On 19 April 2012 the Victorian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the case of Harvey v Mutsaers and Manningham City Council [2012] VSCA 69 resolving the question as to the lawfulness of the Tribunal considering a review of a council's refusal to extend a permit made more than three months after the expiry of the permit (and therefore made when the council cannot grant the extension). …
The NSW Government this month released a new ‘gateway process’ for mining and coal seam gas projects in close proximity to strategic agricultural lands. This new policy is designed to protect strategic agricultural land in NSW from the potential impacts of mining and coal seam gas projects and to provide greater certainty to proponents of projects. However, the process has already been met with a mixed response.
The decision of Preston CJ in Brown v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 28 is an important case in relation to costs for councils and beneficiaries of development consents who are defending, or considering defending, Class 4 proceedings.
The interpretation of clause 52.29 and what works constitute an alteration to an access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 has been the subject of some tension between VicRoads, developers and local councils.
In Grant & Ors v Darebin City Council [2011] VCAT 2364, the Tribunal considered a preliminary question as to whether a permit was triggered under clause 52.29. Specifically, …
In a recent decision the Tribunal again confirmed the principle that, where a planning scheme amendment occurs, at some time between the making of the application and the final decision of the Tribunal (following an appeal or appeals), in the absence of any accrued right to do otherwise, the Tribunal is required to apply the law that exists at the time it makes its final decision...
On 16 June 2011, the Minister for Planning introduced a bill into the NSW parliament which will, if it becomes an Act, repeal Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (Act).
In its place, the bill establishes an approval process for two new classes of development: State significant developmentand State significant infrastructure.
Two recent decisions, one in the District Court and one in the Land and Environment Court, have wide ranging implications for Councils – one in respect of liability, and the other in relation to the fees and charges Councils can impose.
Both decisions will have an impact on council resources.
The decision by the District Court highlights the onus placed on councils by the law to discharge their duties reasonably. The decision provides commentary on the persons councils owe a duty of care, the circumstances where such a duty might be breached, as well as some important judicial consideration of section 44 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 which provides an exclusion to liability in certain circumstances where a council fails to consider exercising a function or prohibit or regulate an activity.
The Tribunal's determination in Tan v Kingston City Council [2001] VCAT 470 is likely to come as a surprise to those councils that have regarded the local law exemption in clause 62.01 of their planning scheme as applying to clause 52.27.
The Tribunal in Tan needed to consider whether clause 62.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme applied to exclude clause 52.27 …
Changes announced by the NSW Government in relation to Affordable Rental Housing affect new and existing applications for in-fill development, boarding houses and social housing.
Amendments to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP
On 20 May 2011, the NSW Government announced changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental …
The Federal Government will introduce a hardline approach to Local Councils which fail to deliver Commonwealth-funded infrastructure projects within set time frames.
Click here to read how this will affect the retainment of your funding.