Stevens Holdings Pty Limited trading as Stevens Group v Newcastle City Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 1287

Stevens Holdings Pty Limited trading as Stevens Group v Newcastle City Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 1287

Consent was refused because the application was not generally consistent with the Concept Plan approval. The TTIA and supporting modelling did not satisfy Condition 1.15, including because consultation, study area, horizon year, staged traffic generation, micro-simulation and offsite road-upgrade assessment were inadequate. The signalised intersection was not shown by detailed design prepared in accordance with RMS requirements as required by Condition 1.16. Consequently the Court could not be satisfied under cl 101(2)(b) of SEPP Infrastructure that the development would not adversely affect the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of John Renshaw Drive or the M1 Motorway, nor that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da2018/00714 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['concept Plan Approval Under Part 3 A' 'transitional Part 3 a Projects' 'general Consistency With Concept Plan Approval' 'traffic and Transport Impact Assessment' 'subdivision of Land' 'classified Roads and Controlled Access Roads' 'offsite Road Upgrades' 'likely Environmental Impacts']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment' 'development Consent' 'roads and Traffic Infrastructure'] ['concept Plan Approval Under Part 3 A' 'transitional Part 3 a Projects' 'general Consistency With Concept Plan Approval' 'traffic and Transport Impact Assessment' 'subdivision of Land' 'classified Roads and Controlled Access Roads' 'offsite Road Upgrades' 'likely Environmental Impacts']

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 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da2018/00714 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development application was generally consistent with the terms of the Concept Plan approval, particularly Conditions 1.15 and 1.16.' 'Whether the Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment was prepared in consultation with Council and RMS and adequately detailed traffic generation, site access, intersection analysis, micro-simulation modelling and offsite road upgrades.' 'Whether the relocated signalised intersection on John Renshaw Drive was supported by detailed design prepared in accordance with RMS requirements.' 'Whether the Court could be satisfied that the development would not adversely affect the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of John Renshaw Drive and the M1 Motorway.' 'Whether the likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts of offsite road upgrades, were sufficiently understood to warrant development consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Consent was refused because the application was not generally consistent with the Concept Plan approval. The TTIA and supporting modelling did not satisfy Condition 1.15, including because consultation, study area, horizon year, staged traffic generation, micro-simulation and offsite road-upgrade assessment were inadequate. The signalised intersection was not shown by detailed design prepared in accordance with RMS requirements as required by Condition 1.16. Consequently the Court could not be satisfied under cl 101(2)(b) of SEPP Infrastructure that the development would not adversely affect the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of John Renshaw Drive or the M1 Motorway, nor that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon amended plans and other documents at Exhibits E, G and K.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "Development consent for Development Application No. DA2018/00714 for a 'one into 200 lot Torrens title subdivision constructed in eight stages, inclusive of vegetation clearing, creek...