Hanson South Coast Pty Ltd v Eurobodalla Shire Council

[2009] NSWLEC 1100

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Hanson South Coast Pty Ltd v Eurobodalla Shire Council [2009] NSWLEC 1100

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Hanson South Coast Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Eurobodalla Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11328 of 2008

CORAM:

Murrell C

KEY ISSUES:

CONSENT ORDERS :- satisfaction of deferred commencement consent conditions

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING:

10/03/2009

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

10 March 2009

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr P. Rigg, solicitor
of Deacons

RESPONDENT
Ms Simonds, solicitor
of Sparke Helmore Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Murrell C

10 March 2009

11328 of 2008 Hanson South Coast Pty Ltd v Eurobodalla Shire Council

This determination was given extemporaneously
and it has been edited prior to publication

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for a matter that previously was before the Court. It involves land on Sea Acres Drive, Long Beach near Batemans Bay.

2 At that time the Court carried out a site inspection and there was extensive evidence provided to the Court on, in particular, ecological matters and fire matters.

3 There are some 16 parcels to be subdivided with the total land holding being some 26 hectares. The date of the Court’s judgment was 2 August 2007 for Appeal No. 10585 of 2006 NSWLEC 493. Given the nature of the issues and the complexities of same, the Court at that time issued a deferred commencement consent whereby the applicant had to satisfy the council by preparing an ‘Integrated Environmental Management Plan’ known as an IEMP. The IEMP has been provided and it is now to council’s satisfaction with some minor amendments that have been accepted by the applicant. The IEMP is an important document in that it is referred to in the s 88E instrument imposed on the titles of the subject site.

4 When this appeal was lodged the council initially raised some concerns and these contentions relate to the lapsing of the development consent in that the IEMP was to be submitted within a six month time frame. Due to its complexity and consultation with the council, this time frame was exceeded. However, this is no longer pressed as an issue.

5 In terms of the actual IEMP itself the council raised a number of issues about to the mapping and with respect to a number of what are known as hollow log and feed trees on the subject site that were required to be clearly identified. The applicant and the council are now in agreement in terms of the IEMP.

6 The council considered the development application was not one that required notification due to the minor nature of the proposal.

7 In my assessment I see no reason, that the Court should not enter into the consent orders as handed up by the parties. And I am satisfied, given the submissions I have heard today from Ms Simdons and Mr Rigg that the issues are now addressed and resolved.

8 Therefore the Court orders by consent:

1. The applicant has satisfied the deferred commencement conditions in part A of the development consent issued by the Court in proceedings 10585 of 2006 by submission of
(a) The Integrated Environmental Management Plan dated February 2009 and marked ‘Attachment A’ which includes Map 1 identifying the hollow bearing trees to be retained for the yellow bellied glider.
(b) s 88E instruments attached and marked ‘Annexure B’ which require as part of any development application for a dwelling house that the application demonstrates that the impact of stormwater, waste water and effluent disposal works post-development be the same as or an improvement on the pre-development impacts.
2. The Court notes each party is to pay its own costs in these proceedings.

___________________

J S Murrell
Commissioner of the Court
ljr