Lilley v Lithgow City Council [2007] NSWLEC 608

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Lilley v Lithgow City Council [2007] NSWLEC 608

Applicant: Mark Lilley PARTIES : Respondent: Lithgow City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10390 of 2007

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- aircarft noise, appropriate standards for aircraft noise

DATES OF HEARING: 17/09/2007 and 18/09/2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 September 2007

Applicant: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr C McEwen, SC and Mr M Staunton, barrister instructed by Ms T Minas, solicitor of Bartier Perry Respondent: Mr S Griffith, solicitor of Pike Pike & Fenwick

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

25 September 2007

10390 of 2007 Mark Lilley v Lithgow City Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Lithgow City Council (the council) of a development application to establish a helipad on lot 5 DP 244899, known as 4675 Castlereagh Highway, Capertee.

The site 2 The site is 12.6ha in area, located on the Castlereagh Highway, 3km north of Capertee. It is mostly cleared of vegetation. Adjoining properties are of similar size and in rural-residential occupation. There are several national parks nearby, including the World Heritage area of the Blue Mountains National Park.

The proposal and its history 3 The applicant proposes to establish a helipad on his property for a single engine Robinson R44 II or similar helicopter. The helipad includes a lockable compound, fuel containers, security and lighting systems, a bund for chemical spills, parking, toilets and a hangar. None of these facilities is in contention. 4 The applicant proposes to operate joy flights between 7am and 6pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 6pm on Sundays and public holidays. He proposes a maximum of 20 flights a day, with an annual maximum of 1500. 5 The applicant lodged the application in December 2006. Following notification, the council received 60 objections. The council referred the application to the then Department of Environment and Conservation, which provided its General Terms of Approval. The council also referred the application to the Roads and Traffic Authority, which indicated that it would agree to the proposal subject to conditions relating to access and signage. Those requirements are reflected in the conditions of consent. 6 In June 2007 the council's Finance and Services Committee considered a report prepared by the council's planning staff, which recommended approval, though with a lower limit on the number of flights. The committee rejected the recommendation and refused the application. The applicant filed the appeal in May 2007.