The Court held that the definition of 'amend' in s 1.4(1) of the EPA Act — which includes 'alter, vary or substitute' — does not expand the power under s 38(1) of the EPA Regulation 2021 so as to permit an amendment to a development application that effects a change of use constituting a new application. The established line of authority (Waterland, Hanna, Village McEvoy, Reid) that a change of use renders a proposed amendment impermissible continues to apply notwithstanding the broader statutory definition. The Court also held that an applicant's decision to further amend a proposed DA in response to a Registrar's adverse ruling does not constitute a 'material change of circumstance' for the purposes of review under UCPR r 49.19.
The full text is available to signed-in members.