Zammit v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 232

Zammit v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 232

Adopting the joint expert report of Mr Smythe and Ms Tucker, the Court was satisfied that there was no factual basis under the relevant provision of the Regulation requiring the matters in the present application to be treated as designated development; consequently no updating of the existing environmental impact statement was required and the requested declaration was rendered unnecessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Declaration That Amended Development Application Works Were Not Designated Development; Related Appeal Proceedings / Preliminary Determination of Matter of Fact and Consent Directions
Outcome
Preliminary factual issue determined in the applicants' favour; the Notice of Motion in Matter 10039 of 2001 was stood over; Matter 10040 of 2001 was dismissed by consent as otiose.
Legal Topics
['designated Development' 'development Application' 'development Consent' 'environmental Impact Statement' 'piggery Alterations or Additions']
['environmental Law' 'planning and Development'] ['designated Development' 'development Application' 'development Consent' 'environmental Impact Statement' 'piggery Alterations or Additions']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Declaration That Amended Development Application Works Were Not Designated Development; Related Appeal Proceedings / Preliminary Determination of Matter of Fact and Consent Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether changes over time to the piggery works or operations required the amended development application to be treated as designated development.' 'Whether the alterations or additions significantly increased the environmental impacts of the total development compared with the existing approved development.' 'Whether an updated environmental impact statement was required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Adopting the joint expert report of Mr Smythe and Ms Tucker, the Court was satisfied that there was no factual basis under the relevant provision of the Regulation requiring the matters in the present application to be treated as designated development; consequently no updating of the existing environmental impact statement was required and the requested declaration was rendered unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Preliminary factual issue determined in the applicants' favour; the Notice of Motion in Matter 10039 of 2001 was stood over; Matter 10040 of 2001 was dismissed by consent as otiose.

Orders

  • ['By 30 April, the respondent is to file and serve a list prepared by Mr Smythe of those works or practices he recommends.' 'By 1 September, the applicant is to file and serve a response by Ms Tucker to the matters raised by Mr Smythe.' "By 1 November, the respondent is to file and serve Mr Smythe's answer to Ms...