Mahogany Ridge Developments Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read
Reported Decision: 135LGERA 60

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Mahogany Ridge Developments Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council [2004] NSWLEC 555
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mahogany Ridge Developments Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT:
Port Stephens Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10526 of 2004
CORAM: Bignold J
KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- Application for joinder by Department of Defence-defended development appeal for tourist development-aircraft noise impact on proposed development.
LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 39A
CASES CITED: Kavia Holdings Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council (2003) 127 LGERA 293;
Lowy v The Land and Environment Court (2002) 123 LGERA 179
DATES OF HEARING: 23/09/2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/30/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT:
Mr M C Fraser, Barrister
SOLICITORS
Norman Waterhouse Incorporating Taylor Kelso

RESPONDENT:
Mr J Maston, Barrister
INTERVENOR:
Mr A Galasso, Barrister

SOLICITORS
Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Intervenor: Philips Fox




JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      BIGNOLD J

      30 September 2004

      10526 of 2004 MAHOGANY RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v PORT STEPHENS COUNCIL

      JUDGMENT

:


1 By Notice of Motion filed 23 September 2004, the Commonwealth of Australia seeks to become a party to pending class 1 proceedings which were commenced on 7 May 2004 by way of an appeal pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 97 (the EP&A Act) against the decision of the Council refusing the Applicant’s development application for the establishment of a major eco-tourist resort development on land situate at Duns Creek Road, Duns Creek, being land that is included in the Rural 1(a) Zone under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 1987.


2 The Commonwealth’s application for joinder is opposed by the Applicant, but is supported by the Council.


3 The joinder application is made pursuant to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 39A which provides as follows:

          39A Joinder of parties in certain appeals
          On an appeal under section 97 or 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 , the Court may, at any time, on the application of a person or of its own motion, order the joinder of a person as a party to the appeal if the Court is of the opinion:
              (a) that the person is able to raise an issue that should be considered in relation to the appeal but would not be likely to be sufficiently addressed if the person were not joined as a party, or
              (b) that:
                (i) it is in the interests of justice, or
                (ii) it is in the public interest,
                that the person be joined as a party to the appeal.

4 The Council’s refusal of the Applicant’s development application as notified to the Applicant stated the following reasons for its refusal:

          1. The impact of the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in relation to the:
            a) amenity of the locality which would be affected b the traffic generated through patron visitation, delivery vehicles, employees and the protracted construction phase.

b) the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mahogany Ridge Developments Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] NSWLEC 555
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mahogany Ridge Developments Pty Ltd sought to appeal the Port Stephens Council's refusal to grant development consent for a major eco-tourist resort development at Duns Creek. The Council refused the development application on the basis that the proposed development would have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the locality, the change to the rural character of the locality, and the Department of Defence's objection that the proposal could limit the flexibility of Williamtown RAAF Base and potentially compromise national defence objectives. The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Department of Defence, filed a motion to join the proceedings as a party, which was supported by the Council but opposed by the Applicant. The key issue was whether the Court could exercise its discretion under section 39A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to join the Commonwealth as a party, considering that the Council would call Defence representatives as experts to address the aircraft noise impact on the proposed development. The Court found that the Commonwealth had laid a sufficient foundation for the exercise of its discretion under section 39A, as the Department of Defence had a significant interest in the matter and could raise issues that may not be sufficiently addressed if it were not joined as a party. The Court also determined that it could make a conditional order under section 39A, limiting the Commonwealth's participation to the specific issue it intended to raise.

The Court made the following orders: (1) Join the Commonwealth as a party to the proceedings, subject to conditions that limit its participation to specific issues related to the aircraft noise impact and compatibility with pre-existing land uses; (2) direct the Council not to separately pursue the issues that are pursued by the Commonwealth; (3) case manage the proceedings in accordance with directions to be given by the Registrar; and (4) reserve the question of costs on Notice of Motion and stand over the proceedings to the Registrar's callover on 14 October 2004.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.