Boral Resources (Country) Pty Ltd v Clarence Valley Council & Avard; Cemex Australia Pty Ltd v Clarence Valley Council & Avard [2009] NSWLEC 81

Boral Resources (Country) Pty Ltd v Clarence Valley Council & Avard; Cemex Australia Pty Ltd v Clarence Valley Council & Avard [2009] NSWLEC 81

The Council failed to comply with notification and advertising requirements under s 79A(2) of the EP&A Act and the relevant DCP in relation to the September 2007 development application, rendering the consent invalid. Additionally, the Council failed to form the necessary opinion under cl 35 regarding environmental impacts, so the application was for designated development, invalidating the consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Development consent declared invalid; further submissions required as to consequential orders under s 25B of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'development Applications' 'public Notification' 'designated Development' 'procedural Fairness']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['judicial Review' 'development Applications' 'public Notification' 'designated Development' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development application was properly notified and advertised under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and relevant DCPs' 'Whether the application was for designated development requiring an EIS' 'Whether the application was for amendments/additions or was a new application' 'Whether there was a failure to accord procedural fairness' 'Whether the council failed to consider zone objectives as a condition precedent']

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to comply with notification and advertising requirements under s 79A(2) of the EP&A Act and the relevant DCP in relation to the September 2007 development application, rendering the consent invalid. Additionally, the Council failed to form the necessary opinion under cl 35 regarding environmental impacts, so the application was for designated development, invalidating the consent.

Court Disposition

Development consent declared invalid; further submissions required as to consequential orders under s 25B of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Orders

  • []