SCOTT v WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL [1992] NSWCA 227

SCOTT v WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL [1992] NSWCA 227

Condition 27 did not leave for later decision any aspect which could fundamentally change the development; it was ancillary and not void for want of finality. The SEPP 1 objection and Council dispensation were valid; no breach of relevant planning requirements or improper delegation was established; the Council's emphasis on tourism was a valid consideration. Thus, the appeal failed and the cross-appeal on costs succeeded.

Parties
Appellant: Scott; First Respondent: Wollongong City Council; Second Respondent: Job Creators Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; costs orders made in favour of respondents.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Conditions of Development, Finality of Consent, Environmental Planning, Judicial Review
Land and Environment Law Administrative Law Development Consent Conditions of Development Finality of Consent Environmental Planning Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott

Appellant

Wollongong City Council

First Respondent

Job Creators Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condition 27 of the development consent was void for want of finality
  2. 2 Whether the dispensation for excess floor space ratio under SEPP 1 was validly granted
  3. 3 Whether there was non-compliance with consultation or requirements of the Water Board

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 27 did not leave for later decision any aspect which could fundamentally change the development; it was ancillary and not void for want of finality. The SEPP 1 objection and Council dispensation were valid; no breach of relevant planning requirements or improper delegation was established; the Council's emphasis on tourism was a valid consideration. Thus, the appeal failed and the cross-appeal on costs succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; costs orders made in favour of respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal allowed with costs.