The Court held that the removal of the motel use and building from a development originally approved for both hotel and motel purposes meant the modified development was not substantially the same as the originally approved development, defeating the jurisdictional prerequisite under s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act. The Court rejected arguments that the motel was merely ancillary to the hotel, finding no satisfactory evidence of subservience, and held that extrinsic materials such as the DA form and a Council memorandum predating consent were irrelevant to construing the original consent. On the merits (addressed in the alternative), the Court found the Plan of Management was inadequate to manage amenity impacts on surrounding residential properties during proposed extended trading hours.
The full text is available to signed-in members.