Sell and Parker Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1230

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sell and Parker Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1230 Hearing dates: 6 November 2013 Decision date: 06 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Moore SC Decision: See paragraph (8) Catchwords: Relationship between pollution reduction program and conditions of development consent Cases Cited: 1643 Pittwater Road Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2004] NSWLEC 685 Sell And Parker Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council 2001 NSW LEC Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sell and Parker Pty Ltd (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr D Miller SC (Applicant) Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors Allens (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10336 of 2013 Publication restriction: Nil

EXTEMPORE Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: In these proceedings, the applicant seeks the removal of a condition of its original development consent granted by the Court and referred to in Sell And Parker Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council 2001 NSW LEC in 11 May 2001 - a condition by which the life of the consent was limited to a period of twenty years from the date of the consent. 2During the past year or so, there has been correspondence and contact between the applicant, the Environment Protection Authority and the Council concerning the desirability of a pollution production program being attached to and forming part of the applicant's pollution control licence. 3In these proceedings the Council raises no objection to the deletion of the condition of consent that effectively imposes a life on the approved activity. 4On the other hand, the Environment Protection Authority seeks (in correspondence that has been tendered by the applicant but amounts to a submission to me) that I should adjourn the matter for a period of time to enable the applicant and the EPA to finalise the pollution production program. 5I asked Mr Seton, solicitor for the Council, whether the Council disavowed or not any intention to seek to incorporate any such pollution reduction program as might be negotiated between the EPA and the applicant in the conditions of consent through these proceedings - that being a process at least arguably available consistent with the decision of the former Chief Judge of the Court in 1643 Pittwater Road v Pittwater Council [2004] NSWLEC 685. Mr Seton has advised me that he has now been instructed that the Council does not wish to seek using these proceedings as a vehicle to incorporate any such element in the present consent. 6The only utility of adjourning the present proceedings given that the Council does not oppose, in any planning law sense, the removal of the time limit to the consent would be the incorporation of the pollution reduction program in the conditions of consent. 7The role of the EPA in that process is entirely separate and distinct from that undertaken pursuant to the planning law. Given that the Council does not wish to in these proceedings, although some future opportunity might arise when it could consider doing so, incorporating any pollution reduction program elements into the development consent, there is no utility as I see it in standing over the proceedings. The consequence of that is that the application should be granted and the condition deleted from the development consent. 8The order that is sought is that the Court modifies the consent granted by the Court in Sell And Parker Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council 2001 NSW LEC 12 by deleting condition 2 to that consent and I so order. Tim Moore Senior Commissioner DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 November 2013