Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council (No. 3)

[2003] NSWLEC 163

>

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council (No. 3) [2003] NSWLEC 163

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Sutherland Shire Council

OBJECTOR
Colonial First State Property Limited

FILE NUMBER(S):

10248 of 2001

CORAM:

Cowdroy J

KEY ISSUES:

Practice and Procedure :- objection to objector's submissions - beyond scope provided to objector

LEGISLATION CITED:

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 1993
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

11/04/2002

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

04/11/2002

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr M. Tobias QC

SOLICITORS
Landerer & Co

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Green (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
Pike Pike Fenwick

OBJECTOR
Ms A. Pearman (Barrister)

SOLICITORS
Mallesons Stephen Jaques

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

10248 of 2001

Cowdroy J

11 April 2002

Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited

Applicant
v

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent
Colonial First State Property Limited

Objector

Judgment No. 3

1 This matter is part heard but the stage has been reached where submissions have been given by both parties and submissions in reply are to be forthcoming.

2 In the course of the delivery of submissions by the objector various matters have been addressed. The applicant has taken objection on the ground that the objector was granted leave for a limited purpose only. The submissions of the objector were to be restricted solely to economic issues.

3 The submissions of the objector total one hundred and sixteen paragraphs. Of those no objection is taken to paragraphs 64 to 101. However, the remainder are objected to on the grounds that the matters sought to be raised extend beyond the scope that was provided to the objector. The applicant submits that it has prepared its submissions in relation to planning matters and other issues and it would be unfair if it were now required to reassess those matters in light of the objector’s submissions which extend beyond the scope of economic issues.

4 Ms Pearman, who has today appeared for the objector submitted that the remainder of the submissions have been included because it is impossible to separate economic issues from town planning issues.

5 The Court has concluded that certain paragraphs objected to constitute submissions which relate to planning issues but are inextricability linked with economic issues. They are therefore allowable. Other submissions are essentially non-economic and address matters in respect of which the objector was not given permission to intervene.

6 The Court also observes that insofar as those matters have touched upon planning issues, they appear to have been fully addressed by the respondent in its opposition to the application.

7 The Court concludes that submissions which relate solely to planning will not be received from the objector.

8 The Court makes the following orders:-

1. The Court will accept submissions contained in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the objector’s written submissions which are purely introductory and set the basis for the intervention;

2. The Court rejects paragraphs 9 to 12 of the objector’s written submissions as they are matters which the Court considers to be solely relating to planning matters;

3. Paragraphs 13 to 48 of the objector’s written submissions are accepted;

4. Paragraphs 49 to 54 of the objector’s written submissions dealing with the status of draft State environmental planning policy No. 66 are rejected as are paragraphs dealing with the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan, namely paragraphs 55 to 63 of the objector’s written submissions;

5. Paragraphs 64 to 101 of the objector’s written submissions are accepted without objection;

6. Paragraphs 102 to 115 of the objector’s written submissions deal solely with planning issues and statutory interpretation and the Court considers those paragraphs are beyond the scope of the permission which is granted to the objector. Accordingly those paragraphs will not be read.