IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mid-Western Regional Council [2023] NSWLEC 1800

IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mid-Western Regional Council [2023] NSWLEC 1800

The Court held that it was not satisfied, as required by s 2.42(2)-(3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 and cl 6.10 of the Mid-Western Regional Local Environmental Plan 2012, that the proposed development avoids significant conflict with existing or approved uses on neighbouring land, nor that it is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on scenic quality and landscape character of the regional city. The mitigation mounds required to screen the project would themselves create significant visual impact and alter the character of the visually sensitive entry corridor to Mudgee. As the mandatory preconditions were not met, consent must be...

Parties
Applicant: IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Mid-Western Regional Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, development application refused
Legal Topics
Development Application, Visual Impacts, Solar Farm, Regional City Planning, Scenic Quality, Landscape Character
Planning and Environment Development Application Visual Impacts Solar Farm Regional City Planning Scenic Quality Landscape Character

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Mid-Western Regional Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed solar farm development should be approved under the relevant State and local planning instruments
  2. 2 Whether the development is located to avoid significant conflict with existing or approved residential or commercial uses under s 2.42(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021
  3. 3 Whether the development is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on scenic quality and landscape character for the purposes of s 2.42(2)(b) of the SEPP

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it was not satisfied, as required by s 2.42(2)-(3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 and cl 6.10 of the Mid-Western Regional Local Environmental Plan 2012, that the proposed development avoids significant conflict with existing or approved uses on neighbouring land, nor that it is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on scenic quality and landscape character of the regional city. The mitigation mounds required to screen the project would themselves create significant visual impact and alter the character of the visually sensitive entry corridor to Mudgee. As the mandatory preconditions were not met, consent must be...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, development application refused

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Development application no. DA0288/2019 for a 10MW solar farm and associated infrastructure at Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 1069441, also known as 3B Sydney Road, Burrundulla is determined by refusal of consent.