//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] NSWLEC 28
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2001-05-04
Pearlman J, Mr P, Mr J
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons I have set out, I decline to limit the scope of the appeal in the manner sought by the council in its notice of motion. Accordingly, my formal orders are:
(1) The notice of motion filed 3 November 2000 is dismissed. (2) The exhibits may be returned.
I stand the proceedings over to a callover before the Registrar on 15 May 2001 so that appropriate directions for an issues conference can be made.
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.
Wilson on behalf of Gurrungar Environment Group
Bourke Shire Council and Ors
CITATION : Wilson on behalf of Gurrungar Environment Group v Bourke Shire Council and Ors [2001] NSWLEC 28 APPLICANT Wilson on behalf of Gurrungar Environment Group PARTIES : RESPONDENTS Bourke Shire Council and Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : 10312 of 2000 CORAM: Pearlman J KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- designated development - objector appeal - scope of appeal - s 90(1) considerations - relevance LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 4(1), s 87(1), s 90(1), s 98(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 sch 3 CASES CITED: Penrith City Council v Waste Management Authority and Anor (1990) 71 LGRA 376; Shoalhaven City Council v Lovell (1996) 136 FLR 58 DATES OF HEARING: 08/02/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2001
(1996) 136 FLR 58