Hobhouse v Minister Assisting Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Anor Mount Gilead Pty Limited v Minister Assisting Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Anor

[2004] NSWLEC 477

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Hobhouse v Minister Assisting Minister for Infrastructure and Planning & Anor Mount Gilead Pty Limited v Minister Assisting Minister for Infrastructure and Planning & Anor [2004] NSWLEC 477

PARTIES:

Katrina Hobhouse (Appl)
Mount Gilead Pty Limited (Appl)
Minister Assisting Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (1R)
Sydney Gas Operations Pty Ltd (2R)

FILE NUMBER(S):

10297; 10272 of 2004

CORAM:

McClellan CJ

KEY ISSUES:

Development Consent :- Appeal by objectors
Noise impacts
Visual impacts
Impact on items of heritage significance
Visual barriers
Landscaping

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 98

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

9-11 June 2004

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

06/16/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

C Norton (Appl - Hobhouse)
Woolf Associates (Sol - Hobhouse)

P Rigg (Appl - Mount Gilead)
Deacons (Sol - Mount Gilead)

J Griffiths SC/A Pickles (1R - Minister)
Legal Services Branch, Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (1R - Minister)

T Robertson SC (2R - Sydney Gas)
Blake Dawson Waldron (Sol - 2R)

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

McCLELLAN J

WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE 2004

10297/04 HOBHOUSE v MINISTER ASSISTING MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING
10272/04 MT GILEAD PTY LIMITED v MINISTER ASSISTING MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The matter before the Court is an appeal by two objectors pursuant to s 98 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). I have heard the matter with the assistance of Commissioner Bly.

2 The proposed development is described as the Camden Gas Project Stage 2. It involves the drilling and construction of twenty gas wells and the provision of facilities to extract, gather and process gas so that it can be provided to the AGL pipeline as part of the supply of natural gas for Sydney and other regions.

3 The facility is located within Camden because of the identified resource of methane available in the coal seams below ground in that location. The project is significant both in terms of its size and also because of the capacity to exploit the gas which is available. It has been classified as a project of State significance.

4 The original development application was approved by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning on 12 February 2004, subject to conditions.

5 The applicants in the proceedings before the Court are the owners and a tenant of a large rural property known as Mount Gilead which, as I understand it, is comprised of approximately 1,000 acres.

6 The Court had a view and it is plain that the property is one of very considerable heritage significance. That significance is to be found in the homestead constructed many years ago and more recently altered, but extends to much of the central part of the grazing facilities, which includes significant large scale landscaping works on the property.

7 The topography enables the homestead and associated facilities, including an old and very significant mill, to enjoy significant views of the surrounding area. As a consequence, both the homestead and the mill are also significant items in the rural landscape.

8 Undoubtedly the local people, and those who pass through the area, have come to identify the mill as a significant, if not the most significant, item in the landscape. There can be no doubt that in the years and generations to come, the homestead, mill and surrounding facilities will become an essential component of the national heritage.

9 In that context, the application seeks to provide industrial facilities on a site approximately 800 metres from the nearest point of the homestead. The facilities are described in the plans. The original application approved by the Minister provided for not only the facilities necessary to process and compress the gas and make it suitable for addition to the AGL pipeline, but also provided an office facility, a large workshop area and a significant area for the maintenance and other activities in relation to the large pipes essential for the whole operation.

10 During the course of the proceedings, evidence was tendered as to the likely visual impact of the proposal when viewed from Mount Gilead and other places. It became plain that part of the visual impact of the project was due to the endeavour to locate on the site not only the facilities essential to extract, process and deliver the gas, but also because the site had been chosen as the industrial storage and workshop area for the total project, which is comprised of approximately 43 wells in a large part of the Camden area.

11 As the matter unfolded, and with the assistance of the parties and their advisers, it became increasingly apparent that because of the need to ensure that the landscape available to be viewed from Mount Gilead should be protected, in the interests of preserving the heritage significance of the property, changes to the project were necessary. Those changes have now been incorporated into an amended plan which effectively eliminates the pipe storage and open air maintenance facility from the site. The use of the site is to be confined to the facilities necessary to retrieve, process and deliver the gas.

12 In the course of the redesign of the project, great care has been given to the provision of visual barriers and suitable landscaping together with the maintenance of the landscaping necessary to ensure that the visual impact on the property is minimised.

13 As a result of the discussions between the parties, agreement has been reached that it is appropriate for the Court to grant approval for the amended plans subject to some revised conditions.

14 The conditions imposed by the Minister are complex and arise from detailed consideration of the project by the Minister’s advisers and other government agencies, including the Environment Protection Authority which contributed to the discussions in areas relating to its particular expertise.

15 The issues before the Court in these proceedings were confined to the impact, both visual and noise, on the Mount Gilead property. The Court has not been required to look at the impact of the proposal in any other respects. In acceding to the party’s request that a further consent be granted, the Court makes plain that it is in this case content to rely upon the evaluation which was done by the Minister and other government agencies in relation to the original project with respect to the impacts upon other locations or indeed in relation to any other environmental consequence which might flow from this project.

16 The parties have reached agreement and the conditions upon which they have agreed seem to me to be appropriate to protect Mount Gilead in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant consent subject to the agreed conditions.

17 So that there can be no misunderstanding in the future, I should indicate that the conditions to which the parties have agreed have been typed, but I have made a handwritten amendment to condition 13(e) to include the words “intended to maximise the”, after the word “measures” deleting the word “for” and I have also included in condition 17 in the second line, after the word “from”, the word “the”, and after the word, “Mount Gilead”, the word, “homestead”.

18 Accordingly, for the reasons I have indicated I will make the following orders:

1. I grant development consent to DA 28262003i pursuant to the amended conditions of consent which are attached to these orders and marked as annexure A.
2. I order that the exhibits be returned, but for exhibit A1, A16, A34, A37, A39, M4 and M7, which I order be retained with the Court’s records.
3. There is no order for costs.
**********