Normans Plant Hire Pty Limited & (2) Ors) v South Coast Concrete Crushing & Recycling Pty Limited & Anor (No. 2) [2006] NSWLEC 734
Although the respondents' operations were subject to some controls and restraint would cause inconvenience and expense, ML2 quarrying required development consent and none had been granted. Because the proposed use was designated development requiring an environmental impact statement, third parties were entitled to participate, off-site impacts such as noise, blasting, dust and heavy vehicle traffic were plainly possible, the approval process was likely to take many months, and the respondents could meet contractual commitments by confining activities to ML1. The breach was not merely technical, and the public interest in observance of planning law required restraint of operations on...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 November 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Proceedings for Injunctions and Declarations Under S 124 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Concerning Quarrying on ML2 Without Development Consent. / Determination of Discretionary Relief After Earlier Findings That Mining Operations Under ML1 Were Lawful and Mining Operations Under ML2 Were Unlawful.
- Outcome
- Declarations and injunctions granted; operation of the restraining orders postponed for four weeks; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Consent' 'designated Development' 'injunctions and Declarations' 'quarrying' 'mining Leases' 'environmental Impact Statement' 'third Party Rights']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Injunctions and Declarations Under S 124 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Concerning Quarrying on ML2 Without Development Consent. / Determination of Discretionary Relief After Earlier Findings That Mining Operations Under ML1 Were Lawful and Mining Operations Under ML2 Were Unlawful.
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court should grant an injunction restraining quarrying on ML2 unless and until development consent is granted.' 'Whether the operation of any injunction should be postponed to allow a development application to be prepared, lodged and determined.' "Whether the public interest in orderly planning control and potential environmental and off-site impacts outweighed hardship and disruption to the respondents' mining operations."]
Ratio Decidendi
Although the respondents' operations were subject to some controls and restraint would cause inconvenience and expense, ML2 quarrying required development consent and none had been granted. Because the proposed use was designated development requiring an environmental impact statement, third parties were entitled to participate, off-site impacts such as noise, blasting, dust and heavy vehicle traffic were plainly possible, the approval process was likely to take many months, and the respondents could meet contractual commitments by confining activities to ML1. The breach was not merely technical, and the public interest in observance of planning law required restraint of operations on...
Court Disposition
Declarations and injunctions granted; operation of the restraining orders postponed for four weeks; costs reserved.
Orders
- ['A declaration that the carrying out of development consisting of the conduct of a quarry for shale on land at South Nowra comprised within Mineral Lease 6322 ("ML2") requires development consent.' 'A declaration that no development consent has been given authorising the carrying out of that development on ML2.'...
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