Schroders Australia Property Management Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council

Schroders Australia Property Management Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of Shoalhaven City Council concerning a development application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Council had properly formed an opinion under clause 9(3) of its Local Environment Plan, which required development to be consistent with the plan. Schroders argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable, specifically alleging a failure to seek external advice from GSA (presumably a planning consultant) regarding compliance with the Council's concerns.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker would have made it, and whether the Council had failed to consider centrally relevant information by not obtaining further comments from GSA. Schroders relied on cases such as *Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs* and *Luu v Renevier*, which concerned decision-makers failing to obtain readily available and centrally relevant information.

The Court distinguished the present case from the authorities relied upon by Schroders. It held that Schroders was not asserting that the Council had failed to consider existing, available information, but rather that the Council should have used an external agency (GSA) instead of its own officers to assess compliance. The Court found this to be a fundamentally different argument. Furthermore, it did not categorise the information that would have been obtained from GSA as centrally relevant or of material significance, noting that the matters were of relatively minor importance, as reflected by GSA's proposed fee. The Court affirmed that local authorities are not generally obliged to consult with independent town planners or solicit independent opinions, and that no compelling need for such inquiries existed in this instance.

The appeal was dismissed, and Schroders Australia Property Management Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.