ADI Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2000] NSWLEC 203

ADI Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2000] NSWLEC 203

The proposed EMI/EMC testing facility was not an industry because testing a sample to provide evidence of compliance with standards did not add to, alter, prepare, finish or adapt the product and was too remote from the making, preparing, finishing or adapting of goods for sale to be in or incidental to that process. It was therefore permissible with consent. However, the proposed structures and access road were positioned without regard to scenic significance, were antipathetic to protecting the broad-acre rural character, and the visual and noise impacts were out of character with the quiet, isolated bushland setting. The Court therefore declined to make the consent orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Consent / Application for Consent Orders Granting Development Consent Subject to Conditions
Outcome
Consent orders declined; proceedings stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['characterisation of Development' 'industry and Manufacturing Process' 'zone Objectives' 'consent Orders' 'objector Intervention' 'visual Impact' 'noise Impact']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land Use and Zoning' 'development Consent'] ['characterisation of Development' 'industry and Manufacturing Process' 'zone Objectives' 'consent Orders' 'objector Intervention' 'visual Impact' 'noise Impact']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Consent / Application for Consent Orders Granting Development Consent Subject to Conditions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed open area EMI/EMC testing facility was prohibited as an industry or permissible with consent under the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 1989.' 'Whether the proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the 7(d) Environmental Protection (Scenic) zone.' 'Whether development consent should be refused on merits grounds because the proposal was out of character with the surrounding area or had unacceptable visual and noise impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed EMI/EMC testing facility was not an industry because testing a sample to provide evidence of compliance with standards did not add to, alter, prepare, finish or adapt the product and was too remote from the making, preparing, finishing or adapting of goods for sale to be in or incidental to that process. It was therefore permissible with consent. However, the proposed structures and access road were positioned without regard to scenic significance, were antipathetic to protecting the broad-acre rural character, and the visual and noise impacts were out of character with the quiet, isolated bushland setting. The Court therefore declined to make the consent orders.

Court Disposition

Consent orders declined; proceedings stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to make consent orders.' 'The proceedings were stood over to a call-over before the Registrar on 1 November 2000 for directions for the future conduct of the proceedings.']