Protect Penrith Action Group Inc v Penrith City Council and Ors [2015] NSWLEC 159

Protect Penrith Action Group Inc v Penrith City Council and Ors [2015] NSWLEC 159

Leave to adduce expert social planning evidence was refused because the material relied on to justify leave was not a valid basis for expert evidence in the Class 4 proceedings: the questions put to Dr Stubbs and her report impermissibly treated the proposed places of public worship as mosques and relied on considerations not relevant to a theistically neutral development consent for a place of public worship, and the report also relied on material from the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 which could not assist on the motions where the pleaded applicable development control plan was the Penrith Development Control Plan 2010.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging Development Consents for Places of Public Worship / Interlocutory Notices of Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Social Planning Evidence Under Rr 31.19 and 31.20 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Outcome
The Applicant's motions for leave to adduce expert social planning evidence in both proceedings were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Development Consent' 'leave to Adduce Expert Evidence' 'social Impact Assessment' 'place of Public Worship' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'development Control Plans']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['judicial Review of Development Consent' 'leave to Adduce Expert Evidence' 'social Impact Assessment' 'place of Public Worship' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'development Control Plans']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging Development Consents for Places of Public Worship / Interlocutory Notices of Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Social Planning Evidence Under Rr 31.19 and 31.20 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to adduce expert social planning evidence in the substantive Class 4 proceedings.' "Whether the proposed expert evidence was confined to the Council's decision-making process rather than the merits of the development consents." 'Whether the expert report was impermissibly tainted by treating the proposed places of public worship as mosques rather than theistically neutral places of public worship.' 'Whether reliance on material from the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 could assist when the pleaded applicable development control plan was the Penrith Development Control Plan 2010.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce expert social planning evidence was refused because the material relied on to justify leave was not a valid basis for expert evidence in the Class 4 proceedings: the questions put to Dr Stubbs and her report impermissibly treated the proposed places of public worship as mosques and relied on considerations not relevant to a theistically neutral development consent for a place of public worship, and the report also relied on material from the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 which could not assist on the motions where the pleaded applicable development control plan was the Penrith Development Control Plan 2010.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's motions for leave to adduce expert social planning evidence in both proceedings were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["In Matter No 40129 of 2015, the Applicant's application for leave to adduce expert social planning evidence is refused." 'In Matter No 40129 of 2015, the Applicant is to pay those costs, as agreed or assessed, of the Respondents on the motion where those costs were for elements of the hearing on the motion not...