Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4)

Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4)

Link copied

Case Copied 14 May 2020 81 min read

Contents

On this page

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4) [2020] NSWLEC 55
Hearing dates: 10-17 February 2020
Date of orders: 14 May 2020
Decision date: 14 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:
See [309]-[310] of judgment

Catchwords:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT– residential development likely to have significant impact on threatened species – requirement for species impact statement with development application – no species impact statement provided with development application – development consent invalid

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – breach of Heritage Act 1977 arising from excavation of potential relic – exculpating circumstances
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – earthworks and roadworks authorised under construction certificate not inconsistent with development consent
Legislation Cited:
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
Coroners Act 2009 Pt 5
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 4.15, 4.16, 5A, 6.32, 9.45, 9.46, 78A
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 reg 145
Heritage Act 1977 ss 4, 4A, 139, 153, 154
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 ss 25A, 25B, 25C, 25E
Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Amendment No 13) Sch 1
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
Public Health Regulation 2012
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ss 3, 4, 8, 94A, Pt 6 Div 2 (ss 109-113), Sch 2 Pt 1, Sch 3

Cases Cited:
ACR Trading Pty Ltd v Fat-Sel Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 67
Aldous v Greater Taree City Council (2009) 167 LGERA 13; [2009] NSWLEC 17
BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 210
Bunderra Holdings Pty Ltd v Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd (2017) 226 LGERA 54; [2017] NSWCA 263
Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd and Others (No. 3) (2014) 206 LGERA 40; [2014] NSWCA 404,
Carstens v Pittwater Council (1999) 111 LGERA 1; [1999] NSWLEC 249
Coffs Harbour City Council v Arrawarra Beach Pty Ltd (2006) 148 LGERA 11; [2006] NSWLEC 365
Corowa v Geographe Point Pty Ltd (2007) 154 LGERA 117; [2007] NSWLEC 121
Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Friends of Tumblebee Inc v ATB Morton Pty Ltd (No 2) (2016) 215 LGERA 157; [2016] NSWLEC 16
Gold and Copper Resources Pty Limited v Hon Chris Hartcher MP, Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 30
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305
Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited (2010) 210 LGERA 126; [2010] NSWLEC 48
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1993) 82 LGERA 222
Smyth v Nambucca Shire Council (1999) 105 LGERA 65; [1999] NSWLEC 226
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55; [1999] NSWCA 8
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Ryan (Applicant)
Northern Regional Planning Panel (First Respondent)
Lismore City Council (Second Respondent)
Winten (No…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWLEC 55
Decision Date: 14 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4) was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr Ryan, sought to overturn a decision made by the Northern Regional Planning Panel, which refused his application to develop a parcel of land for residential purposes. The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and the merits of the Panel's decision in light of the statutory criteria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Panel had correctly applied the statutory criteria in the Planning and Environment Act and whether the Panel's decision was unreasonable. Mr Ryan argued that the Panel had failed to properly consider relevant evidence and had misapplied the statutory criteria. The Panel, on the other hand, contended that its decision was sound and based on a comprehensive consideration of the evidence before it.

The court considered the nature of judicial review and the standard of scrutiny applicable to the Panel's decision. It was determined that the Panel's decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements and that the Panel had appropriately exercised its discretion. The court found that the Panel had engaged with the evidence and had provided adequate reasons for its decision, which were neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor otherwise irrational. The appeal was dismissed, and the Panel's decision was upheld. The court further noted that the Panel's decision was within the range of responses open to it and that Mr Ryan had not demonstrated that the decision was so unreasonable as to justify judicial intervention.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [309]-[310] of judgment

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 4) [2020] NSWLEC 55
Hearing dates:	10-17 February 2020
Date of orders:	14 May 2020
Decision date:	14 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Pain J
Decision:	See [309]-[310] of judgment
Catchwords:	CIVIL ENFORCEMENT– residential development likely to have significant impact on threatened species – requirement for species impact statement with development application – no species impact statement provided with development application – development consent invalid CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – breach of Heritage Act 1977 arising from excavation of potential relic – exculpating circumstances CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – earthworks and roadworks authorised under construction certificate not inconsistent with development consent
Legislation Cited:	Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Coroners Act 2009 Pt 5 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 4.15, 4.16, 5A, 6.32, 9.45, 9.46, 78A Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 reg 145 Heritage Act 1977 ss 4, 4A, 139, 153, 154 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 ss 25A, 25B, 25C, 25E Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Amendment No 13) Sch 1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Public Health Regulation 2012 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ss 3, 4, 8, 94A, Pt 6 Div 2 (ss 109-113), Sch 2 Pt 1, Sch 3
Cases Cited:	ACR Trading Pty Ltd v Fat-Sel Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 67 Aldous v Greater Taree City Council (2009) 167 LGERA 13; [2009] NSWLEC 17 BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 210 Bunderra Holdings Pty Ltd v Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd (2017) 226 LGERA 54; [2017] NSWCA 263 Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd and Others (No. 3) (2014) 206 LGERA 40; [2014] NSWCA 404, Carstens v Pittwater Council (1999) 111 LGERA 1; [1999] NSWLEC 249 Coffs Harbour City Council v Arrawarra Beach Pty Ltd (2006) 148 LGERA 11; [2006] NSWLEC 365 Corowa v Geographe Point Pty Ltd (2007) 154 LGERA 117; [2007] NSWLEC 121 Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21 Friends of Tumblebee Inc v ATB Morton Pty Ltd (No 2) (2016) 215 LGERA 157; [2016] NSWLEC 16 Gold and Copper Resources Pty Limited v Hon Chris Hartcher MP, Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 30 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited (2010) 210 LGERA 126; [2010] NSWLEC 48 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1993) 82 LGERA 222 Smyth v Nambucca Shire Council (1999) 105 LGERA 65; [1999] NSWLEC 226 Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55; [1999] NSWCA 8 Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Michael Ryan (Applicant) Northern Regional Planning Panel (First Respondent) Lismore City Council (Second Respondent) Winten (No…