The Court ordered an unconditional remitter (not limited to the swimming pool issue) following a finding of inadequate reasons on one ground, but held that the remitter must be determined in accordance with the s 56A appeal findings — meaning the appellants could not seek partial approval of their modification application or rely on s 22 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 in a manner contrary to the dismissed grounds. On costs, the Court apportioned costs so that the Council was required to pay only one-third of the appellants' costs, reflecting that the appellants succeeded on only one of three grounds and the unsuccessful grounds were discrete and occupied most of the hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.