Legal Research
Cases
Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd

Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2023] NSWLEC 50 10 May 2023

Standing

Adverse Possession

Legitimate Expectation

Planning & Development Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 50
Hearing dates: 6 March 2023
Date of orders: 10 May 2023
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Pepper J
Decision:
See orders at [147].

Catchwords:
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: carrying out development contrary to consent – unlawful transportation or depositing of waste – pleas of guilty – sentencing principles – extent of environmental harm – state of mind during the commission of the offences – whether state of mind of project manager could be attributed to company – totality principle applied – comparable cases – fine imposed – publication order made.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B, 257G
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A, 22
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 3, 4.2, 9.53
Fines Act 1996, ss 6, 122
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 3, 115, 143, 144, 144AA, 241, 250
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, s 3

Cases Cited:
Aland B & W Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 13
AxerPty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Bourke v R [2010] NSWCCA 22; (2010) 199 A Crim R 38
Burwood Council v Abdul Rahman [2021] NSWLEC 46
Burwood Council v Abdul-Rahman (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 177
Burwood Council v Doueihi [2013] NSWLEC 196; (2013) 200 LGERA 152
Burwood Council v Pratelli [2014] NSWLEC 28
CabonneShire Council v Environment Protection Authority [2001] NSWCCA 280; (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Carlino v Leichardt Municipal Council [2005] NSWLEC 198
Chahoud v Penrith City Council [2020] NSWLEC 167
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150
Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery [2012] NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114; (2019) 242 LGERA 241
Cowra Shire Council v Fuller [2015] NSWLEC 13
Croaker v R [2008] NSWCCA 232; (2008) 190 A Crim R 15
Cumberland Council v Habib [2017] NSWLEC 18
Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483
Environment Protection Authority v Alcobell; Campbell [2015] NSWLEC 123
Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136
Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 98
Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 289; (2006) 148 LGERA 278
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Environment Protection Authority v Causmag Ore Co Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 58
Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage) [2019]…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 50
Case: [2023] NSWLEC 50
Decision Date: 10 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between Georges River Council and SAF Developments Pty Ltd, concerning the approval of a development application for a residential project. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant, SAF Developments, sought approval for a development that included the construction of residential units, while the respondent, Georges River Council, objected to the application on various grounds, including environmental and planning considerations.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the development application complied with the applicable planning laws and environmental regulations. SAF Developments argued that the proposed development was in accordance with the Georges River Council Local Environmental Plan and did not require additional environmental assessments. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the development would cause significant environmental harm and that the application failed to meet the criteria for approval as outlined in the planning laws.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the development application did not adequately address several critical environmental concerns, including potential impacts on the local waterways and biodiversity. The court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the environment. Additionally, the court found that the application failed to comply with certain planning requirements, such as the need for a detailed environmental impact assessment. As a result, the court refused the development application.

The court ordered that the development application be dismissed and directed the applicant to address the identified issues and resubmit a revised application if desired. The detailed orders are outlined in the judgment at paragraph [147].

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [147].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 50

Most Recent Citation

Environment Protection Authority v Calleija; Environment Protection Authority v Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 119

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Environment Protection Authority v Cadia Holdings Pty Limited
[2025] NSWLEC 27 Para 213

…to whether a publication order should be made: 55. [2019] NSWLEC 178 at [84] (Duggan J); applied in Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 50 at [143] (Pepper J).…
Environment Protection Authority v Calleija; Environment Protection Authority v Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWLEC 119 Para 317

…That statement of principles by Duggan J was applied by Pepper J in Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [86] at [143]. 86. [2023] NSWLEC 50 at [143] (Pepper J).…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 50 of 80 shown

Grant Barnes, Chief Regulatory Officer, Natural Resources Access Regulator v Beltrame
[2023] NSWLEC 18 Para 111

…ings to have been commenced in this Court, a specialist court ( Grant Barnes, Chief Regulatory Officer, Natural Resources Access Regulator v Beltrame [2023] NSWLEC 18 at [144]).…
Aland B & W Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council
[2023] NSWLEC 13 Para 56

…, which is relevant to its assessment of the objective seriousness of the commission of the offences ( Aland B & W Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 13 at [87], Sydney Water Corporation at [158] to [159] and [167] and Barlow at [57]).…
Burwood Council v Abdul Rahman
[2021] NSWLEC 46 Para 6

…in Burwood Council v Abdul Rahman [2021] NSWLEC 46, where the defendant was charged with the removal without consent of seven trees and the demolition and erection of a dwelling and pool. The Court held that the tree offence was committed for financial gain (at [74]), but that where was contrition and remorse, the…
Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation
[2021] NSWLEC 4 Para 66

…d Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150 at [141] and Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 4 at [171]). The test for recklessness is subjective ( Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114; (2019) 242 LGERA…
Chahoud v Penrith City Council
[2020] NSWLEC 167 Para 4

…Chahoud v Penrith City Council [2020] NSWLEC 167, which involved an appeal against sentence for the unlawful construction of a shed. The offences were found to be committed neither recklessly nor negligently (at [84]), but were committed for financial gain (at [87]). A fine of $51,000 was imposed after a 20% discoun…
Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation
[2020] NSWLEC 153

…t Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100 Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2020] NSWLEC 153 Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 4 Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation [2006] NSWLEC 419…
Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2020] NSWLEC 98 Para 59

…ed the principles of attribution for the statutory liability of a corporation in Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 98 where she stated (at [37] to [38]):…
Port Macquarie-Hastings Council v David Peter Waite (No 2)
[2020] NSWLEC 60 Para 5

…Port Macquarie-Hastings Council v Waite (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 60, where the defendant pleaded guilty to four charges involving carrying out development without consent for a temporary caravan park. The defendant was fined $3,000, $3,000 and $1,500 respectively (at [108]) and ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs (at…
Hijazi v Georges River Council
[2020] NSWLEC 36 Para 3

…Hijazi v Georges River Council [2020] NSWLEC 36, involved an appeal on sentence for four offences involving the construction of a swimming pool and elevator shaft absent consent. A total fine of $80,000 was imposed after the offences were found to be at the high end of the low range of culpability (at [25]);…
Environment Protection Authority v Wollondilly Abattoirs Pty Limited & Davis
[2019] NSWCCA 312

…Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500 at 506 (Lord Hoffmann); Environment Protection Authority v Wollondilly Abattoirs Pty Limited & Davis [2019] NSWCCA 312 ( Wollondilly Abattoirs ) at [19] (Brereton JA, Harrison J and Bellew JJ agreeing). In many cases, the conduct of persons in actual control of particular…
Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales
[2019] NSWLEC 178 Para 143

…In Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales [2019] NSWLEC 178 Duggan J helpfully set out the principles to be derived from the authorities to be applied in determining whether or not to make a publication order, which I respectfully adopt (at [84] to [85]):…
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell
[2019] NSWLEC 114 Para 66

…ter Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 4 at [171]). The test for recklessness is subjective ( Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114; (2019) 242 LGERA 241 at [51]).…
Environment Protection Authority v Hughes
[2019] NSWLEC 108 Para 1

…Environment Protection Authority v Hughes [2019] NSWLEC 108, where the defendant was charged with two offences under ss 143 and 144 of the POEOA. The material that was unlawfully transported was mixed construction and demolition waste of no less than 4,950 tonnes (at [60]). The offences were found to be at the lower…
Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation
[2019] NSWLEC 100 Para 54

…v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383 (at 389 and see generally the discussion in Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100 at [143]-[168]).…
Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage)
[2019] NSWLEC 66 Para 114

…urt must serve as a general deterrent ( Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage) [2019] NSWLEC 66 at [175]-[177]). General deterrence is vital “to ensure that the penalty imposed acts to deter those who might engage in similar activities from comm…
Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v SingTel Optus Pty Ltd
[2019] NSWLEC 44 Para 163

…. The objectives of general and specific deterrence are thus satisfied: Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v SingTel Optus Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 44 at [163]. A publication order operates as a message to the community that a holder of an EPL is under a heightened responsibility to ensure that their op…
Pesic v Sutherland Shire Council
[2019] NSWLEC 38 Para 2

…Pesic v Sutherland Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 38, involved an appeal on sentencing for the development of a vehicle repair premises without consent. The sentence at first instance of $7,600 was affirmed after Preston J found that the offence was of low objective seriousness having regard to the lack of proven harm…
Environment Protection Authority v Whitehaven Coal Mining Limited
[2019] NSWLEC 27 Para 242

…arly applicable to corporate offenders, who are susceptible to criminal stigma: Environment Protection Authority v Whitehaven Coal Mining Limited [2019] NSWLEC 27 at [242]; 4. Because a publication order is made in addition to, rather than instead of, any penalty, it ought not be considered in determining the quant…
Environment Protection Authority v Rands
[2019] NSWLEC 23 Para 113

…structions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 242; (2006) 145 LGERA 189 at [188] and [192] and Environment Protection Authority v Rands [2019] NSWLEC 23 at [161]).…
Burwood Council v Abdul-Rahman (No 2)
[2017] NSWLEC 177 Para 4

…in Burwood Council v Abdul-Rahman (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 177, the defendant was charged with the unlawful removal of a tree. He had extensive experience with the planning system. After taking into account the defendant’s prior convictions and a lack of contrition and remorse, he was fined $50,000 with no discount appl…
Ku-ring-gai Council v Baynie
[2017] NSWLEC 172 Para 3

…Ku-ring-gai Council v Baynie [2017] NSWLEC 172, where the defendant was charged with three counts of development without consent in respect of heritage listed property. The first two offences were found to be at the low end of moderate seriousness, whereas the third offence was found to be at the high end of low obj…
Cumberland Council v Badaoui Habib
[2017] NSWLEC 18 Para 1

…in Cumberland Council v Habib [2017] NSWLEC 18, the defendant was charged with two counts of unauthorised building works in relation to the construction of a dwelling and granny flat on two lots. The offences were found to be of moderate objective seriousness (at [29]) after Robson J held that the offences were com…
Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
[2016] FCA 455

…er a person’s conduct or state of mind may be attributed to the corporation ( Wollondilly Abattoirs at [14]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kojic (2016) 249 FCR 421; [2016] FCAFC 186 ( Kojic ) at [100] (Edelman J)). Section 169C(1) of the POEO Act provides that “without limiting any other law or practice regarding…
Environment Protection Authority v Alcobell Pty Ltd, Environment Protection Authority v Campbell
[2015] NSWLEC 123 Para 2

…in Environment Protection Authority v Alcobell; Campbell [2015] NSWLEC 123, the defendant corporation was charged with three counts of transport and disposal of waste containing asbestos. The offences were found to be at the lower end of objective seriousness, with the defendant corporation held to have committed th…
Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2)
[2015] NSWLEC 110 Para 66

…s proceed to engage in it without making further enquiries (see also Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110 at [136], citing Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery [2012] NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314 at [126]; Chief Executive of the…
Environment Protection Authority v Causmag Ore Company Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWLEC 58 Para 130

…ropriate sentence ( Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 at [88] and Environment Protection Authority v Causmag Ore Co Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 58 at [123]).…
Cowra Shire Council v Fuller
[2015] NSWLEC 13 Para 1

…although a guilty plea provides evidence of remorse or contrition, something more is required ( Cowra Shire Council v Fuller [2015] NSWLEC 13 at [32]);…
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull
[2014] NSWLEC 150 Para 66

…NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314 at [126]; Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150 at [141] and Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 4 at [171]). The test for recklessness is subjective ( Chief Exe…
Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore
[2014] NSWLEC 136 Para 3

…Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136, where the defendant was charged with one count of unlawful transport of 3,840 tonnes of waste containing asbestos against s 143 of the POEOA and one count against s 144AA(1) of the POEOA. The offences were held to be of moderate objective seriousness afte…
Harris v Harrison
[2014] NSWCCA 84 Para 109

…elopments to a significantly higher maximum penalty than would have otherwise been imposed in the Local Court and to higher costs ( Harris v Harrison [2014] NSWCCA 84 at [96]-[99]).…
Burwood Council v Pratelli
[2014] NSWLEC 28 Para 2

…Burwood Council v Pratelli [2014] NSWLEC 28, where a defendant carried out works contrary to a development consent and without consent in circumstances where she was an owner-builder who relied on erroneous advice provided by another builder. There was no heightened state of mind found for the defendant (at [30]),…
Burwood Council v Doueihi
[2013] NSWLEC 196 Para 1

…Burwood Council v Doueihi [2013] NSWLEC 196; (2013) 200 LGERA 152, where the defendant constructed additional rooms contrary to development consent and without consent. The defendant was an elected Councillor with good knowledge of the development controls, which exacerbated the undermining of the integrity of the p…
Mouawad v The Hills Shire Council
[2013] NSWLEC 165 Para 114

…the penalty imposed acts to deter those who might engage in similar activities from committing like offences” ( Mouawad v The Hills Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 165; (2013) 199 LGERA 28 at [188]. See also Axer at 359).…
Elias v The Queen
[2013] HCA 31 Para 49

…provides a sentencing yardstick to measure the relevant features of the offences for which SAF Developments is to be sentenced ( Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483 at [27]; Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 at 698; and Rawson at [57]). SAF De…
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery
[2012] NSWLEC 271 Para 66

…t of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110 at [136], citing Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery [2012] NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314 at [126]; Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 1…
Environment Protection Authority v Ravensworth Operations Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWLEC 222 Para 121

…f the fact SAF Developments continues to operate in the construction industry ( Environment Protection Authority v Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited [2012] NSWLEC 222 at [48]).…
Environment Protection Authority v Queanbeyan City Council (No 3)
[2012] NSWLEC 220 Para 100

…s that would demonstrate genuine contrition and remorse (at [204]-[214], applied in Environment Protection Authority v Queanbeyan City Council (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 220 at [223]; Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 65 at [85]-[89] and Environment Protection Authority v M…
The Hills Shire Council v Kinnarney Civil and Earthworks Pty Ltd and Kinnarney (No 2)
[2012] NSWLEC 95 Para 120

…ow that the current offences are not uncharacteristic aberrations ( The Hills Shire Council v Kinnarney Civil & Earthworks Pty Ltd & Kinnarney (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 95 at [31]). Only limited weight is therefore placed upon them for the purposes of specific deterrence.…
Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2012] NSWLEC 80 Para 100

…ity v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 65 at [85]-[89] and Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 80 at [101]) which are noted without repetition.…
Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWLEC 65 Para 100

…rotection Authority v Queanbeyan City Council (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 220 at [223]; Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 65 at [85]-[89] and Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 80 at [101]) which are noted without repet…
Great Lakes Council v Spalding
[2011] NSWLEC 257 Para 44

…he development application for the disposal of the material anywhere other than at a waste management facility ( Great Lakes Council v Spalding [2011] NSWLEC 257 at [105]).…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 40

…termined by reference to the nature of the offences and not by reference to matters that are personal to a particular offender ( Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27]).…
Environment Protection Authority v Sibelco Australia Limited
[2011] NSWLEC 160 Para 104

…licise a conviction will not necessarily preclude the making of a publication order: Environment Protection Authority v Sibelco Australia Limited [2011] NSWLEC 160 at [104]; 7. The circumstances of the case may dictate that the interests of justice and the purpose of the publication will not be served if publication…
Environment Protection Authority v Hanna
[2010] NSWLEC 98 Para 5

…Environment Protection Authority v Hanna [2010] NSWLEC 98, where the defendant was charged with four counts against s 143 of the POEOA. The offences were held to be of medium objective seriousness after Craig J found that the defendant held a “premeditated and deliberate” state of mind in committing the offences (a…
Bourke v R
[2010] NSWCCA 22 Para 55

…e facts cannot be relied upon as a factor in aggravation in sentencing ( Croaker v R [2008] NSWCCA 232; (2008) 190 A Crim R 15 at [14] and Bourke v R [2010] NSWCCA 22; (2010) 199 A Crim R 38 at [50]). I cannot therefore sentence SAF Developments for the more serious Tier 1 offence under the EPAA, or the offence und…
Department of Environment and Climate Change v Sommerville; Department of Environment and Climate Change v Ianna
[2009] NSWLEC 194 Para 81

…of transporting the waste to a licensed facility, as required by the CDC and the waste management plan (citing The Hills Shire Council v Suciu (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 194 at [51]).…
The Hills Shire Council v Suciu (No 3)
[2009] NSWLEC 192 Para 6

…in Hills Shire Council v Suciu (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 192, the defendant was charged with one count of taking demolition waste including asbestos to a private property that had requested clean fill. The defendant’s state of mind was found to be “premeditated and deliberate” (at [36]). Aggravating factors included that…
Plath v Rawson
[2009] NSWLEC 178 Para 41

…e seriousness of an environmental offence ( Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234 at [168]-[172] and Plath v Rawson [2009] NSWLEC 178; (2009) 170 LGERA 253 at [49]).…
Croaker v R
[2008] NSWCCA 232 Para 55

…ous form of the offence for which he is to be punished, then those facts cannot be relied upon as a factor in aggravation in sentencing ( Croaker v R [2008] NSWCCA 232; (2008) 190 A Crim R 15 at [14] and Bourke v R [2010] NSWCCA 22; (2010) 199 A Crim R 38 at [50]). I cannot therefore sentence SAF Developments for th…
Environment Protection Authority v Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWLEC 466 Para 169

…onment Protection Authority v Cargill Australia Limited [2004] NSWLEC 334 at [41]; Environment Protection Authority v Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 466 at [169]; 8. Such an order is no less appropriate because the offences have been found to be of a low level of objective seriousness: Secretary, Departme…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
1.3, 3, 4.2, 9.53 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A, 22, 3A 4 mentions (from Para 31)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
257B, 257G 3 mentions (from Para 5)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
122, 6 3 mentions (from Para 126)
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 (NSW)
3 2 mentions (from Para 47)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 7)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Georges River Council v SAF Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 50
Hearing dates:	6 March 2023
Date of orders:	10 May 2023
Decision date:	10 May 2023
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Pepper J
Decision:	See orders at [147].
Catchwords:	ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: carrying out development contrary to consent – unlawful transportation or depositing of waste – pleas of guilty – sentencing principles – extent of environmental harm – state of mind during the commission of the offences – whether state of mind of project manager could be attributed to company – totality principle applied – comparable cases – fine imposed – publication order made.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B, 257G Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A, 22 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 3, 4.2, 9.53 Fines Act 1996, ss 6, 122 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 3, 115, 143, 144, 144AA, 241, 250 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, s 3
Cases Cited:	Aland B & W Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 13 AxerPty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357 Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234 Bourke v R [2010] NSWCCA 22; (2010) 199 A Crim R 38 Burwood Council v Abdul Rahman [2021] NSWLEC 46 Burwood Council v Abdul-Rahman (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 177 Burwood Council v Doueihi [2013] NSWLEC 196; (2013) 200 LGERA 152 Burwood Council v Pratelli [2014] NSWLEC 28 CabonneShire Council v Environment Protection Authority [2001] NSWCCA 280; (2001) 115 LGERA 304 Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 Carlino v Leichardt Municipal Council [2005] NSWLEC 198 Chahoud v Penrith City Council [2020] NSWLEC 167 Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150 Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery [2012] NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314 Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114; (2019) 242 LGERA 241 Cowra Shire Council v Fuller [2015] NSWLEC 13 Croaker v R [2008] NSWCCA 232; (2008) 190 A Crim R 15 Cumberland Council v Habib [2017] NSWLEC 18 Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110 Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483 Environment Protection Authority v Alcobell; Campbell [2015] NSWLEC 123 Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136 Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 98 Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 289; (2006) 148 LGERA 278 Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 Environment Protection Authority v Causmag Ore Co Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 58 Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage) [2019]…