INA Operations Pty Ltd v Mid-Coast Council

File Number(s): 2025/43389

Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: These Class 1 proceedings arise from a modification application, made by INA Operations Pty Ltd, directly to the Court pursuant to s 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The application requests to modify development consent DA2022/1248 which was approved by the Court on 21 November 2023, for the alterations and additions to an existing caravan park. The caravan park is known as Palms Oasis, and is located at 321 Boomerang Drive, Blueys Beach, Lot 1 DP 862876 and 3801 The Lakes Way, Boomerang Beach, being part of Lot 83 DP 753168.

2. The application proposes to amend the sequencing of the delivery of the proposed development and various associated facilities and services required by the consent.

3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 29 April 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference, at which the parties reached agreement as to acceptable terms of a decision in the proceedings. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and modifying the consent in accordance with the modification application.

4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if that decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.56 of the EPA Act to modify the development consent that was originally granted consent by the Court.

5. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, which the parties identified and explained in the conciliation conference. From this I note the following points:

6. Pursuant to s 4.56(1)(a) of the EPA Act, I must be satisfied that the development to which the consent, as modified, relates is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted. In this regard I note that the proposed modifications would not substantively alter the content of the proposed development, but will alter the sequencing by which it is to be delivered. Fundamentally, what will be constructed remains unchanged. From this I am satisfied that the development, as modified, will be substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

7. In accordance with the requirements of s 4.56(1)(b), (c) and (d), the modification application was notified from 25 November 2024 to 1 February 2025. Forty-four submissions of objection were received, and no submissions were made at the commencement of this conciliation. The parties submit, and I accept that issues raised in these submissions have been adequately considered in the assessment of this application.

8. The proposed development is integrated development pursuant to s 4.46 of the EPA Act, as it requires approvals under the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. These approvals have been given and general terms of approval (GTAs) issued, which are incorporated into the conditions of consent. The parties submit, and I accept, that the proposed modification does not alter any part of the development that formed the subject of these approvals, and that further notification is not required pursuant to s 4.56 of the EPA Act. The GTAs remain unchanged in the conditions of consent as modified.

9. Having regard to the Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLLEP), the parties submit, and I accept that the proposed modification does not impact the compliance of the development with the relevant sections of the GLLEP.

10. Finally, based on the information contained in the supporting letter prepared by Focus Town Planning dated 1 November 2024 and the parties’ joint submission on jurisdictional prerequisites, I am satisfied that all matters referred to in the EPA Act s 4.15(1), as relevant to the development the subject of this application have been considered, as required by EPA Act s 4.55(2). For these reasons, I further accept that the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of original consent have been considered and that all jurisdictional prerequisites have been met.

11. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and subsequently, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

12. The Court orders:

13. Approval is granted to Modification Application No. MOD2024/0271.

14. Development Consent No. DA2022/1248 is modified in the terms set out at Annexure ‘A’.

15. Development Consent No. DA2022/1248, as modified, is at Annexure ‘B’.

E Washington

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (223 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (515 KB, pdf)

**********