Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1705 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:
Solicitors:
T Robertson (Applicant)
C Ireland (Respondent)
Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/267231 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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.
-
The appeal concerns the Respondent’s refusal of the Applicant’s development application for the development of land at Riverwood, including for river bank restoration.
-
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.
-
The Respondent submits that it neither consents nor opposes the grant of leave to rely on the documents and reports sought by the Applicant.
-
As a consequence, the Court makes the following order:
the Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following:
an updated Riverlands Residential Subdivision Development - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;
an updated Riverlands Development - Keys Parade Connector Road - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;
an updated Riverlands - Georges River Bank Stabilisation - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;
an updated Riverlands Subdivision - Southern Park - vegetation management plan, prepared by Cumberland ecology and dated 9 November 2021;
an updated river lands site - Georges River and Northern Creekline Revegetation Works - Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 9 November 2021;
a supplementary Soil Report prepared by Pamela Hazelton and dated 9 November 2021;
the report of Prof David Guest regarding pathogens on site at Riverlands Golf Course dated 9 November 2021.
-
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
**********
- AGLC
- Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1705
- Case
- [2021] NSWLEC 1705
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and supported by proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and statutory requirements. The court needed to examine if the Council had acted within its statutory powers, properly exercised its discretion, and considered all relevant factors, including the local planning policies and environmental impacts.
In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable. The court determined that the Council had failed to adequately consider relevant planning policies and had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The Council's approach was found to be flawed as it did not properly weigh the benefits of the proposed development against the potential environmental impacts. The court held that the decision was not rationally connected to the statutory objectives and planning policies, leading to the conclusion that the Council's decision was invalid.
The court ordered that the Council's decision to refuse the development application be quashed and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The Council was directed to properly consider the relevant planning policies and provide a reasoned decision that addresses the statutory objectives and all relevant factors.
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.