Icons/Ionic/Social/social-pinterest

NSW Government Bulletin

20 March 2019

#Government

NSW Government Bulletin

Courts approve the demolition of the Sydney Football Stadium

Local Democracy Matters Incorporated v Infrastructure NSW; Waverley Council v Infrastructure NSW [2019] NSWLEC 20

Background to the challenge

The Minister for Planning (the Minister) has granted development consent to a concept development application including Stage 1 demolition of the Sydney Football Stadium (SFS). The application was determined as State significant development.

The application authorised the demolition of the existing stadium and ancillary buildings down to the slab.

Both Local Democracy Matters Incorporated (Local Democracy Matters) and Waverley Council sought to have the decision to demolish the SFS overturned.

Reasons for the challenge

Local Democracy Matters was incorporated in early 2017 to residents’ concerns over the proposed amalgamations of local councils and issues of democracy and participation more generally. Local Democracy Matters bought the proceedings because it was concerned about the visual impact from a significantly larger stadium aend because of the loss of open space and amenity.

They also thought that the demolition of a 45,000 seat stadium to make way for a new 45,000 seat stadium at a cost of $674 million lacked merit.

Waverley Council brought the proceeding because concerns regarding the impacts of the proposal on open space, local traffic congestion, public transport capacity and long term effect on public land.

The challenges were brought as separate judicial review proceedings but were considered in on judgement.

The matters were expedited because the demolition of the SFS was underway. The Court had previously granted an injunction preventing the ‘hard demolition’ of the SFS until the outcome of the decision.

The matters were heard before Her Honour Justice Nicola Pain of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

Grounds of challenge

There were three grounds of challenge:

  • that the Minister failed to exhibit the development application for 30 days (Local Democracy Matters)
  • that the Minister failed to consider the mandatory requirements relating to design excellence in the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Local Democracy Matters/Waverley Council)
  • that the Minister failed to comply with the requirements of clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (Local Democracy Matters).

Finding on the three grounds of challenge

Failure to exhibit the development application for 30 days

The proposal was exhibited for 28 days between 14 June and 11 July 2018. Local Democracy Matters argued that the minimum submission period fixed by clause 83 (since repealed) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 required a minimum submission period of 30 days.

Clause 83 was repealed on 1 March 2018.

Local Democracy Matters argued that despite its repeal the provision setting the minimum submission period continued to apply and that the failure to exhibit for at least 30 days invalidated the consent.

The Minister submitted that from 1 March 2018 the minimum exhibition period was 28 days.

Her Honour held that relevant period was 28 days, so the relevant ground was not established.

Failure to consider the mandatory requirements relating to design excellence

The development application was a concept development application which set out concept proposals for the development of the site and Stage 1 being the demolition of the existing stadium and ancillary buildings down to the slab.

Local Democracy Matters argued that in determining the concept development application the Minister failed to consider clause 6.21 (Design excellence) of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (S LEP).

Local Democracy Matters argued that clause 6.21(3) required the Minister to form the opinion that the proposed development exhibits design excellence having regard to the matters set out in clause 6.21(4) of the S LEP and that by failing to form that opinion the Minister had no power to grant consent to the development application.

The Council also argued that the approach adopted was the development will exhibit design excellence in the future and that was not what was required by either the S LEP or the provisions of section 4.22 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which deal with concept development applications.

In response the Minister argued that the Minister did form the requisite opinion about design excellence required by clause 6.21(3) and that is for the applicant who bears the onus of proof in demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that the Minister failed to reach the requisite state of satisfaction.

Her Honour found that even though there was no express statement concerning the formation of an opinion of satisfaction about design excellence required by clause 6.21(3) the evidence before the decision-maker meant that the applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that the Minister had not formed such an opinion.

In response to the argument that the Minister had deferred consideration of design excellence to a future stage, Her Honour found that the conditions imposed which required the holding of a competitive design process and that any future stages must demonstrate design excellence, did not support that argument.

On those basis the relevant ground was not established.

Failure to comply with the requirements of SEPP 55

Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires that consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated and that if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Local Democracy Matters argued that the Minster was not, or could not reasonably be satisfied that the subject land would be suitable for the intended use. That the Minister had failed to consider the findings of a preliminary investigation and that having formed the view that a preliminary investigation warranted a detailed investigation, failed to require the applicant to carry out a detailed investigation as referred to in the Guidelines under the SEPP.

The preliminary site investigation which accompanied the development application concluded that the on the basis of investigations the risk of significant contamination being present what would prevent the redevelopment of the site without significant remediation was low. Based on advice the Department of Planning and Environment recommended that further site investigations be undertaken prior to the lodgement of the Stage 2 DA. If required the Stage 2 DA must be accompanied by detailed environmental site investigations and a phase 2 environmental assessment report.

The Minister argued that in the context of concept development application the relevant provisions of SEPP 55 did not apply, beyond the obligation to consider them in the context of the Stage 1 works.

The Minister also argued that he did consider all the relevant matters and form the requisite opinions required by SEPP 55.

Her Honour found that the requirements of SEPP 55 need to be understood in the context of the particular development application, in this case a concept development application.

The only development that the application authorised was the demolition of the existing buildings down to the slab. Future development to enable the land to be used for a major recreation facility and ancillary uses will need to be assessed in those subsequent applications. 

It was open to the Minster to adopt the assessment having regard to the preliminary site investigation and the Stage 1 works. For that reason the relevant ground was not established.

Conclusion

For those reasons the challenge failed before the Land and Environment Court. Local Democracy Matters subsequently appealed the decision of the Land and Environment Court to the Court of Appeal. The matter was dealt with as an expedited matter. Ultimately the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal paving the way for the demolition of the SFS.

At the time of publication the Court of Appeal’s reasons for decision were not available.

Editorial: Peter Holt

In the media

NSW Information Commissioner and Open Data Advocate leads state and territory commitment on Open Government information access initiatives
The NSW Information Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) CEO and Open Data Advocate, Ms Elizabeth Tydd, released an update on her work on open government initiatives under Australia’s second Open Government National Action Plan 2018-20 (OGNAP 2) (11 March 2019).  More... 

Law reform, cultural change and honesty critical to combat sexual harassment in the legal profession
Cultural and structural change is as vital as legislative reform to combat sexual harassment in Australian workplaces and the legal profession, according to the Law Council of Australia (08 March 2019).  More... 

'Lives are being destroyed’ – legal assistance funding needs urgent review, huge budget boost
The dire state of legal assistance funding in Australia has been highlighted as a matter of critical importance in the Law Council of Australia’s 2019-20 Pre-Budget Submission, with a boost of at least $310 million a year required to address critical gaps in the system (07 March 2019).  More... 

In practice and courts

New South Wales

NSW Sentencing Council - victims' involvement in sentencing Report
The NSW Attorney General asked us to conduct a review of victims' involvement in the sentencing process. The Council transmitted the Report: Victims' Involvement in Sentencing to the Attorney General on 1 March 2018.

NSW BOSCAR publications
06 March 2019 NSW Recorded Crime Statistics quarterly update December 2018

NCAT: apply online for earlier hearing date
Parties can apply here for most NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division applications. These include applications for tenancy, social housing, consumer claims, home building and residential communities (12 March 2019).  More... 

Operation skyline public inquiry resumed on Monday 18 March 2019
The ICAC Operation Skyline public inquiry into allegations concerning the Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council resumed on Monday 18 March 2019 at 10:00 am. (15 March 2019).  More... 

Public Consultation: review of model defamation provisions
The Defamation Working Party is seeking feedback on defamation law in Australia, to assess how the legal principles apply in the digital age and identify areas for national reform. Submissions close on 30 April 2019.  More...  

NSW LRC: open justice review - court and tribunal information: access, disclosure and publication
The Attorney General has asked us to review the operation of suppression and non-publication orders and access to information in NSW courts and tribunals. See the terms of reference here. The deadline for preliminary submissions is Friday 31 May 2019. Information about making a submission may be found on our website here.

Amendments to local court practice note Civ 1
His Honour Judge Henson, Chief Magistrate has amended Practice Note Civ 1. In addition to the requirements for expert evidence the amendments consolidate this practice note with the Online Court Practice Note. This practice note will commence on and from 15 March 2019.  More... 

Published - articles, papers, reports

Image-based sexual abuse: victims and perpetrators
Nicola Henry, Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell; Australian Institute of Criminology: 07 March 2019
Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) refers to the non-consensual creation, distribution or threatened distribution of nude or sexual images. This research examines the prevalence, nature and impacts of IBSA victimisation and perpetration in Australia.  More...  

Insights from reports tabled October to December 2018
ANAO: 07 March 2019
This edition of audit insights focuses on quality in the public sector. Quality is an important concept that can be applied to all areas of government business.  More...  

Use and acceptance of biometric technologies in 2017
Russell G. Smith, Alexandra Gannoni, Susan Goldsmid; Australian Institute of Criminology: 04 March 2019
Biometrics makes use of people’s unique biological characteristics to identify them when dealing with government and business. This paper presents results from a public survey, conducted in 2017, which indicated generally high levels of previous exposure to biometrics and increasing willingness to use biometric technologies.  More... 

Cases

Zidar v NSW Department of Justice (Office of the General Counsel) [2019] NSWCATAD 38
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application to use a recording device to record hearing – application for McKenzie friend to sit at the Bar Table – summons for witness to give evidence set aside.

Kallin Pty Ltd v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2019] NSWCATAD 36
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – liquor licensing – overall social impact of granting licence - whether detrimental to wellbeing of local or broader community.

Local Democracy Matters Incorporated v Infrastructure NSW; Waverley Council v Infrastructure NSW [2019] NSWLEC 20
Judicial review – challenge to Minister for Planning’s grant of development consent to concept development application including Stage 1 demolition of Sydney Football Stadium – no failure to comply with mandatory public exhibition period – no failure to comply with Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 concerning design excellence – no failure to comply with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land.

Ghasemi v NSW Department of Corrective Services [2019] NSWSC 207
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – alleged error of law and jurisdictional error – Commissioner’s decision not to vary the plaintiff’s prison classification – relevance of his immigration status – powers and functions of Serious Offenders Review Council – allegations including bias and that decision.

Commissioner of Police v Da Costa-Reidel (on behalf of Stop Adani Sydney) [2019] NSWSC 198
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY – proposed public protest against the Adani coal mine – application by Commissioner of Police under s 25(1) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) – where the protest followed a major thoroughfare and would disrupt traffic and emergency services – where the proposed procession coincided with the heavily-attended Mardi Gras Fair Day – where the defendant refused to accept alternative routes offered by the Commissioner – prohibition order made COSTS – discretion – general principles – where the plaintiff was successful in its application – where the defendant argued for a costs order based on concepts of public interest – effect of public interest considerations generally. 

Burton v Local Court of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 191
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 1970 (NSW) – Violation of non-publication orders - Whether the Magistrate erred by not dismissing the charges against the plaintiff – Failure to provide evidence – Abuse of process – Interim order – Whether the interim non-publication order could not have been violated because it was expired.  

Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW) [2019] NSWSC 234
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – decision of a delegate of the Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission as to whether appeal to Appeal Panel should be allowed to proceed – whether error of law – whether jurisdictional error – whether delegate failed to consider submission that “Approved Medical Specialist” took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether delegate erred in deciding that which matters were relevant to the categories in the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) was a matter of discretion rather than an application of the Workers Compensation Guideline. 

NSW Government Bulletin editor:
Christine Jones, Partner - Construction & Infrastructure (Dispute Resolution) 
T: +61 2 8083 0477 
E: christine.jones@holdingredlich.com

Other contacts:
Dispute Resolution, Inquiries and Administrative Law
Greg Wrobel, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0411 
E: greg.wrobel@holdingredlich.com

Bede Haines, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0447 
E: bede.haines@holdingredlich.com

Workplace Relations & Safety
Michael Selinger, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0430 
E: michael.selinger@holdingredlich.com

Privacy & Data Protection
Lyn Nicholson, General Counsel 
T: +61 2 8083 0463 
E: lyn.nicholson@holdingredlich.com

Planning, Property & Environment
Robina Kidd, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0454 
E: robina.kidd@holdingredlich.com

Vanya Lozzi, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0462 
E: vanya.lozzi@holdingredlich.com

Cameron Sheather, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0461 
E: cameron.sheather@holdingredlich.com

Breellen Warry, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0420 
E: breellen.warry@holdingredlich.com

Lindsay McGregor, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0459 
E: Lindsay.McGregor@holdingredlich.com

Alexander McNutt, Special Counsel 
T: +61 2 8083 0495 
E: Alexander.McNutt@holdingredlich.com

Peter Holt, Special Counsel 
T: +61 2 8083 0421 
E: peter.holt@holdingredlich.com

Construction and Infrastructure (Projects and Procurement)
Scott Alden, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0419 
E: scott.alden@holdingredlich.com

Disclaimer
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.

Share this