Seyffer v Shoalhaven City Council [2006] NSWLEC 564

Seyffer v Shoalhaven City Council [2006] NSWLEC 564

The purported second development application was not in truth an application to amend the first development application but was a development application for development within s 4 and s 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It did not purport to amend the first application, the applicant was pressing the town supply system and on-site system as alternatives, and inconsistency between multiple development applications for the same development did not itself prevent the later application being characterised as a development application. The council's purported rejection or return of the application was therefore of no legal effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief Concerning a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant successful; proposed declarations and costs order in favour of the applicant, with parties to address the final form of relief.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'amendment of Development Applications' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Cl 55' 'consent Authority Powers']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Applications' 'amendment of Development Applications' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Cl 55' 'consent Authority Powers']

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

Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief Concerning a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development application No. DA 05/3931 for a water cycle management system should be characterised as a development application or as an application to amend an earlier refused development application.' "Whether the respondent council's purported rejection or return of the development application was of legal effect." 'Whether the development application could be dealt with by the respondent as consent authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The purported second development application was not in truth an application to amend the first development application but was a development application for development within s 4 and s 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It did not purport to amend the first application, the applicant was pressing the town supply system and on-site system as alternatives, and inconsistency between multiple development applications for the same development did not itself prevent the later application being characterised as a development application. The council's purported rejection or return of the application was therefore of no legal effect.

Court Disposition

Applicant successful; proposed declarations and costs order in favour of the applicant, with parties to address the final form of relief.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that, by lodgement of development application No. DA 05/3931 for a water cycle management system on Lot 203 in Deposited Plan 883494 by the applicant with the respondent on 23 November 2005, the applicant has applied to a consent authority for the carrying out of development within the meaning of...