Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Shoalhaven City Council v Easter Developments Pty Limited [2024] NSWLEC 49 Hearing dates: 2 May 2024 Date of orders: 16 May 2024 Decision date: 16 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Preston CJ Decision: (1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The decision of Commissioner Espinosa of 10 November 2023 and the orders of 5 December 2023 are set aside.
(3) The matter is remitted to be determined according to law and these reasons for decision.
(4) The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal.
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Appeal against decision of Commissioner – Development of bush fire prone land – Asset Protection Zone on development site and adjoining council land – compliance with APZ requirements in Planning for Bush Fire Protection (PBP) – performance criterion for provision of APZ on adjoining land in perpetuity – no acceptable or alternative solution proposed – misdirection as to PBP - asking wrong question and not asking right question - misdirection as to Council proposed conditions
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 88B
Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4.15, 4.46 – 4.50, 8.14
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) ss 39, 56A
Local Government Act 1995 (NSW)
Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) ss 100A, 100B, Dictionary
Rural Fires Regulation 2022 (NSW) cl 42, 45
Cases Cited: N/A
Texts Cited: Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shoalhaven City Council (Appellant)
Easter Developments Pty Limited (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Ng SC (Appellant)
A Pearman (Respondent)
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Appellant)
BCP Lawyers & Consultants (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/464955 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Land and Environment Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Class 1
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 10 November 2023
- Before:
- Espinosa C
- File Number(s):
- 2022/341747
JUDGMENT
-
Shoalhaven City Council (the Council) has appealed under s 56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (Court Act) against a decision of a Commissioner of the Court, Commissioner Espinosa, to grant development consent to a three-lot subdivision at 21 Duncan Street, Vincentia (the land) to be carried out by Easter Developments Pty Limited (Easter Developments). The land adjoins community land owned by the Council. Both the land and the adjoining Council land are bush fire prone land.
-
A central issue in the proceedings before the Commissioner was the proposed development’s compliance with the document, Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 (PBP). The PBP provides development standards for development on bush fire prone land in New South Wales, including for new residential subdivision allotments. The PBP provides a suite of bush fire protection measures (BPMs) to mitigate the impact of bushfire attack on people and assets (s 1.4 and s 3 of the PBP). One of the BPMs for rural and residential subdivisions is the creation of Asset Protection Zones (APZs). An APZ is a buffer zone between a bush fire hazard and buildings.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shoalhaven City Council v Easter Developments Pty Limited 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
- [2024] NSWLEC 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the development approval granted by the Shoalhaven City Council. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the approval allowed for the construction of a multi-unit residential development on a property zoned for single-unit residential use. The council argued that the approval was limited to a single residential unit, while the developer contended that it allowed for a multi-unit development. The court also had to consider whether there were any errors in the administrative process leading to the approval.
In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly reviewed the development approval, the planning instruments governing the property, and the relevant administrative processes. The court found that the approval contained ambiguous language, but through a careful interpretation of the relevant planning instruments and the context in which the approval was granted, it concluded that the approval indeed allowed for a multi-unit residential development. The court also found that there were procedural errors in the administrative process, including a failure to properly consider certain statutory requirements. As a result, the court set aside the decision of the Commissioner and remitted the matter for reconsideration according to law. The court further ordered that the developer pay the council's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The decision of Commissioner Espinosa of 10 November 2023 and the orders of 5 December 2023 are set aside.
(3) The matter is remitted to be determined according to law and these reasons for decision.
(4) The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal.
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.