Prestige Building Services v Coffs Harbour City Council and ors

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2005-12-13|Before: Mr P, Mr J

The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs for the amended plans served on 8 December 2004. The costs are those incurred by the First Respondent for Mr O'Connor's assessment and further report on the amended plans and any associated legal costs, but not administration costs. 2. Each party pay its own costs for the Notice of Motion of 6 December 2004. 3. The First Respondent pay the Applicant's costs for the Notice of Motion of 27 April 2005, being the sum of $4,744.00.

      Annelise Tuor
      Commissioner of the Court

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

CITATION : Prestige Building Services v Coffs Harbour City Council and ors [2005] NSWLEC 707

Prestige Building Services Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council NSWLEC 435; Stockland Development Pty Limited v Manly Council (2004) NSWLEC 472; CASES CITED: Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2005] NSWLEC 338 ; Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373

Findings - Class 1 Appeal 21 On the first matter, the role of a DCP is set out in some detail by McClellan CJ in Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472. The emphasis to be given to a DCP is addressed in Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373. Spigelman CJ, at par 75, raises three important propositions. First, and although the Court has a wide-ranging discretion, the discretion is not unfettered. Secondly the provisions of a DCP are to be considered as a fundamental element in, or a focal point to, the decision-making process particularly, if there are no issues relating to compliance with a local environmental plan. Thirdly, a provision of the DCP directly pertinent to the application is entitled to significant weight in the decision-making process but it is not in itself determinative.

(2001) 115 LGERA 373

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (1)