Terrain Solar Pty Ltd v Wagga Wagga City Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1003


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Terrain Solar Pty Ltd v Wagga Wagga City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1003
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 January 2019
Date of orders: 09 January 2019
Decision date: 09 January 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See orders at [9] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Terrain Solar Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wagga Wagga City Council (First Respondent)
Southern Regional Planning Panel (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Stafford (Applicant)
J Reid (Second Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Beatty Legal (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (First Respondent)
Department of Planning & Environment (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/318526
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Terrain Solar Pty Ltd P/L (the Applicant) has appealed the decision of the Southern Regional Planning Panel Council (the Second Respondent), under delegation from Wagga Wagga City Council (the First Respondent), to refuse its development application (No. 2017STH034 - Wagga - DA17/0679) for construction of solar farm at 157 Windmill Lane, at Bomen (the Subject Site).

  2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction. These proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EPA Act.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 8 January 2019, and I have presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the development application, subject to conditions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

  6. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.

  7. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  8. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans, in relation to which the parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, given that the amendments involve a reduction in the number and footprint of solar photo voltaic (PV) modules and reconfiguration of landscaping:

  1. EV01 to EV10, Issue D dated 4 January 2019 prepared by Geolyse Pty Ltd;

  2. Figure 2-1: Landscape Plan, Revision 5 dated 7 January 2019 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design;

  3. Figure 2-2: Landscape Sections, Revision 3 dated 4 December 2018 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design;

  4. Figures 2-2a and 2-2b: Landscape Sections, Revision 3 dated 7 January 2019 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design;

  5. Figure 2-3: Plant Lists & Landscape Notes, Revision 4 dated 6 December 2018 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design;

  6. Figure 2-4: Plant Set-Out Matrix, Revision 1 dated 4 December 2018 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design; and

  7. Figure 2-5: Vegetation Set-Out Plan, Revision 2 dated 7 January 2019 prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application No. 2017STH034 - Wagga - DA17/0679 for electricity generation works comprising a 30 MW solar farm and associated structures, works and infrastructure in respect of Lot 15 DP 1108978, known as 157 Windmill Road, Bomen, and Lot 1 DP 1115229 is approved in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexure A.

…………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

Drawings EV01-EV10 

Landscape Plans (901 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Terrain Solar Pty Ltd v Wagga Wagga City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1003
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1003
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are Terrain Solar Pty Ltd, a solar energy company, and Wagga Wagga City Council, a local government authority. The dispute arose from Terrain Solar's application to install solar panels on a property located in the council area, which the council refused to permit. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the council's refusal was lawful, focusing on the interpretation and application of relevant planning laws and regulations.

The key legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Wagga Wagga City Council Local Environment Plan 2012 and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The central question was whether the council had the authority to deny Terrain Solar's application under the existing zoning laws and if the decision was reasonable and in accordance with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's decision was influenced by any improper considerations or procedural errors.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the legislative framework and the council's decision-making process. It was determined that the council's refusal to grant planning permission was not supported by the evidence and did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider the benefits of the solar installation, including the potential for renewable energy generation and environmental advantages. The decision was deemed to be unreasonable and not in line with the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the council's decision to refuse planning permission and the direction for the council to reassess the application, taking into account the legal requirements and the benefits of the proposed solar installation. The court emphasised the importance of proper consideration and adherence to legislative mandates in future decision-making processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [9] below

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.