City of Enfield v Development Comm

The City of Enfield (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the validity of a development approval granted by the respondent, the Development Comm. The dispute centred on whether the Development Comm had properly exercised its discretion in approving a development application for a shopping centre, notwithstanding that the proposed development did not comply with certain provisions of the relevant planning legislation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Development Comm had acted unlawfully in approving the development application. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Development Comm had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the non-compliance with the planning controls, or had taken into account an irrelevant consideration. The central question was whether the Development Comm's power to grant development approval included a discretion to approve a development that did not conform to the prescribed planning controls.

The Court held that the Development Comm did not possess a discretion to approve a development that contravened the express provisions of the planning scheme. The legislation conferred a power to grant approval, but this power was to be exercised in accordance with the scheme. The Development Comm was bound by the planning controls and could not lawfully approve a development that failed to meet those requirements, unless the legislation expressly provided for such a discretion. The Court found that the Development Comm had erred in law by purporting to exercise a discretion that it did not possess, and that the approval was therefore invalid. The appeal was allowed.