Godfrey v Wollondilly Shire Council

[2026] NSWCA 181

NSW Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — development consents to carry out different developments on rural land — construction of consents — nature and extent of developments approved — leave to adduce further evidence to construe a consent — carrying out of development in breach of consents — injunctions to restrain breach of consents — how conditions of consent may themselves be breached — whether terms of injunctions too broad and imprecise

Where a person carries out development exceeding what is authorised by a development consent, the contravention is of the statutory prohibition in s 4.2 of the EPA Act — not strictly a 'breach' of the consent itself — because the person's conduct falls outside the relaxation of the general prohibition constituted by the consent; whether breach of a consent condition is separately a 'breach of the Act' for civil enforcement purposes under the extended definition in s 9.44(b) was left open.
Injunctions granted under s 9.46 of the EPA Act must not merely reproduce the statutory prohibition with the added sanction of contempt; they must bear upon the case alleged and proved, clearly specify the conduct enjoined, and have a sufficient nexus between the contraventions found and the restraint imposed.
A development consent cannot authorise development wider than the application to which it relates; where plans submitted in response to a council's request for information depicted existing uses (such as an earthmoving business) to show their relationship to the proposed development, those annotations did not convert the application into one seeking consent for those existing uses.