Tzannes v Moree Plains Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1032

Tzannes v Moree Plains Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1032

The Court was satisfied that the statutory requirements for modification under s 96(1A) had been met, that objectors had been reasonably notified, and that deleting condition 14 while prohibiting borrow pits on lots 200 and 208 and requiring specified boundary fencing would provide an acceptable and appropriate safety outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of an Application Under S 96(1 A) to Modify Development Consent Da2012/76 / Determination of Proposed Consent Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['rural Residential Subdivision' 'borrow Pits' 'fencing Conditions' 'notification of Objectors' 'consent Orders']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent Modification'] ['rural Residential Subdivision' 'borrow Pits' 'fencing Conditions' 'notification of Objectors' 'consent Orders']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of an Application Under S 96(1 A) to Modify Development Consent Da2012/76 / Determination of Proposed Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was lawful to modify development consent DA2012/76 under s 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the terms proposed by the parties.' 'Whether it was appropriate to delete condition 14 requiring dams or borrow pits to be fenced in accordance with the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008 or deleted from the development.' "Whether reasonable notice of the proposed consent orders had been given to objectors in accordance with the Court's Practice Note for Class 1 Development Appeals."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the statutory requirements for modification under s 96(1A) had been met, that objectors had been reasonably notified, and that deleting condition 14 while prohibiting borrow pits on lots 200 and 208 and requiring specified boundary fencing would provide an acceptable and appropriate safety outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The application to modify development consent DA 2012/76 for the purposes of an eleven lot rural residential subdivision is determined by approving the modifications set out in Annexure A.' 'Condition 14 is deleted.' 'Condition 7 is amended to include additional conditions that no borrow...