Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 8) [2022] NSWLEC 110
The Court had power under s 9.46(2)(c) to order reinstatement only so far as practicable of land altered by works carried out under the invalid development consent, and not to make broader site-management or enhancement orders. The agreed ecological evidence supported vegetation management works for the areas identified in Figure 2 of the joint expert report, including planting, hydromulching, thorny pea replacement and nest boxes, but did not support the Applicant's broader vegetation, topsoil or additional nest box orders. The evidence did not justify reinstating the former haul road as a 4WD track, but did justify orders for stabilisation of the south-west bank because the haul road...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Consequential Orders Following Declaration of Invalidity of Development Consent
- Outcome
- Consequential orders to be made in part: vegetation management works and south-west bank stabilisation were to be ordered; reinstatement of the former haul road as a 4WD track, broader ecological enhancement orders, topsoil orders, and Aboriginal heritage access orders were refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['consequential Orders' 'invalid Development Consent' 'species Impact Statement' 'site Remediation' 'vegetation Management' 'erosion and Sediment Control' 'reinstatement of Altered Land']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Consequential Orders Following Declaration of Invalidity of Development Consent
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether consequential orders should be made under s 9.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) following the declaration that development consent 2017/270 was invalid.' 'Whether vegetation management works should be ordered for the borrow pit and former haul road areas, and the appropriate scope of those works.' 'Whether engineering works should be ordered to reinstate the former haul road as a 4WD track or otherwise stabilise the south-west bank.' 'Whether orders should be made allowing the Applicant and a trained sites officer access to inspect for Aboriginal cultural heritage material.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court had power under s 9.46(2)(c) to order reinstatement only so far as practicable of land altered by works carried out under the invalid development consent, and not to make broader site-management or enhancement orders. The agreed ecological evidence supported vegetation management works for the areas identified in Figure 2 of the joint expert report, including planting, hydromulching, thorny pea replacement and nest boxes, but did not support the Applicant's broader vegetation, topsoil or additional nest box orders. The evidence did not justify reinstating the former haul road as a 4WD track, but did justify orders for stabilisation of the south-west bank because the haul road...
Court Disposition
Consequential orders to be made in part: vegetation management works and south-west bank stabilisation were to be ordered; reinstatement of the former haul road as a 4WD track, broader ecological enhancement orders, topsoil orders, and Aboriginal heritage access orders were refused.
Orders
- ["Draft orders for vegetation management were to be based on Winten's proposed orders, with possible timing variations in relation to engineering work on the former haul road area." "Orders for stabilisation of the south-west bank or south-west batter were to be made, based on Winten's draft stabilisation orders...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment