(1) Declares that development consent granted by Yass Valley Council in respect of Development Application 190020 for development at 354 Majura Lane, Sutton (‘Purported Consent for DA 190020’) is invalid and of no effect.
(2) Sets aside the Purported Consent for DA 190020.
(3) Lists the proceedings at 9.30am on 20 July 2021 for directions concerning the question of costs of the proceedings (unless, in the interim, the parties reach agreement in relation to costs).
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Ground of review other than procedural fairness — Decision contrary to law — Statutory construction — Irrelevant and relevant considerations — Whether decision-maker formed the required states of satisfaction
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Procedural fairness — Consideration of objection to development application
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Elimatta Pty Ltd v Read
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Elimatta Pty Ltd v Read [2021] NSWLEC 75
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Elimatta Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Yass Valley Council, the respondent, which granted development consent for a project at 354 Majura Lane, Sutton. The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the application. The applicant contended that the consent was granted in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and thus, was invalid. The applicant sought a declaration to this effect, as well as an order setting aside the consent and directions concerning costs.
The central legal issue was whether the Yass Valley Council's consent was in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the applicant argued that the consent was granted without proper consideration of a relevant environmental impact statement and without adequate public notification, which are mandatory requirements under the Act. The court had to determine if these procedural errors rendered the consent invalid.
The Court held that the Yass Valley Council's consent was indeed invalid as it was granted in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The Court found that the Council did not properly consider the relevant environmental impact statement and did not provide adequate public notification, both of which are mandatory requirements under the Act. As such, the Court declared the consent invalid and set it aside. The Court also listed the proceedings for directions concerning the costs of the proceedings, unless the parties reached an agreement in the interim.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court:
(1) Declares that development consent granted by Yass Valley Council in respect of Development Application 190020 for development at 354 Majura Lane, Sutton (‘Purported Consent for DA 190020’) is invalid and of no effect.
(2) Sets aside the Purported Consent for DA 190020.
(3) Lists the proceedings at 9.30am on 20 July 2021 for directions concerning the question of costs of the proceedings (unless, in the interim, the parties reach agreement in relation to costs).