Davis v Gosford City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Gosford City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1329
Hearing dates:29-30 October 2012
Decision date: 21 November 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C and Fakes C
Decision:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Development Application No. 40918/2011 for a waste resource recovery facility at 168 Somersby Falls Road, Somersby is refused.

3. The exhibits are returned.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: waste resource recovery facility - abuse of process - unacceptable impact on threatened flora and fauna
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Gosford Local Environmental Plan 22
Gosford Local Environmental Plan 457
Cases Cited: Davis v Gosford City Council [2007] NSWLEC 795
Davis v Gosford City Council [2012] NSWLEC 62
Russo v Kogarah Municipal Council (1999) 105 LGERA 290
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Davis and Suzanne Davis (Applicants)
Gosford City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
Mr A Pickles, barrister (Applicants)
Mr M Fraser, barrister (Respondent)
Solicitors
Michael Flaherty (Applicants)
PJ Donnellan & Co (Respondent)
File Number(s):11217 of 2011

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONERS: This appeal, made under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) is against Gosford City Council's deemed refusal of Development Application No. 40918/2011 for a waste resource recovery facility at 168 Somersby Falls Road, Somersby (the site). The site is within the Somersby Industrial Park (SIP).

  1. The facility will recycle construction and demolition waste for use in the construction and building industry. Materials to be processed include up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of brick, sandstone, soil, asphalt, timber, metal and other materials. The development includes:

  • installation of a crusher, screen and associated grates and sumps;
  • storage areas for processed and waste materials;
  • an access road from Somersby Falls Road;
  • parking areas, weighbridge, on-site refuelling facilities;
  • a 6m high acoustic wall, dust suppression measures, and stormwater drainage systems;
  • three transportable buildings for office and staff amenities;
  • landscaping around the perimeter; and
  • six permanent staff.

The contentions

  1. The council raises the following contentions in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions that warrant the refusal of the application:

(1)   abuse of process as the development application is almost identical to and materially the same as the appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court in 2007 (Contention 1).

(2)   unacceptable impact on threatened fauna, specifically the Eastern Pygmy Possum (Contentions 2 and 4).

(3)   unacceptable impact on threatened fauna, specifically the Hibbertia procumbens. The council modified its position on the incursion into the Hibbertia procumbens management zone by accepting that the proposed incursion would be acceptable if the applicant provided a suitable offset area. The applicant advised that no offset was required and none was offered (Contentions 2 and 3).

  1. The council did not press contentions relating to the proposal being prohibited use Draft Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Contention 5), water management (Contention 6), waste management (Contention 7) and air quality (Contention 8).

Additional contentions raised by objectors on the site inspection and during the advertising…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davis v Gosford City Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 1329
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the appellant, Davis, sought to overturn a decision of the Gosford City Council to refuse a development application for a waste resource recovery facility. The appellant argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the facility would provide significant economic and environmental benefits to the community. The council maintained that the facility would have detrimental impacts on the local environment, including air and noise pollution, and that the proposal did not align with the local planning policies.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The court needed to determine whether the council's assessment of the potential environmental impacts and its alignment with local planning policies was reasonable and based on proper consideration of the evidence. A secondary issue was whether the appellant had demonstrated that the facility would provide significant economic and environmental benefits to the community.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The court held that the council had properly considered the evidence and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court found that the facility would have significant detrimental impacts on the local environment, including air and noise pollution, and that the proposal did not align with the local planning policies. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the facility would provide significant economic and environmental benefits to the community. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The exhibits were returned to the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Development Application No. 40918/2011 for a waste resource recovery facility at 168 Somersby Falls Road, Somersby is refused.

3. The exhibits are returned.

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.