Jambrecina v Blacktown City Council

The appeal concerned a declaration made by the Land and Environment Court that the appellant had carried out development without consent, in contravention of section 76A(1) of the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979* (NSW). The development in question involved the placement of sheds on the appellant's property. Subsequently, consent for the development was granted. The primary dispute revolved around whether the appeal against the declaration remained "of utility" given the subsequent consent, and whether the sheds themselves fell within the definitions of "building", "manufactured home", "moveable dwelling", or "associated structure" under the relevant planning instruments.

The court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the appeal against the declaration of a planning contravention retained any practical utility or purpose once development consent had been retrospectively granted. Secondly, the court had to consider the proper characterisation of the structures erected by the appellant, specifically whether they constituted a "building" or fell within the exclusionary definitions of "manufactured home", "moveable dwelling", or "associated structure" as defined in the relevant environmental planning instruments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the appeal against the declaration of contravention retained utility because the declaration itself had legal consequences, including potential penalties and the impact on the appellant's record. Furthermore, the court found that the structures erected by the appellant did not fall within the definitions of "manufactured home", "moveable dwelling", or "associated structure". Instead, they were properly characterised as "buildings" for the purposes of the Act, and their erection without consent constituted a contravention of section 76A(1). The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.