A development consent applicant who erects a building pursuant to consent may still appeal against a condition of that consent as a person 'dissatisfied' under s 97 of the EP&A Act, provided the condition has not been complied with. The doctrines of election, waiver and estoppel do not preclude such an appeal where there is no inconsistency between acting on the consent and objecting to the condition. A condition of an earlier consent does not create an absolute bar to a subsequent application for consent to a different use of the same land. The 40-hectare minimum area requirement in cl 13(4) of the Wingecarribee LEP 1989 is a development standard, not a prohibition.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.