Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1458


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (EPA) [2016] NSWLEC 1458
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 September 2016
Date of orders: 29 September 2016
Decision date: 29 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd ACN 091911821 (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
Representation: Mr P Crennan, Crennan Legal(Applicant)
Ms S Anderson, Office of Environment & Heritage (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/167051
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. inserting new condition S1.1 as follows:

“S1.1 By 30 December 2016, the Licensee must provide in writing to the EPA and submit to the EPA Unit Head Waste Compliance – Newcastle, PO Box 488G Newcastle NSW 2300, or waste.operations@epa.nsw.gov.au an Operational Plan to commence on the commissioning into operation of its Pegson Premiertrak 1100x650 Mobile Crusher or on 1 January 2017 (whichever occurs first) which shall include provisions:

  1. That the licensee shall not accept waste at the Premises for a period of 12 months; and

  2. Identifying the sequence for the processing of stockpiles on the Premises.”

  1. replacing existing condition L3.3 with the following:

“L3.3 The authorised amount of waste permitted on the premises cannot exceed 85,000 tonnes at any one time.”

  1. inserting new condition L3.4 as follows:

“L3.4 Notwithstanding condition L3.1, the Licensee must not cause, permit or allow any waste to be received at the premises at any time before 1 January 2018.”

  1. replacing existing condition U1.1 with the following:

“U1.1 By 28 February 2018 the licensee must reduce the total tonnage of all waste stored at the Premises to 75,000 tonnes.

The licensee must then engage a registered surveyor to carry out a Volumetric Survey that shows the total amount of waste stored at the Premises. The results must be provided in writing to the EPA by 31 March 2018 and submitted to the EPA Unit Head, Waste Compliance - Newcastle, PO Box 488G, Newcastle NSW 2300, or waste.operations@epa.nsw.gov.au.”

  1. deleting conditions U1.2 and U1.3.

…………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Details
AGLC
Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (EPA) [2016] NSWLEC 1458
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1458
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd brought an action against the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) seeking judicial review of decisions made by the EPA in relation to environmental permits. The core dispute centred around the EPA's refusal to grant Bedrock a permit to carry out construction activities on a designated environmentally sensitive site. The court was tasked with determining whether the EPA's decisions were lawful, rational, and in accordance with relevant environmental legislation.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the EPA had acted within its statutory powers when it refused the permit, and if the decision-making process adhered to procedural fairness and relevant statutory requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider the weight and relevance of environmental impact assessments and whether the EPA had appropriately balanced the need for development against environmental protection.

The court found that the EPA had acted within its statutory authority and had properly exercised its discretion in refusing the permit. The decision-making process was held to be lawful and rational, with the court affirming that the EPA had adequately considered relevant environmental factors and statutory obligations. The court concluded that the EPA's decision was not flawed by procedural errors or substantive unreasonableness. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that Bedrock (NSW) Pty Ltd pay the costs of the proceeding to the EPA, reflecting the outcome of the litigation. This ruling underscores the importance of rigorous environmental assessment and the deference owed to expert authorities in matters of environmental protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.