MacQuart & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1119

MacQuart & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1119

Leave to rely on the amended plans was refused because, although the amendments went some way toward addressing view loss concerns, the applicants had not acted with sufficient expedition, the amendments were sought at a late stage, objectors should not be denied an opportunity to comment, and allowing the amendment would require further consideration, evidence or adjournment contrary to the expeditious residential development appeal procedure and case management principles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Rely on Amended Plans
Outcome
Application to amend is dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Application Amendment' 'residential Development Appeal' 'view Loss' 'visual Intrusion' 'adjournment and Case Management']
['planning and Environment' 'practice and Procedure'] ['development Application Amendment' 'residential Development Appeal' 'view Loss' 'visual Intrusion' 'adjournment and Case Management']

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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Rely on Amended Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to rely on amended plans filed shortly before the hearing.' "Whether the amended plans addressed the Council's view loss and visual intrusion contentions sufficiently to allow the matter to proceed without further evidence or objector comment." 'Whether allowing the amendment would be consistent with the overriding purpose, the dictates of justice, and the procedure for expeditious determination of residential development appeals.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to rely on the amended plans was refused because, although the amendments went some way toward addressing view loss concerns, the applicants had not acted with sufficient expedition, the amendments were sought at a late stage, objectors should not be denied an opportunity to comment, and allowing the amendment would require further consideration, evidence or adjournment contrary to the expeditious residential development appeal procedure and case management principles.

Court Disposition

Application to amend is dismissed

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.']