G & G Corp Asset Management Pty Ltd and Presiding Member of the Metropolitan East Joint Development Assessment Panel

The parties involved in this case are G & G Corp Asset Management Pty Ltd and the Presiding Member of the Metropolitan East Joint Development Assessment Panel. The dispute pertains to a development application concerning the filling and rehabilitation of a former sand quarry. The application also includes the crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste materials. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether any part of the proposed development could be classified as 'Industry-General' or 'Industry-Light', which are prohibited land use classes under the zoning of the site. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the whole of the proposed development should be classified as a 'use not listed'. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste materials constituted 'the processing of goods' and whether this activity was a component, element, incidental, ancillary, or subservient to the filling and rehabilitation use. Another issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to impose a condition that would transform a proposed land use, which was prohibited, into an incidental activity that did not require development approval.

The court examined the definitions of 'goods' and 'processing' to ascertain if the crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste materials fell under these terms. It also considered whether the proposed development activities were integral to the filling and rehabilitation use. The court concluded that the proposed development was not properly classified as 'Industry-General' or 'Industry-Light' and that the whole development should be classified as a 'use not listed'. Additionally, the court determined that the crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste materials did not involve the processing of goods and was not incidental, ancillary, or subservient to the filling and rehabilitation use. Lastly, the court held that the Tribunal did not have the authority to impose a condition that would change a prohibited land use into an incidental activity.

The court's final orders were that the development application should be assessed based on the classification of the proposed use as a 'use not listed', and the Tribunal was not permitted to impose conditions that would alter the classification of the land use from a prohibited use to an incidental activity.