Zweck v Town of Gawler

(2015) 124 SASR 319; [2015] SASCFC 172

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Land management agreements
4. › Validity of agreement provisions
5. › Whether clause precluding land division relates to 'development, management, preservation or conservation of land'
6. › Whether clause precluding development applications relates to development of land
7. › Development Act 1993 (SA), ss 57(2), 57(12)
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Development applications
4. › Hypothetical development
5. › Whether development application precluded by land management agreement is hypothetical
6. › Whether Development Assessment Panel entitled to decline to consider application
7. › Development Act 1993 (SA), ss 57, 86
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Appeals to Environment Court
4. › Jurisdiction
5. › Whether Environment Court has power to determine validity of land management agreement on appeal under s 86(1)(a)
6. › Whether Environment Court exercises judicial power on planning appeals
7. › Development Act 1993 (SA), ss 86(1)(a), 88(2)
8. › Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 (SA), ss 4, 5, 7
1. Administrative Law
2. › Collateral challenge
3. › Whether challenge to validity of land management agreement constitutes collateral challenge to administrative act
4. › Whether court exercising judicial power may determine validity of agreement as incidental question

Quick Take

A land management agreement under s 57 of the Development Act 1993 (SA) may validly preclude a particular form of development, but cannot validly preclude the making of an application for development authorisation. The existence of such an agreement precluding development is a mandatory consideration under s 57(12) but is not an absolute barrier to the grant of development authorisation. The Environment Court has power and an obligation to determine the validity of a land management agreement when that question arises on a s 86(1)(a) appeal. The juridical foundation of the hypotheticality principle in planning appeals was left open.