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

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1703


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1703
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 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): 2020/267229
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 residential use.

  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 pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning 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 1703
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1703
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the Canterbury-Bankstown Council, the respondent, regarding the refusal of an application for a development permit. The dispute centred on whether the council was justified in denying the permit due to non-compliance with the requirements of the local environmental plan and the assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's decision was lawful, whether the assessment of the environmental impacts was proper, and if the refusal of the development permit was justified under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant had demonstrated that the development would not significantly impact the environment, as required by the local environmental plan.

The court found that the council's decision was lawful. The evidence presented by the appellant did not adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the development would not significantly impact the environment, as required by the local environmental plan. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision to refuse the development permit. The court emphasised the importance of thoroughly assessing and mitigating environmental impacts in development applications.

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.