The 'capital investment value' of a development for the purpose of determining whether a Joint Regional Planning Panel has jurisdiction under cl 13B(1)(a) of SEPP (Major Development) 2005 is to be assessed by reference to the development described in the development application. Where the development is for the erection of a building designed for bulky goods retailing but specific tenancy uses are to be the subject of separate development applications, tenancy fit-out costs are not 'costs necessary to establish and operate the development' — the building 'operates' when it is available for occupation by tenants. Costs incurred under a prior development consent (such as a partially constructed slab) may be included where there is an intimate factual connection with the proposed development, but this is a question of fact and degree, and remoteness in time may exclude such costs. The costs referred to in the definition are not confined to costs of a capital nature.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.