Toth v Campbelltown City Council [2003] NSWLEC 167

Toth v Campbelltown City Council [2003] NSWLEC 167

The appeal was dismissed because the alleged flaws in making DCP 122 were matters going to validity, a ground expressly abandoned by the Applicant, and were not analogous to cases about inconsistency between planning instruments. The Commissioner therefore had no obligation to determine or give reasons on that abandoned validity issue. In any event, DCP 122 was only one consideration under s 79C, the Commissioner's primary reasons did not depend on it, and any alleged error would not have materially affected the decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2002
Procedural Posture
S 56 a Appeal Under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Appeal From Commissioner Brown's Decision Refusing Consent to DA E57/2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, subject to a seven day stay of the costs order.
Legal Topics
['development Control Plan Weight' 'alleged Flaws in Plan Making Process' 'failure to Consider Submissions' 'duty to Determine Matters in Controversy' 'duty to Give Reasons' 'materiality of Error on Appeal']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Control Plan Weight' 'alleged Flaws in Plan Making Process' 'failure to Consider Submissions' 'duty to Determine Matters in Controversy' 'duty to Give Reasons' 'materiality of Error on Appeal']

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

S 56 a Appeal Under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Appeal From Commissioner Brown's Decision Refusing Consent to DA E57/2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner erred in law by failing to take into account submissions that the statutory steps taken in making DCP 122 were flawed and that the plan should be given no weight.' 'Whether the Commissioner erred in law by failing to determine all matters in controversy between the parties.' 'Whether the Commissioner erred in law by failing to give reasons on the issues raised about DCP 122.' "Whether any alleged error materially affected the Commissioner's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the alleged flaws in making DCP 122 were matters going to validity, a ground expressly abandoned by the Applicant, and were not analogous to cases about inconsistency between planning instruments. The Commissioner therefore had no obligation to determine or give reasons on that abandoned validity issue. In any event, DCP 122 was only one consideration under s 79C, the Commissioner's primary reasons did not depend on it, and any alleged error would not have materially affected the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, subject to a seven day stay of the costs order.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's s 56A appeal is dismissed." "The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs." 'Order 2 is stayed for seven (7) days and the parties are granted leave to approach the Court within that seven (7) days if they wish to apply to vary Order 2.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']