Shell Road Development Pty Ltd & Ors (according to the attached schedule)
Plaintiffs
v
Minister for Planning
Defendant
---
JUDGE:
Quigley J
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:
19 and 20 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
28 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
Shell Road Development Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2025] VSC 525
---
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial Review — Strategic Planning — Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (‘P&E Act’) Part 3AAB — Distinctive areas and landscapes declaration for Bellarine Peninsula — Minister’s decision to finalise statement of planning policy — Whether decision affected by irrationality or unreasonableness — ‘Evident and intelligible justification’ and ‘genuine consideration’ — Whether Minister genuinely engaged with recommendation of advisory committee — Whether Minister genuine considered the community consultation as obligated — Whether error in the Minister’s decision to approve statement of planning policy by reason of a pre‑election commitment — Apprehended bias — Consideration of apprehension of bias where decision made by elected official — Decision made not legally unreasonable or irrational — No bias — Minister entitled to take into account policy commitment.
PLANNING LAW — Role of an advisory committee to which advice had been sought — Statutory interpretation — Exercise of discretion under s 46AV of the P&E Act.
Declaration of area as ‘distinctive area and landscape’
Requirement for Minister to prepare SPP for a declared area
Content of an SPP
Consultation
Endorsement required
Approval of an SPP
When and how the SPP takes effect
Amendment of a PSB
Chronology of Events
The pre-election press release
Phase 1 of Community Engagement
Consultation with Traditional Owners
Declaration of the DAL
Phase 2 of Community Engagement
Establishment of the Advisory Committee
Draft SPP and Phase 3 of Community Engagement
Re-declaration of the DAL
Referral to the Advisory Committee
Advisory Committee hearing and Report
Department…
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.
Continue reading Shell Road Development Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Shell Road Development Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2025] VSC 525
Case
[2025] VSC 525
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shell Road Development Pty Ltd brought a challenge to a decision made by the Minister for Planning, concerning the finalisation of a statement of planning policy for the Bellarine Peninsula. The dispute arose under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), specifically Part 3AAB, which pertains to the declaration of distinctive areas and landscapes. The developer contested the Minister’s decision, arguing it was affected by irrationality, unreasonableness, and a failure to genuinely consider recommendations and community consultation as required by law. Additionally, the developer claimed the Minister's decision was influenced by a pre-election commitment, and there was an apprehended bias.
The court examined whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether there was any genuine consideration of the advisory committee's recommendations and community input. It was also necessary to determine if the Minister genuinely engaged with the statutory obligations and whether the decision was influenced by a pre-election commitment, which could constitute an error. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether there was any apprehended bias in the Minister's decision-making process. The court found that the Minister's decision was not legally unreasonable or irrational, as the Minister had provided an evident and intelligible justification for the decision. The court also determined that there was no bias, and the Minister was entitled to take into account policy commitments.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the developer's challenge. The Minister's decision was upheld, and the developer was not entitled to any relief. The Minister was found to have genuinely considered the statutory obligations, and the decision did not suffer from any legal defects such as irrationality, unreasonableness, or bias. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory requirements and the evidence presented.