In Bunderra Holdings Pty Ltd v Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 263, a development consent required the construction of a pipe. However the approved construction certificate plans did not show that pipe. At first instance, Pasminco argued that s 80(12) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 provided that the absence of the pipe in the construction certificate meant that it was not part of the consent. However the Court held that Pasminco should ensure that the works were generally consistent with the consent.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision and stated that s 80(12) has the effect that where the specifications in the construction certificate are inconsistent with the specifications in the development consent, the construction certificate will override the development consent. Read full case

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: