People for the Plains Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd

People for the Plains Inc appealed a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales concerning the validity of an approval granted to Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether Santos required development consent for certain activities related to its petroleum exploration and production operations in the Pilliga region. Specifically, the core of the disagreement was whether the treatment of produced water generated from one petroleum title on another petroleum title constituted a use for the purposes of "petroleum exploration" as defined under the relevant planning instruments, thereby exempting it from requiring development consent.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in its determination that the proposed activities did not require development consent. This involved considering whether the treatment of produced water on one petroleum title, when that water originated from another title, could be characterised as development for the purposes of "petroleum exploration" under clause 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW). The court also had to consider whether the development could be properly characterised as a waste disposal facility or a resource recovery facility, and how the provisions of the *Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991* (NSW) interacted with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW) and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Land and Environment Court, finding that the treatment of produced water on a petroleum title, even if generated from another title, was an integral part of the overall petroleum exploration and production process. The court reasoned that the activities were directly related to the management and processing of substances produced during petroleum operations, and therefore fell within the scope of "petroleum exploration" as contemplated by the relevant planning instruments. The court rejected the argument that the activities should be classified as a waste disposal or resource recovery facility, finding that their primary purpose was to facilitate the continuation of petroleum exploration and production. Consequently, the court held that development consent was not required for the activities in question.

The appeal was dismissed, and People for the Plains Inc was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, and fourth respondents.