Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1587 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 September 2023 Date of orders: 10 October 2023 Decision date: 10 October 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 789/2020 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant on part of the land at 320 Badgerys Creek Road, Badgerys Creek (Part of Lot 1 DP 1188956), is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, Sch 6, Pt 1, s 3
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Sch 3, cl 14
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Chs 2,3
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, ss 3.10, 3.11, Ch 4, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resources and Energy) 2021, Ch 2, Pt 2.3
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.122
Texts Cited: Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan 2022
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Baker (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Campbell (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/51664 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 789/2020 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant (the proposal), on part of the land at 320 Badgerys Creek Road, Badgerys Creek (the site), by Liverpool City Council (the Council).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 22 September 2023. I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.
-
There are preconditions to the exercise of power to grant development consent for the proposal.
The proposal
-
The proposal is for the construction of a concrete batching plant with a peak production capacity of approximately 100m3 per hour, with an anticipated production of 750m3 per day and a peak of up to 2,000m3. The proposal will operate 24 hours, 7 days per week, with 18 staff.
-
The Council, as the consent authority, consented to the amendment of the application. The plans and documents comprising the amended application are listed under condition 1 of the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Jurisdictional pre-requisites to the grant of consent
-
The proposal is classified as designated development pursuant to cl 14 of Sch 3 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation) (now repealed). Despite the repeal of the EPA Regulation on 1 March 2022, it continues to apply to the application pursuant to s 3 of Pt 1 of Sch 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resources and Energy) 2021 (SEPP (Resources and Energy))
-
I accept the Council’s submission that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the SEPP (Resources and Energy) and, in particular, is not inconsistent with achievement of the performance aims of Ch 2 or the matters for consideration contained under Pt 2.3.
State Environmental Planning (Resilience and Hazard) 2021 (SEPP (Resilience and Hazards))
-
Sections 3.10 and 3.11 of the SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) requires the preparation of a preliminary hazard analysis to be submitted with a development application in certain circumstances. I accept the Council’s submission that preliminary risk screening took place which indicated that the hazardous materials to be stored were below the screening threshold, and accordingly, a preliminary hazard analysis is not required.
-
Section 4.6(1) of the SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) provides that a consent authority must not grant consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless the matters in (a) to (c) are met. For the purposes of Ch 4, I accept the Council’s submission, based on the Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination Report, that the land subject of the proposal is suitable for its intended use.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation))
-
While Ch 2 (Vegetation in non-rural areas) and Ch 3 (Koala habitat protection 2020) of SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) apply, I accept the Council’s submission that the proposal does not require any clearing of native vegetation, and therefore the requirements of Chs 2 and 3 of SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) do not apply to the proposal.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure))
-
Section 2.122(4) of SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) provides that, before determining a development application for traffic-generating development, the consent authority must give notice of the application to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and take into consideration any submissions made by TfNSW and the accessibility of the site concerned. I accept the Council’s submission that the application was referred to TfNSW, however TfNSW did not make a submission. I accept the Council’s submission that accessibility of the land has been addressed and has been deemed suitable on the basis of the Traffic and Parking Assessment. I accept the Council’s submission that the proposal is for a traffic-generating development and the requirements of s 2.122 of SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) have been met.
Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP 2008)
-
The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the LEP 2008. Concrete batching plants are prohibited on land in the RU1 zone. The proposal is permitted with consent under SEPP (Resources and Energy).
Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan 2022
-
I accept the Council’s submission that an assessment against the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan 2022, specifically Pt 2 (Precincts vision and objectives), Pt 3 (Infrastructure), Pt 4 (Urban Structure) and Pt 5 (Land Use and Built Form) has been provided which shows that the proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the area.
Conclusion
-
I have considered the submissions made by the Council in the Statement of Jurisdictional Issues filed with the Court on 22 September 2023 and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
Orders
-
The orders of the Court are:
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 789/2020 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant on part of the land at 320 Badgerys Creek Road, Badgerys Creek (Part of Lot 1 DP 1188956), is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A
**********
- AGLC
- Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1587
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1587
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the legal principles governing development applications and the discretionary powers of the council. It considered whether the council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the refusal was based on an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion. The Court also assessed the council's consideration of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed plant, as well as its alignment with the relevant planning policies and objectives. The analysis involved a detailed review of the council's decision-making process and the documentation provided in support of the refusal.
After thorough deliberation, the Court found that the council's refusal of the development application was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, unlawful. The Court held that the council had failed to adequately consider the potential benefits of the proposed plant and had placed undue emphasis on the perceived negative impacts. The Court concluded that the development application should be granted, subject to specific conditions designed to mitigate any adverse effects. The appeal was thus upheld, and the development application was approved with the stipulated conditions attached.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 789/2020 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant on part of the land at 320 Badgerys Creek Road, Badgerys Creek (Part of Lot 1 DP 1188956), is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
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.