JUDICIAL REVIEW — Commissioner of Court grants development consent in Class 1 merits appeal against refusal of development application (DA) for residential development — objector invokes supervisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court and claims prerogative relief in Supreme Court to quash Commissioner's decision as invalid — Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) transfers proceedings to this Court, which then has Supreme Court's jurisdiction — objector who attended and gave evidence at the Class 1 hearing alleges that conditions proposed at the hearing and later adopted by Commissioner constituted significant amendment to DA and therefore, as required by development control plan (DCP), the hearing should have been adjourned in order to notify him of them by letter containing prescribed information and giving him 14 days to make submissions — or alternatively objector alleges conditions contravened Mison principle that if a condition significantly alters the development the subject of the DA the consent is not to the DA — whether conditions constituted significant amendment to DA or significant alteration to development such as to breach cl 10.1 DCP or Mison principle — whether Commissioner had power to impose the conditions.
Case Details
Citation[2012] NSWLEC 218
CourtNSWLEC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
