Deemco Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1469

Deemco Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1469

The appeal was upheld because the residents' hazard concerns were not supported by objective evidence where the expert evidence accepted the adequacy of the Preliminary Hazard Analysis and relevant risk criteria were met; the visual and lighting impacts were acceptable subject to conditions; and the acoustic wall, although within the 30 metre railway setback, would meet acoustic criteria, limit light spill, allow landscaping, and satisfy the underlying purpose of the standard, making strict compliance unnecessary and unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Gaseous Products Manufacturing, Storage and Distribution Facility' 'designated Development' 'hazardous and Offensive Development' 'residential Amenity and Perception of Hazard' 'visual Impact' 'acoustic Wall Within Railway Setback' 'sepp 1 Objection']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land Use Planning'] ['development Application for Gaseous Products Manufacturing, Storage and Distribution Facility' 'designated Development' 'hazardous and Offensive Development' 'residential Amenity and Perception of Hazard' 'visual Impact' 'acoustic Wall Within Railway Setback' 'sepp 1 Objection']

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

Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether residents' perceptions and fears about hazard from the proposed facility justified refusal on amenity grounds" 'Whether the proposal would have an acceptable visual impact, including lighting and views of storage tanks' 'Whether an acoustic wall within 30 metres of the Main Southern Railway line breached cl 37 of Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002 and whether the SEPP 1 objection was well founded']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the residents' hazard concerns were not supported by objective evidence where the expert evidence accepted the adequacy of the Preliminary Hazard Analysis and relevant risk criteria were met; the visual and lighting impacts were acceptable subject to conditions; and the acoustic wall, although within the 30 metre railway setback, would meet acoustic criteria, limit light spill, allow landscaping, and satisfy the underlying purpose of the standard, making strict compliance unnecessary and unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld' 'The development application (1456/2007/DA-DE) for the construction and operation of a gaseous products manufacturing, storage and distribution facility at 10-13 Phiney Place, Ingleburn is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A' 'The exhibits, except Exhibits 1, A and G, are returned']