TERRACE TOWER HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED v SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL [2003] NSWCA 289

TERRACE TOWER HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED v SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL [2003] NSWCA 289

The trial judge did not err in law by giving significant weight to the planning provisions of LEP 2000 and the purpose behind the minimum gross floor space for bulky goods retailing, or in considering the policies and public interest content of draft SEPP 66, as both were relevant for consideration under s79C(1) EPA Act. The weight afforded such instruments was a matter of planning judgment, not law, and no legally irrelevant matters were considered.

Parties
Appellant: Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited; Respondent: Sutherland Shire Council; Intervenor: Colonial First State Property Limited (CPL)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision From Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Draft Planning Instrument, Public Interest, Transitional Provisions, Bulky Goods Retailing, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environment and Planning Law Development Application Draft Planning Instrument Public Interest Transitional Provisions Bulky Goods Retailing Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited

Appellant

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent

Colonial First State Property Limited (CPL)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision From Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law in giving weight to the provisions of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LEP 2000) as if certain and imminent upon the application of transitional provisions;
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law in considering the draft State Environmental Planning Policy No 66 (SEPP 66) as a relevant matter under s79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
  3. 3 Whether the question of weight given to planning instruments raises a question of law;

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in law by giving significant weight to the planning provisions of LEP 2000 and the purpose behind the minimum gross floor space for bulky goods retailing, or in considering the policies and public interest content of draft SEPP 66, as both were relevant for consideration under s79C(1) EPA Act. The weight afforded such instruments was a matter of planning judgment, not law, and no legally irrelevant matters were considered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • No order as to costs for CPL (the intervener).