Tier Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2000] NSWLEC 176

Tier Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2000] NSWLEC 176

The proposed modifications made no significant change to the approved project, including the relevant or adverse impacts of its constituent uses as holiday cabins and an education establishment, and the development remained substantially the same as that approved in April 1998. The agreed amendments to condition 36 addressed concerns about sale or subdivision, so the consent should be modified by consent orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Development Consent Modification Application / Consent Orders
Outcome
Development consent modified by consent orders; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'modification of Conditions' 'consent Orders' 'objectors' 'substantially the Same Development']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'modification of Conditions' 'consent Orders' 'objectors' 'substantially the Same Development']

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

Development Consent Modification Application / Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development consent granted on 16 April 1998 should be modified pursuant to s 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the proposed modifications would make the project a substantially different development from that originally approved.' "Whether objectors' concerns about a resort or subdivision by stealth were addressed by the modified conditions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed modifications made no significant change to the approved project, including the relevant or adverse impacts of its constituent uses as holiday cabins and an education establishment, and the development remained substantially the same as that approved in April 1998. The agreed amendments to condition 36 addressed concerns about sale or subdivision, so the consent should be modified by consent orders.

Court Disposition

Development consent modified by consent orders; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The development consent granted by the court on 16 April 1998 is modified pursuant to s 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'." 'No order as to costs.' 'Exhibits B1 and B2 should remain with the court file.']