Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd and Shire Of SERPENTINE-JARRAHDALE

The case between Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd and the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Hanson Construction Materials, the applicant, sought approval to continue its extractive industry operations for an additional 20 years, while the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the respondent, approved a six-year continuation of the operations. The central dispute centred on the conditions that the council imposed on the development application and whether these conditions were lawful, reasonable, and related to the approved development.

The court was required to decide whether the conditions imposed by the council were valid planning conditions. Specifically, the court examined if the conditions that mandated the approval and implementation of a community consultation framework and annual compliance assessment reports on community engagement activities were for a planning purpose. Additionally, the court assessed whether these conditions were manifestly unreasonable. The court also evaluated the condition that required a mine closure plan to be approved and implemented, focusing on whether it was reasonably related to the approved development of the continuation of the extractive industry and if it was manifestly unreasonable. Lastly, the court considered whether a condition requiring a public art contribution fairly and reasonably related to the continuation of the extractive industry.

The court determined that the conditions imposed by the council were indeed planning conditions as they related to the approved development and were intended to manage the impacts of the extractive industry on the community. The court found that the conditions were not manifestly unreasonable, as they were necessary to ensure that the industry's operations were conducted in a manner that was compatible with the surrounding community and environment. The condition requiring a mine closure plan was deemed reasonably related to the approved development, as it aimed to mitigate the environmental impact of the mine's operations post-approval. The court concluded that all the conditions were fairly and reasonably related to the continuation of the extractive industry.

The final orders of the court were that the conditions imposed by the council on the development application were lawful and reasonable, and they were related to the approved development. The court upheld the council's decision to approve the extractive industry operations for six years, with the imposed conditions.