Butler Street Community Network Incorporated v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 55

Butler Street Community Network Incorporated v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 55

The Court declined to vacate the hearing dates because the contraction in the scope of consent required did not substantially change the issues in the proceedings, the applicant's preparation decisions were strategic and not compelled, substantial prejudice and delay to Council would result from vacation, and case management directions had been substantially complied with. The interests of prompt and efficient resolution outweighed the applicant's concerns.

Parties
Applicant: Butler Street Community Network Incorporated; First Respondent: Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel; Second Respondent: GHD Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Byron Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Vacate Hearing Dates
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Application to Vacate Hearing Dates, Case Management, Jurisdiction, Expert Evidence, Planning Legislation
Practice and Procedure Environmental Planning Application to Vacate Hearing Dates Case Management Jurisdiction Expert Evidence Planning Legislation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Butler Street Community Network Incorporated

Applicant

Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel

First Respondent

GHD Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Byron Shire Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Vacate Hearing Dates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing dates should be vacated to allow revised issues to be articulated
  2. 2 Impact of contraction in scope of consent required for development
  3. 3 Preparation and timing of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to vacate the hearing dates because the contraction in the scope of consent required did not substantially change the issues in the proceedings, the applicant's preparation decisions were strategic and not compelled, substantial prejudice and delay to Council would result from vacation, and case management directions had been substantially complied with. The interests of prompt and efficient resolution outweighed the applicant's concerns.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The applicant is to file and serve any amended Statement of Facts and Contentions by 8 May 2017, restricted to deletion; no new contentions may be raised absent leave.
  • Experts are to file and serve their joint reports by 11 May 2017.