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Limited v Port Stephens Council [2007] NSWLEC 605

Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Limited v Port Stephens Council [2007] NSWLEC 605

The concreting of the driveway was not referable only to the approved development and was not of considerable amount. It was also done unlawfully in the absence of a building approval. Approval and registration of the strata plan did not constitute commencement of development in the relevant sense. Therefore, there was not substantial commencement and the development consent lapsed.

Parties
Applicant: Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Limited; Respondent: Port Stephens Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Lapsing of Development Consent, Substantial Commencement of Development, Unlawful Works, Costs
Planning Law Lapsing of Development Consent Substantial Commencement of Development Unlawful Works Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Limited

Applicant

Port Stephens Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether concreting of driveway constitutes substantial commencement of development
  2. 2 Whether approval and registration of strata plan is commencement of development
  3. 3 Whether there has been substantial commencement to prevent consent from lapsing

Ratio Decidendi

The concreting of the driveway was not referable only to the approved development and was not of considerable amount. It was also done unlawfully in the absence of a building approval. Approval and registration of the strata plan did not constitute commencement of development in the relevant sense. Therefore, there was not substantial commencement and the development consent lapsed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant must pay the respondent's costs.