Jandra Blue Metal Quarries Pty Ltd v Rainbow Flat Quarry Environment Committee [1988] NSWLEC 30

Jandra Blue Metal Quarries Pty Ltd v Rainbow Flat Quarry Environment Committee [1988] NSWLEC 30

The proposed increase from 50,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes per annum and from 2,000 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes per week was not substantially the same development as that originally consented to, because the original consent and EIS were premised on limited production and the proposed modification would materially increase traffic, blasting, dust and duration of noise emissions. The Court was also not satisfied that the increased blasting would not prejudice Mrs. Moore. In any event, discretion should not be exercised to approve a trebling of designated development without an environmental impact statement and ordinary public assessment processes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 1988
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S.102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for Modification of a Development Consent / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application refused; formal order that the application be dismissed.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'designated Development' 'extractive Industry' 'quarrying' 'environmental Impact Assessment' 'prejudice to Objectors']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'designated Development' 'extractive Industry' 'quarrying' 'environmental Impact Assessment' 'prejudice to Objectors']

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

Application Pursuant to S.102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for Modification of a Development Consent / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed modification would result in substantially the same development as the development for which consent was granted.' 'Whether no prejudice would be caused to persons who objected to the original development application.' 'Whether, even if the statutory requirements were met, the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the modification.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed increase from 50,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes per annum and from 2,000 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes per week was not substantially the same development as that originally consented to, because the original consent and EIS were premised on limited production and the proposed modification would materially increase traffic, blasting, dust and duration of noise emissions. The Court was also not satisfied that the increased blasting would not prejudice Mrs. Moore. In any event, discretion should not be exercised to approve a trebling of designated development without an environmental impact statement and ordinary public assessment processes.

Court Disposition

Application refused; formal order that the application be dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']