Davis v Gosford City Council [2014] NSWCA 343

Davis v Gosford City Council [2014] NSWCA 343

The likely impacts of a development on threatened species, including those less than significant, may be grounds for refusal of development consent under s 79C(1)(b) EPA Act; Section 5A's significant effect test is not a precondition for consideration under s 79C(1)(b) and only applies where the statute specifically requires that test, i.e., for procedural triggers like the requirement of a Species Impact Statement or concurrence. Where significant effect is not found, the consent authority is neither required nor empowered to consider the concurrence of the Director-General.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Land and Environment Court to the NSW Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'threatened Species' 'judicial Review' 'significant Effect Test' 'concurrence of Director General' 'application of Ep&a Act']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'threatened Species' 'judicial Review' 'significant Effect Test' 'concurrence of Director General' 'application of Ep&a Act']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Land and Environment Court to the NSW Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an effect on a threatened species that is not likely to be significant can be a ground for refusal of development consent under s 79C(1)(b) of the EPA Act' 'Whether the consent authority was required to consider the concurrence of the Director-General under s 79B(3) of the EPA Act when no significant effect was found']

Ratio Decidendi

The likely impacts of a development on threatened species, including those less than significant, may be grounds for refusal of development consent under s 79C(1)(b) EPA Act; Section 5A's significant effect test is not a precondition for consideration under s 79C(1)(b) and only applies where the statute specifically requires that test, i.e., for procedural triggers like the requirement of a Species Impact Statement or concurrence. Where significant effect is not found, the consent authority is neither required nor empowered to consider the concurrence of the Director-General.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants are to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to this Court."]