Diamond v Minister for Planning New South Wales and Another (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 254

Diamond v Minister for Planning New South Wales and Another (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 254

Development consent was granted because the expert evidence and the imposed conditions adequately addressed the environmental and planning impacts of the sand quarry extension, including noise, air quality, surface water, groundwater, rehabilitation, monitoring, auditing and community consultation; the EIS was sufficiently adequate; alternative sites had been adequately considered; and the applicant did not substantiate the alleged fraud, misconduct or total systems failure said to justify refusal of consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Application by an Objector Appealing a Grant of Development Consent for Designated Development / Judgment After Hearing Determining the Development Application and Costs
Outcome
Development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay each respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['designated Development' 'state Significant Development' 'integrated Development' 'extractive Industries' 'environmental Impact Statement' 'sand Mining' 'water Quality and Groundwater' 'noise Impacts' 'air Quality and Dust Emissions' 'section 94 Contributions' 'development Consent Conditions' 'costs']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['designated Development' 'state Significant Development' 'integrated Development' 'extractive Industries' 'environmental Impact Statement' 'sand Mining' 'water Quality and Groundwater' 'noise Impacts' 'air Quality and Dust Emissions' 'section 94 Contributions' 'development Consent Conditions' 'costs']

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 1 Application by an Objector Appealing a Grant of Development Consent for Designated Development / Judgment After Hearing Determining the Development Application and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for the proposed extension of sand extraction operations at Maroota.' 'Whether the Environmental Impact Statement was valid and adequate.' 'Whether the proposed development was consistent with Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 9 - Extractive Industries and Development Control Plan No 500 - Extractive Industries.' 'Whether water quality, groundwater, noise, air quality, traffic, flora and fauna, and cumulative environmental impacts were adequately addressed.' 'Whether alleged fraud or misconduct in relation to section 94 contributions and alleged regulatory failures justified refusal of consent.' 'Whether government and local government agencies were capable of adequately monitoring and enforcing consent conditions for sand mining at Maroota.' 'Whether alternative sites had been adequately considered.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Development consent was granted because the expert evidence and the imposed conditions adequately addressed the environmental and planning impacts of the sand quarry extension, including noise, air quality, surface water, groundwater, rehabilitation, monitoring, auditing and community consultation; the EIS was sufficiently adequate; alternative sites had been adequately considered; and the applicant did not substantiate the alleged fraud, misconduct or total systems failure said to justify refusal of consent.

Court Disposition

Development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay each respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Development Application No 250-09-01 made to the Minister and lodged with the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning on 21 September 2001 is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions annexed hereto and marked "A".' 'The applicant is ordered to pay each of the respondents costs of the proceedings...