Where a planning scheme conditions the exercise of a power on the decision-maker's satisfaction that development is consistent with a Guidance Statement, the decision-maker must be satisfied as to both the stated objective and the specified means of achieving it; consistency cannot be established by proposing alternative means to achieve the same objective. Where no reasons are given and the result is unreasonable, jurisdictional error may be inferred even if the particular error cannot be identified.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.