Universal 1919 Pty Ltd v 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 50

Universal 1919 Pty Ltd v 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 50

The statutory framework in Schedule 5 to the EPA Act exhaustively prescribes relevant procedural steps and only requires notice to the person to whom the DCO is addressed (the Owner). The subject works constituted development and alteration of a heritage item requiring approval not granted, and the DCO was validly issued. Notice was not required to be given to the principal certifier as their appointment did not cover unauthorised works.

Parties
Appellant: Universal 1919 Pty Ltd; First Respondent: 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: The Council of the City of Sydney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation, Development Consent, Heritage Approval
Administrative Law Environment and Planning Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation Development Consent Heritage Approval

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal 1919 Pty Ltd

Appellant

122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd

First Respondent

The Council of the City of Sydney

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by not notifying the appellant of the Development Control Order (DCO)
  2. 2 Whether carving into cement render of wall constitutes 'development' requiring consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the works were authorised by existing development or heritage consent

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory framework in Schedule 5 to the EPA Act exhaustively prescribes relevant procedural steps and only requires notice to the person to whom the DCO is addressed (the Owner). The subject works constituted development and alteration of a heritage item requiring approval not granted, and the DCO was validly issued. Notice was not required to be given to the principal certifier as their appointment did not cover unauthorised works.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.