Australia: Manning v Bathurst Regional Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 186: A consideration of Wednesbury unreasonableness in the context of notification requirements

Following the High Court's consideration of Wednesbury unreasonableness earlier this year (see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18), the Land and Environment Court (Court) has been asked to consider whether the decision by a consent authority not to notify an adjoining land owner of two development applications was 'manifestly unreasonable'.


Two development applications (DAs) were lodged with Bathurst Regional Council (Council) for the construction of a swimming pool, retaining wall and pool safety wall (Development). The first DA concerned the construction of the swimming pool itself, a safety fence and a retaining wall (First DA). The second DA concerned a pool fence, pool filter cover and privacy screen (Second DA).

The plans and other documents forming the DAs were not sophisticated – involving drawings completed by hand – and were lodged by a pool construction company on behalf of the owner of land (Owner).


The Bathurst Regional (Interim) Development Control Plan 2011 (Bathurst DCP) was the applicable DCP at the time the DAs were lodged. The Bathurst DCP set out the notification requirements for development applications and, relevantly, provided:

2.3.1 What is notified development?

The factors that Council will take into consideration in determining whether a development application will be notified and to whom are as follows:

  1. the views to and the views from surrounding land,
  2. potential overshadowing of surrounding land,
  3. privacy of surrounding land,
  4. potential noise transmission to the surrounding land,
  5. the likely visual impact of the proposed building in relation to the streetscape, and
  6. any other issues considered by Council to be relevant to the application.

[DCP Criteria]

2.3.2 Who will be notified?

Generally written notice of a notified Development Application will be given to the owners of land directly adjoining the land on which the development is intended to occur. For the purposes of determining which properties are adjoining, Council will generally exclude properties which are separated by a road, pathway or other significant feature. Further larger properties or adjoining properties unlikely to be affected by the proposed development may also not be notified.

Council's development assessment officer (First Officer) formed the opinion that the development the subject of the First DA would not have an "adverse impact" on the Applicant's land, which adjoined the land the subject of the First DA.

A second Council development assessment officer (Second Officer) formed the opinion that the development the subject of the Second DA "would not have a detrimental effect in relation to the [DCP Criteria]".

As a consequence, the Applicant was not notified of either of the DAs.

The Development was permissible with consent under the applicable environmental planning instrument and, despite the arguably ambiguous nature of the content of the DAs, Council granted development consent for both DAs.

The Applicant's response

The Applicant claimed that, had she been notified, she would have made objections to both DAs. As a consequence, she brought proceedings in the Court claiming:

  1. that the Council breached section 79A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by failing to notify the Applicant of the DAs;
  2. the Council applied an incorrect test in determining not to notify the Applicant of the DAs;
  3. the Applicant was denied procedural fairness in not being notified of the DAs;
  4. the Council failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration in granting development consent to the DAs, namely whether the Applicant should have been notified;
  5. that the decision not to notify the Applicant of the DAs was manifestly unreasonable; and
  6. the development consents for the DAs were void for uncertainty.


Under cross-examination the First Officer conceded, amongst other things, in relation to the First DA that:

  • there were many different interpretations of the plans as to the heights of the retaining wall and the pool;
  • the height of the retaining wall was not stipulated in the consent; and
  • there was no limit on the height of the pool fence.

The Second Officer conceded, amongst other things, in relation to the Second DA that:

  • it was not possible to determine the height of the pool fence; and
  • it was not possible to determine where the pool fence or barrier was to be located.


The Applicant claimed that the determination by Council as to whether the development application was to be characterised as "notified development" under clause 2.3.1 of the Bathurst DCP was a question of jurisdictional fact for the Court to determine.

By reference to a long line of authorities, culminating in the decision of Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group Inc v Dart Energy Ltd (No 2) (see our In Brief on this case here), Pepper J held that the relevant clauses of the Bathurst DCP were not framed in terms of "facts" but concerned factors that the Council must consider in determining whether or not to notify the development.

As a consequence, whether a development application was to be notified, and if so, to whom, was a matter for the Council to determine and not the Court. It was not a jurisdictional fact.


Pepper J held that the failure to notify the Applicant of both the DAs was manifestly unreasonable. In respect of the First DA, Pepper J arrived at the conclusion based on:

  • the ambiguous nature of the hand drawn plans;
  • the height of the pool above ground level, the height of the retaining wall and the height of the brick pool wall; and
  • the material to be used in the construction of the pool wall.

In respect of the Second DA, Pepper J arrived at the conclusion based on the fact that:

  • the plans did not indicate the precise location of the brick pool fence;
  • the height of the pool deck; and
  • that as a result of an estimation by the second Council development assessment officer, the pool wall would not be sufficient to afford privacy.

On the whole, and in addition to the ambiguities surrounding the DAs, the impact of the Development on the Applicant's land was 'dramatic'.

As a result it was held that there was no basis, let alone any reasonable basis, to justify the decision not to notify the Applicant of either of the DAs and the failure to do so was manifestly unreasonable.


Pepper J referred to the seminal cases on the uncertainty of a development consent, being Mison v Randwick Minicipal Council (1991) NSWLR 734 and Kindimindi Investments Pty ltd v Lane Cove Council (2006) 143 LGERA 277, in determining that the First DA was void for uncertainty. Her Honour arrived at this conclusion on the fact that the hand drawn plans provided no cogent information to determine:

  • the location or finished height of the pool;
  • the height of the retaining wall;
  • the relationship between the pool and the retaining wall;
  • the materials to be used in construction;
  • the location of the pool filter, pump and pool equipment; or
  • the height of the safety fence.

Pepper J concluded that the plans not only tended towards uncertainty, they were apt to mislead.

However, although the Second DA was infected with some uncertainty, this uncertainty was not 'sufficient' to leave open the possibility that a significantly different development would result.


Section 79A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires notification of a development consent to be given in accordance with the provisions of the applicable DCP. Ordinarily, a breach by a consent authority would result in a declaration of invalidity of each of the development consents granted pursuant to an unlawfully notified development application.

However, section 25B of the LEC Act allows the Court to suspend the operation of a development consent and to specify terms which will provide validity to the consent.

In considering whether to apply section 25B of the LEC Act in this case, Pepper J applied the reasoning of Preston J in Simpson v Wakool Shire Council (2012) 190 LGERA 143. In particular, her Honour drew upon Preston J's comments that:

"... Public participation in the development process is crucial to the integrity of the planning system ... It is not to be viewed as a technical and tokenistic speed hump designed to slow but not divert or prevent the inexorable passage of a development application along the highway to approval."

Her Honour held that the failure to notify the Applicant of the DAs was sufficiently grave and, accordingly, did not warrant the making of an order under section 25B of the LEC Act.


Despite the 'grave' nature of Council's transgression in relation to the notification requirements, it was held that the demolition of the First DA development (i.e. the swimming pool) could not be justified for the following reasons:

  • at all times the Owner believed they had the benefit of a valid development consent;
  • the demolition of the entire pool structure would cause significant financial and emotional hardship to the Owner; and
  • the impact of the Council's failure to notify was not insignificant, but it was limited to a single adjoining property owner.

In relation to the Second DA, her Honour found that although many of the factors discussed above were directly relevant and equally applicable, it was less likely that the hardship occasioned to the Owner in respect of the demolition of the Second DA development would outweigh the Applicant's detriment by reason of its continuance.

Accordingly, although both development consents were held to be invalid by reason of Council's failure to notify, and the development consent granted to the First DA was void for uncertainty, the Owner was not required to demolish the swimming pool.


Although constituting a rare example of a finding of manifest unreasonableness in administrative decision making, one must wonder at the utility of the legal proceedings in this case.

The First DA, for the swimming pool, is now invalid; but the use of the swimming pool may continue in the absence of further action by Council, which, in the circumstances, appears unlikely to happen. As would it appear unlikely that a Court would order demolition if subsequent proceedings were brought under section 123 of the EPA Act.

Although an order was made for the demolition of the development the subject of the Second DA (i.e. the fencing), the outcome of the proceedings appears to be largely a Pyrrhic victory for the Applicant.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.