Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v The Minister for Planning

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v. The Minister for Planning & Ors [1989] NSWLEC 230

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
FIRST RESPONDENT
The Minister for Planning
SECOND RESPONDENT
Coffs Habour City Council
THIRD RESPONDENT
Yadle Investments Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S): 40150 of 1989

CORAM: Stein J

KEY ISSUES: :-

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/23/1989

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

JUDGMENT:

HIS HONOUR: On 23 June 1989 I gave Judgment in this matter dismissing the application brought by the Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA). The Application sought a Declaration that cl.15 of the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 1988 was invalid in certain respects. I held that the claim was barred by reason of the failure of the applicant to comply with section 35 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

In dismissing the application I did not deal with any issue of costs. The owner of the land and third respondent Yadle Investments Pty. Limited now seeks an order that the applicant pay its costs. Mr. Maston, on behalf of the RTA, makes no submission to the contrary. I see no reason why costs should not follow the event of the litigation. It follows that the RTA should pay the third respondent's costs of the application and I so order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA) filed an application against the Minister for Planning, Coffs Harbour City Council, and Yadle Investments Pty Ltd, seeking a declaration that clause 15 of the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 1988 was invalid. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, with Stein J presiding. The RTA's primary contention was that the clause in question was invalid due to certain procedural and substantive defects, but the court had to determine whether the RTA's application was permissible under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The legal issues centered on whether the RTA had standing to challenge the validity of the environmental plan clause and whether the RTA had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act, specifically section 35. The court had to assess if the RTA's failure to comply with these procedural requirements barred its application. The RTA argued that its application should be heard despite the procedural shortcomings, but the court had to decide if the statutory requirements were mandatory and whether non-compliance resulted in the application being dismissed outright.

Stein J dismissed the RTA's application, finding that it was indeed barred by the RTA's failure to comply with section 35 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The court held that the procedural requirements were mandatory and that the RTA's non-compliance was fatal to its application. Consequently, the RTA's claim for a declaration of invalidity was rejected. The court did not address the issue of costs during the initial judgment but later ruled that the RTA should pay the costs of the application as sought by Yadle Investments Pty Ltd, the third respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v. The Minister for Planning & Ors [1989] NSWLEC 230
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales FIRST RESPONDENT The Minister for Planning SECOND RESPONDENT Coffs Habour City Council THIRD RESPONDENT Yadle Investments Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S):	40150 of 1989
CORAM:	Stein J
KEY ISSUES:	:-
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	08/23/1989
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: