When assessing whether a proposed modification is 'substantially the same development' under s 102(1)(a), the comparison is with the consent as currently modified, not the original consent. Section 102(3A) requires the consent authority to consider s 90 matters relevant to the totality of the development as modified (majority view), though Stein JA would confine the assessment to the impact of the modification on the approved development. A modification may be approved notwithstanding breach of a development standard, and SEPP 1 does not apply to s 102 applications.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 141 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 141 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.