Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Scott Greenwood v Environment Protection Authority [2025] NSWLEC 1051 Hearing dates: 9 and 10 December 2024 Date of orders: 30 January 2025 Decision date: 30 January 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Young AC Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld in part.
(2) The variation notice no. 1636139 of EPL 4669 for the ‘Greenwood Landfill’ is granted consent in accordance with the terms in Annexure A.
(3) All the Exhibits are returned except Exhibits B and 2.
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LICENCE – existing resource recovery and recycling facility appealing variation of the environment protection licence
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 39
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Pt 3, ss 3, 45, 50, 58, 83, 287
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, s 6
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Scott Greenwood (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R O’Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)
M Dalla-Pozza (Respondent)
M Flaherty (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/305354 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Introduction
-
Mr Scott Greenwood (the Applicant) holds Environment Protection Licence 4669 (EPL) for the ‘Greenwood Landfill’, which is a waste recovery and recycling facility located at 9994 Mona Vale Rd, Belrose, NSW (the premises).
-
On 29 July 2024, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) varied the licence under s 58 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) by issuing Licence Variation Notice No. 1636139 (2024 Licence Variation). The licence in force immediately prior to the 2024 Licence Variation was dated 15 November 2021 (2021 Licence).
-
On 19 August 2024, the Applicant, pursuant to s 287 of the POEO Act, filed an appeal of the conditions attached to the 2024 Licence (as imposed by the 2024 Licence Variation).
-
These proceedings fall within the Court’s Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). Section 39 of the LEC Act provides that, in the course of an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court exercises the functions and discretions of the person whose decision is the subject of the appeal. In this case, the relevant functions and discretions are the EPA’s licensing functions under Part 3 of the POEO Act.
-
On 9 October 2024, the Court granted a stay to the following conditions of the 2024 Licence Variation pending the hearing of the Class 1 proceedings on 9 and 10 December 2024 (these proceedings):
Stay the insertion of the (new) Condition L2.2 by the 2024 Licence Variation, to the extent that it relates to Stockpile 26, as marked on the map at Condition A2.2.
Stay the amendment of Condition L2.1 by the 2024 Licence Variation, to the extent that it prevents the receipt of:
building and demolition waste;
office and packaging waste;
waste tyres; and
asphalt waste.
Stay the deletion of Conditions L2.5 to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott Greenwood v Environment Protection Authority 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1051
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of specific provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2001. The court had to determine whether the respondent's decision to deny consent for the variation notice was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed due to alleged procedural errors and misinterpretation of the regulatory provisions. The respondent contended that the decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of environmental risks and was in line with statutory obligations.
The court found that while the respondent's initial decision-making process contained some procedural errors, the overall decision was substantively correct. However, the court also determined that the appellant had demonstrated that the respondent failed to properly consider certain relevant factors. As a result, the court held that the appeal should be partially upheld, and consent should be granted for the variation notice under certain conditions. The court outlined specific terms and conditions for the consent, which were to be detailed in Annexure A. The court also directed that all exhibits be returned, except for two that were to be retained for future reference.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld in part.
(2) The variation notice no. 1636139 of EPL 4669 for the ‘Greenwood Landfill’ is granted consent in accordance with the terms in Annexure A.
(3) All the Exhibits are returned except Exhibits B and 2.
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.