NEWS
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that old development consents are read according to their terms and approved plans, finding that a Picton landowner had used his property well beyond what three consents allowed.
The Court also set aside injunctions that were drafted too broadly. We explain both lessons for landowners and councils.
A homeowner's modification application included some changes the Commissioner found acceptable and others the council did not even oppose, but the whole application was refused. The Court of Appeal held that there was no duty to approve it in part.
We look at why bundling changes into one modification application can be risky, and how to manage that risk.
A neighbour tried to stop a new two-storey house that would overshadow her courtyard, first by challenging the development consent and then by seeking a court-ordered easement to protect her sunlight. The Court of Appeal rejected both.
We explain the lessons for neighbours considering a challenge, including why asking the council for its reasons early matters.
Most Class 1 appeals settle through a s 34 conciliation agreement. In this decision, the Court of Appeal rejected a neighbour's challenge to a consent granted that way, confirming that a Commissioner can generally rely on the material the parties provide, including a jurisdictional note.
We explain what the decision means for applicants, councils and objectors.
A strata owners corporation refused to sign a neighbour's development application as landowner. The Court of Appeal upheld an order requiring it to consent, finding the refusal was an unreasonable interference with the neighbour's right of way.
We explain when an owner can be compelled to consent to a development application.
In November 2017, we reported on the decision in Louisiana Properties Pty Ltd v Hakea Holdings Pty Ltd; Hakea Holdings Pty Ltd v Louisiana Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 147 (Louisiana Properties).
In that case, the NSW Land and Environment Court held that a private road forming part of the subject matter of those proceedings was a ‘building’ for the purposes of the environment.
On 24 October 2018, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned this finding. Its reasons for so doing are briefly summarised in this case note.
On 9 October 2017, the NSW Minister for Energy and Utilities announced that legislation would be introduced to overturn the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in 4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 191.
The special procedures concerning staged development applications in the EP&A Act have been amended in response to the Court of Appeal's decision in the Bay Simmer case.
4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 191
The Court of Appeal has upheld 4Nature's appeal from a decision of the Land and Environment Court to dismiss its challenge to the SSD consent granted for the continued operation of the Centennial Springvale mine.
The case turned upon the correct interpretation of the requirement, contained in Clause 10 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011, that the consent authority be satisfied that the development would have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.
