746 Greendale Road Greendale Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1372

746 Greendale Road Greendale Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1372

The Applicant's BDAR was not prepared or certified by an accredited person, as required under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and BAM Manual; further, it did not adequately assess impacts on biodiversity values, threatened Cumberland Plain Woodland and land snail, or provide sufficient assessment of koalas and riparian impacts. Consequently, the proposed development could not be approved.

Parties
Applicant: 746 Greendale Road Greendale Pty Ltd; Respondent: Liverpool City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
The appeal against development application is dismissed; the appeal regarding development control order is upheld and compliance period modified.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Biodiversity Assessment, Environmental Impact, Development Control Orders, Land Use, Compliance With Planning Instruments
Environmental Law Planning Law Development Application Biodiversity Assessment Environmental Impact Development Control Orders Land Use Compliance With Planning Instruments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

746 Greendale Road Greendale Pty Ltd

Applicant

Liverpool City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Adequacy of biodiversity assessment report under Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
  2. 2 Assessment of impacts on Cumberland Plain Woodland and land snail
  3. 3 Compliance with Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's BDAR was not prepared or certified by an accredited person, as required under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and BAM Manual; further, it did not adequately assess impacts on biodiversity values, threatened Cumberland Plain Woodland and land snail, or provide sufficient assessment of koalas and riparian impacts. Consequently, the proposed development could not be approved.

Court Disposition

The appeal against development application is dismissed; the appeal regarding development control order is upheld and compliance period modified.

Orders

  • The appeal 2022/234271 is dismissed.
  • Development application DA-688/2022 is refused.