IRM Property Group (No. 2) Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1306

IRM Property Group (No. 2) Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1306

The Court found the applicant had not sufficiently avoided or minimised impacts on biodiversity values, particularly for proposed Lot 17, placing excessive emphasis on offsetting rather than minimising clearing of native vegetation. The evidence did not demonstrate adequate steps to avoid or minimise those impacts as required by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, and the development was refused.

Parties
Applicant: IRM Property Group (No. 2) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Blacktown City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Development application refused
Legal Topics
Development Application, Torrens Title Subdivision, Biodiversity Assessment, Ecological Impact, Environmental Planning
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Torrens Title Subdivision Biodiversity Assessment Ecological Impact Environmental Planning

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRM Property Group (No. 2) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Blacktown City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development sufficiently avoids or minimises impacts on biodiversity values
  2. 2 Whether adequate offsets for biodiversity loss are proposed
  3. 3 Whether visual impacts from retaining walls are acceptable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the applicant had not sufficiently avoided or minimised impacts on biodiversity values, particularly for proposed Lot 17, placing excessive emphasis on offsetting rather than minimising clearing of native vegetation. The evidence did not demonstrate adequate steps to avoid or minimise those impacts as required by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, and the development was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Development application refused

Orders

  • Leave granted to rely on amended plans and documents in Exhibits X, Y, Z, AA, BB and CC.
  • The appeal is dismissed.