Burns v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2022] NSWLEC 146

Burns v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2022] NSWLEC 146

The appeal failed because the Appellant did not identify any error of law in the Senior Commissioner's decision. The Senior Commissioner asked the correct question under s 4.15(1)(b) and made factual findings that NSW Police use under cl 107C of the SEPP had a sufficient nexus with the proposed development and that its impacts were likely; those factual findings and the weight given to evidence were not reviewable on a s 56A appeal. The asserted errors concerning the northern land, Mr Burns' communications, Mr Szaak's evidence, public interest, acoustic impacts on the Poulis land, temperature inversions, and conditions or partial consent either disclosed no legal error or were not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (nsw) Concerning Refusal of Development Consent for a Recreational Facility (outdoor) Shooting Range / Appeal From Senior Commissioner Decision Dismissing Class 1 Development Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Summons dismissed; Appellant ordered to pay the Council's costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'likely Impacts Under S 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'public Interest Under S 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'section 56 a Appeal on a Question of Law' 'shooting Range Development' 'nsw Police Force Development Without Consent Under Cl 107 C of State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007' 'acoustic Impacts' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'conditions and Partial Consent Under S 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'likely Impacts Under S 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'public Interest Under S 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'section 56 a Appeal on a Question of Law' 'shooting Range Development' 'nsw Police Force Development Without Consent Under Cl 107 C of State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007' 'acoustic Impacts' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'conditions and Partial Consent Under S 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)']

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 Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (nsw) Concerning Refusal of Development Consent for a Recreational Facility (outdoor) Shooting Range / Appeal From Senior Commissioner Decision Dismissing Class 1 Development Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Senior Commissioner erred in treating the potential use of the site by NSW Police for firearms training under cl 107C of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 as a relevant consideration under s 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner erred in findings about the likelihood and impacts of NSW Police use of the site, including use of the northern part of the land and compliance with any range approval or planning consent.' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner erred in finding the development was not in the public interest because anticipated NSW Police use had not been assessed.' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner inadequately reasoned or took into account irrelevant matters concerning acoustic assessment of the Poulis land and any dwelling entitlement.' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner erred by considering temperature inversions in relation to night-time acoustic impacts.' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner erred by not considering partial consent or conditions under s 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Appellant did not identify any error of law in the Senior Commissioner's decision. The Senior Commissioner asked the correct question under s 4.15(1)(b) and made factual findings that NSW Police use under cl 107C of the SEPP had a sufficient nexus with the proposed development and that its impacts were likely; those factual findings and the weight given to evidence were not reviewable on a s 56A appeal. The asserted errors concerning the northern land, Mr Burns' communications, Mr Szaak's evidence, public interest, acoustic impacts on the Poulis land, temperature inversions, and conditions or partial consent either disclosed no legal error or were not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Summons dismissed; Appellant ordered to pay the Council's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Summons filed on 25 November 2021 is dismissed.' "The Appellant is to pay the Council's costs." 'The exhibits are returned.' 'The parties are to contact my Associate to collect the exhibits within 14 days of the date of the making of the Orders.']