Davis v Gosford City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Gosford City Council [2012] NSWLEC 62
Hearing dates:08/03/2012; 09/03/2012
Decision date: 27 March 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Lloyd AJ
Decision:

1. A declaration that the development application lodged by the applicants with the respondent on 26 July 2011 and numbered by the respondent 40918/2011 was not required to be accompanied by a species impact statement prepared in accordance with Division 2 of Part 6 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW).

2. A declaration that the development application was made on 26 July 2011.

3. A declaration that the decision of the respondent to reject the development application under cl 51(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) made on 28 July 2011 was null, void and of no effect.

4. A declaration that the decision of the respondent to adhere to its decision of 28 July 2011 made on 5 September 2011 - the s 82B review - was null, void and of no effect.

5. An order that the decision of the respondent made on 28 July 2011 be set aside.

6. An order that the decision of the respondent made on 5 September 2011 be set aside.

7. An order that the respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - whether to be accompanied by a species impact statement
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, ss 5A, 78A(8)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 51(2)(b)
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Div 2, Pt 6
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 42.1
Cases Cited: Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 102 LGERA 52
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Davis (First Applicant)
Suzanne Davis (Second Applicant)
Gosford City Council (Respondent)
Representation: AM Pickles (Applicants)
MC Fraser (Respondent)
Michael Flaherty (Applicants)
PJ Donnellan & Co (Respondent)
File Number(s):40820 of 2011

Judgment

  1. The applicants are the owners of land known as 168 Somersby Falls Road, Somersby, which is within an area known as Somersby Industrial Park. On 26 July 2011 they lodged a development application with Gosford City Council for "an integrated resource recovery facility" on the land. The proposed development is Designated Development and was accompanied by an environmental impact statement which included a Flora and Fauna Assessment Report. That report concluded that the development was on land that is not, nor is it part of, critical habitat, nor was it likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

  1. Nevertheless, on 28 July 2011 the Council rejected the development application as being invalid on the ground that a species impact statement was required: s 78A (8)(b) Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979; cl 51(2)(b) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

  1. The applicants' subsequent request for a review of the Council's decision was again rejected and the decision was confirmed.

  1. The applicants now come to the…

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 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davis brought proceedings against Gosford City Council regarding a development application he submitted, which the Council rejected. The applicant argued that the rejection was unlawful due to the absence of a species impact statement and the application's date. The Council maintained that the rejection was lawful, and the subsequent review upheld the initial decision. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's development application needed a species impact statement, the exact date of the application, and the validity of the Council's decisions to reject the application and uphold the rejection upon review.

The court first addressed the requirement for a species impact statement, concluding that the particular development did not necessitate one under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW). The court then confirmed the date of the application as 26 July 2011. Regarding the rejection, the court found that the Council's decision was flawed due to procedural errors, making the rejection null and void. Similarly, the review decision was also deemed null and void because it relied on the flawed initial rejection. The court set aside both decisions and ordered the Council to pay the applicant's costs.

The court's judgment resulted in several declarations and orders. The court declared that the development application did not require a species impact statement, affirmed the application date, and declared both the initial rejection and the review decision null and void. Additionally, the court set aside the two decisions and ordered the Council to pay the applicant's costs. This outcome provides clarity on the procedural requirements for development applications and the consequences of non-compliance by local councils.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A declaration that the development application lodged by the applicants with the respondent on 26 July 2011 and numbered by the respondent 40918/2011 was not required to be accompanied by a species impact statement prepared in accordance with Division 2 of Part 6 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW).

2. A declaration that the development application was made on 26 July 2011.

3. A declaration that the decision of the respondent to reject the development application under cl 51(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) made on 28 July 2011 was null, void and of no effect.

4. A declaration that the decision of the respondent to adhere to its decision of 28 July 2011 made on 5 September 2011 - the s 82B review - was null, void and of no effect.

5. An order that the decision of the respondent made on 28 July 2011 be set aside.

6. An order that the decision of the respondent made on 5 September 2011 be set aside.

7. An order that the respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings.

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.