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

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1705


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:
T Robertson (Applicant)
C Ireland (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/267231
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 river bank restoration.

  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 1705
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1705
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd sued Canterbury-Bankstown Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales over the Council's refusal to grant a development application for a residential project. The developer argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable, while the Council maintained its decision was lawful and justified by the local planning policies. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the Council's decision to reject the development application.

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.