Healy Capital Pty Ltd ATF Healy Family Super Fund v The Council of the City of Sydney

[2026] NSWLEC 84

NSW Land and Environment Court

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. APPEAL — appeal against Commissioner’s decision on question of law — refusal of development consent for digital sign — amendment of development application — substitution of new visual impact assessment report for former visual impact assessment report — Commissioner’s consideration of superseded report not new report — failure to consider and determine amended development application — provisions of environmental planning instrument and development control plan regulating permissibility and location of digital sign — whether inconsistency or incompatibility — no misinterpretation or misapplication of development control plan provision

Quick Take

The Court held that where a development application is amended by leave to substitute a new visual impact assessment report for a superseded one, the consent authority must consider and determine the amended application including the new report; failure to do so constitutes an error of law under ss 4.15(1) and 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. On the DCP issues, the Court held that s 3.16.12.14(2) of SCDCP (restricting signage above awning level) was not inconsistent or incompatible with s 3.20(2)(d) of IESEPP (permitting wall advertisements below parapet/eaves) because both are locational controls operating in different spheres rather than conflicting permissibility provisions, and that s 3.16.12.14(3) is a permissibility confirmation rather than an exception to subsection (2). The Court declined an exclusionary remitter because the Commissioner's factual findings related only to the jurisdictional precondition based on the superseded report, not to the merits.