Smith v Randwick City Council [2001] NSWLEC 77

Smith v Randwick City Council [2001] NSWLEC 77

The applicants had ample time during the currency of the consent either to comply with condition 10 or apply to vary it, were aware from May 1999 that the council regarded Pilkington glass as unacceptable, and the expert evidence established that the glass did not conform to condition 10. The alleged council error was not made out, and the applicants' insistence on that position did not constitute good cause under s 95A(2); therefore there was no basis to grant the extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 95 A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Deemed Refusal of an Application to Extend Development Consent 97/739 / Judgment After Hearing; Appeal Heard Simultaneously With the Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Lapsing' 'extension of Development Consent' 'good Cause Under S 95 A(2)' 'development Consent Conditions' 'deemed Refusal']
['planning and Development Law' 'environmental Law'] ['development Consent Lapsing' 'extension of Development Consent' 'good Cause Under S 95 A(2)' 'development Consent Conditions' 'deemed Refusal']

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 Pursuant to S 95 A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Deemed Refusal of an Application to Extend Development Consent 97/739 / Judgment After Hearing; Appeal Heard Simultaneously With the Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had shown good cause under s 95A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for an extension of development consent 97/739.' 'Whether the council erred in rejecting Pilkington grade laminated 10.38 mm glass as satisfying condition 10 prohibiting tinted or reflective glass.' "Whether there was a basis to extend the development consent after the applicants' delay in seeking modification of condition 10."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had ample time during the currency of the consent either to comply with condition 10 or apply to vary it, were aware from May 1999 that the council regarded Pilkington glass as unacceptable, and the expert evidence established that the glass did not conform to condition 10. The alleged council error was not made out, and the applicants' insistence on that position did not constitute good cause under s 95A(2); therefore there was no basis to grant the extension.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The applicants pay the respondents costs of the hearing on 18 April 2001.' 'The exhibits be returned.']