Mulpha Australia Limited v Central Sydney Planning Committee [2018] NSWLEC 179

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mulpha Australia Limited v Central Sydney Planning Committee [2018] NSWLEC 179 Hearing dates: 1 August 2018 Date of orders: 12 November 2018 Decision date: 12 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Molesworth AJ Decision: See orders at [142] Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW – integrated development – whether permissible for approval authority Heritage Council to provide comments, rather than general terms of approval, with respect to portion of development application – general terms of approval with respect to development outside curtilage of heritage item required where there is a relevant nexus – relevant nexus apparent from Heritage Council decision – misconstruction of statutory power – jurisdictional error established

WORDS AND PHRASES – "land" – definition of land in s 57(1)(e) not restricted to curtilage of item or to lot on which item sits – to be determined on a case by case basis

WORDS AND PHRASES – "in relation to" – protective purpose of the Heritage Act 1977 – interpretation promoting that purpose preferred to interpretation not promoting that purpose Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011(Cth) Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 s 2.1 City of Sydney Act 1988 ss 31, 40 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 4.15, 4.44-4.51, 5.7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 cll 66, 70 Heritage Act 1977 ss 3, 4, 32, 56, 57, 63, 63B Interpretation Act 1987 ss 21, 33 Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 35 Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan 2012 cl 5.10 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 cl 1.16 State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 cl 5.10, Sch 5 Cases Cited: Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249 Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328 Cranbrook School v Woollahra Municipal Council (2006) 66 NSWLR 379; [2006] NSWCA 155 Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216; [2004] HCA 12 North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd (1996) 185 CLR 470; [1996] HCA 20 Mine Subsidence Board v Wambo Coal (2007) 154 LGERA 60 North Sydney Municipal Council v Lycenko & Associates Pty Ltd (1988) 67 LGRA 247 Pathold No 176 Pty Ltd v Minister for Transport Services [2005] NSWLEC 184 People for the Plains Incorporated v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd (2017) 220 LGERA 181; [2017] NSWCA 46 Perilya Broken Hill Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] NSWCA 400 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 Scully v Leichhardt Council (1994) 85 LGERA 109 Stamford Property Services Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1189 Travelex Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 241 CLR 510; [2010] HCA 33 Texts Cited: Herzfeld, Prince and Tully, Interpretation and Use of Legal Sources – The Laws of Australia (2013, Thomson Reuters) Macquarie Dictionary (revised 3rd ed, 2001, Macquarie University press) Pearce and Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (8th ed, 2014, LexisNexis) Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles (3rd ed 1980, Clarendon Press) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mulpha Australia Limited (Applicant) Central Sydney Planning Committee (First Respondent) Heritage Council of New South Wales (Second Respondent) Stamford Property Services Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Representation: COUNSEL: N Hutley SC and C Ireland (Applicant) B Dyer (Solicitor) (First Respondent) S Duggan SC and J McKelvey (Second Respondent) B Walker SC and M Astill (Third Respondent)