Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 7) [2021] NSWLEC 125

Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 7) [2021] NSWLEC 125

The 2016 road consent, only recently notified to the Applicant and supported largely by indirect evidence of Winten's intentions, was not a sufficient reason to prevent an engineer from considering the present state of the haul road. However, there was no utility in considering the part of the haul road in Precinct 1 covered by the New DA. The engineer should also review the borrow pit area because the amount of material removed was unknown, even if Winten considered the landform benign. The ecologist should consider the haul road and borrow pit area under modified briefs, with experts to provide fee estimates and timeframes before work commences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Procedural Ruling on Finalisation of Expert Briefs Concerning Remediation and Revegetation Following Invalid Development Consent
Outcome
Procedural directions specified; no formal orders made at this stage.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'development Consent Declared Invalid' 'consequential Restoration Orders' 'site Access for Experts' 'remediation and Revegetation']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'development Consent Declared Invalid' 'consequential Restoration Orders' 'site Access for Experts' 'remediation and Revegetation']

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 4 / Procedural Ruling on Finalisation of Expert Briefs Concerning Remediation and Revegetation Following Invalid Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the experts should consider the haul road at all.' 'If the haul road should be considered by an engineer, whether the part in Precinct 1 the subject of the New DA should be assessed.' 'Whether an engineer, in addition to an ecologist, is needed to review the borrow pit area.' 'What terms should be included in the briefs provided to the expert or experts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 2016 road consent, only recently notified to the Applicant and supported largely by indirect evidence of Winten's intentions, was not a sufficient reason to prevent an engineer from considering the present state of the haul road. However, there was no utility in considering the part of the haul road in Precinct 1 covered by the New DA. The engineer should also review the borrow pit area because the amount of material removed was unknown, even if Winten considered the landform benign. The ecologist should consider the haul road and borrow pit area under modified briefs, with experts to provide fee estimates and timeframes before work commences.

Court Disposition

Procedural directions specified; no formal orders made at this stage.

Orders

  • ['The engineer Mr Hammond is to consider the haul road, except for the part in Precinct 1 approved for subdivision under the New DA as shown in civil engineering plan 1200 dated 7 July 2021.' 'The engineer Mr Hammond is to review the borrow pit area.' 'The ecologist Mr Doyle is to consider the haul road and the...