Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1704


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1704
Hearing dates: 16 November 2021
Date of orders: 16 November 2021
Decision date: 16 November 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

Orders – see [5]

Catchwords:

NOTICE OF MOTION – application to rely on documents

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Robertson (Applicant)
C Ireland (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/267230
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: By notice of motion, the Applicant seeks leave to rely on further documents and reports, prepared in response to matters that had arisen during the course of the appeal.

  2. The appeal concerns the Respondent’s refusal of the Applicant’s development application for the development of land at Riverwood, including for development of roads.

  3. An affidavit accompanying the notice of motion from Mr Luke Walker, which the Applicant reads in the proceedings, confirms that the Applicant’s further documents and reports have sought to be responsive to matters that have arisen in the proceedings including biodiversity related contentions between the Parties.

  4. The Respondent submits that it neither consents nor opposes the grant of leave to rely on the documents and reports sought by the Applicant.

  5. As a consequence, the Court makes the following order:

  1. the Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following:

  1. an updated Riverlands Residential Subdivision Development - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;

  2. an updated Riverlands Development - Keys Parade Connector Road - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;

  3. an updated Riverlands - Georges River Bank Stabilisation - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;

  4. an updated Riverlands Subdivision - Southern Park - vegetation management plan, prepared by Cumberland ecology and dated 9 November 2021;

  5. an updated river lands site - Georges River and Northern Creekline Revegetation Works - Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;

  6. a supplementary Soil Report prepared by Pamela Hazelton and dated 9 November 2021;

  7. the report of Prof David Guest regarding pathogens on site at Riverlands Golf Course dated 9 November 2021.

  1. It is common ground between the Parties that the documents and reports upon which the Applicant now relies are not materials that are required to form part of the Applicant’s development application under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and they agree that there is no need for the Applicant to amend its development application following the grant of leave for it to rely on those materials in the appeal.

……………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1704
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1704
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mirvac Homes, a property developer, contested a decision by the Canterbury-Bankstown Council to impose certain conditions on the approval of a residential development. The developer sought to have the conditions quashed or, alternatively, reduced, arguing they were unreasonable and not in line with the planning principles outlined in the relevant legislation. The council defended its decision, asserting that the conditions were necessary to ensure the development met public interest requirements, including adequate provision for community facilities and environmental protection.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the conditions imposed by the council were lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the statutory planning framework. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had the authority to impose such conditions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and whether these conditions were proportionate to the development's impact. The court also considered whether the council's decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and whether the conditions were reasonably related to the planning objectives.

The court found that the council had the statutory authority to impose the conditions and that these conditions were reasonably related to the planning objectives. The judge held that the council's decision-making process was sound and aligned with the principles of natural justice. The court determined that the conditions imposed were not excessive or unreasonable, and thus upheld the council's decision. Consequently, Mirvac Homes' application to have the conditions quashed or reduced was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders – see [5]

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.