Newton Denny Chapelle v Ballina Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1123

Newton Denny Chapelle v Ballina Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1123

Because the original consent's material and essential feature was storage of all scaffolding and equipment within the shed, permitting external storage would create a material change to that essential feature. The proposed modification would not result in substantially the same development as originally approved, and thus must be refused.

Parties
Applicant: Newton Denny Chapelle; Respondent: Ballina Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Modification of Development Consent, Section 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Minimal Environmental Impact, Substantially the Same Development, Visual Impacts, Rural Land Use
Planning Law Environmental Law Modification of Development Consent Section 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Minimal Environmental Impact Substantially the Same Development Visual Impacts Rural Land Use

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newton Denny Chapelle

Applicant

Ballina Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact
  2. 2 Whether the proposed modification is substantially the same development as originally approved

Ratio Decidendi

Because the original consent's material and essential feature was storage of all scaffolding and equipment within the shed, permitting external storage would create a material change to that essential feature. The proposed modification would not result in substantially the same development as originally approved, and thus must be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The application to modify Development Consent DA 2011/105 is refused.