Applicant v HASTINGS COUNCIL

Clause 32B(2) of the REP requires that Councils must , in determining applications for consent to carry out development on any land to which it applies, have regard to three documents:

(a) The New South Wales Coast Government Policy; (b) The Coastline Management Manual; and (c) The North Coast: Design Guidelines (see Exhibit D8 ).

Clauses 34, 37, 41 and 49 of the REP relevantly provide as follows:

"34. The objectives of this plan, in relation to heritage items and conservation areas, are: (a) to conserve the environmental heritage (including the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural and aesthetic heritage) of the North Coast Region; (b) to promote the appreciation and understanding of the North Coast Region's distinctive variety of cultural heritage items and conservation areas including significant buildings, structures, works, relics, towns and precincts; and (c) to encourage the conservation of the Region's historic townscapes which contain one or more buildings or places of heritage significance or which have a character and appearance that is desirable to conserve.

37. The objectives of this plan in relation to urban development are to - (a) provide for the orderly and economic release of urban land and identify growth centres; and (b) promote the efficient commercial functioning of subregional and district centres.

41. The objectives of this plan in relation to housing are to promote the provision of a range of adequate, affordable and suitable housing to meet the needs of the region's population.

49. The objectives of this plan in relation to the erection of tall buildings are to ensure that proposal for buildings over 14 metres are - (a) subject to the opportunity for public comment; and (b) assessed for their local impact and regional significance."

Clause 47 of the REP deals specifically with the preparation of draft local environmental plans, within the region, relating to commercial and/or industrial development. Among the principles which the Council should take into consideration is the following:

"strong multi-functional town centres should be maintained to focus the drawing power of individual businesses and maintain the integrity of the main business area by only zoning land for further commercial or retail development where that development adjoins or is adjacent to the existing town centre;"

Clause 2A provides that when a Council is deciding whether or not to prepare a draft LEP, or is preparing one, it should take into consideration "such of the aims and objectives of this plan as are relevant… ." See also clause 83(h).

Under clause 51 of the REP the Council is required to obtain the concurrence of the Director before granting consent to any development application for the erection of a building over 14 metres in height. The Director is required to take into consideration, inter alia, "the likely regional implications of the development as regards its social, economic and visual effect and the effect which it will or is likely to have on the amenity of the area" (Clause 51(3)).

In section 1.2 of DCP 1998 , setting out "Council's Vision and Development Control Objectives for Port Macquarie", the following three objectives are identified:

"1. To maintain its role as the primary business and retail centre in the local government area and promote its role as a regional centre on the North Coast, subject to maintaining and enhancing the valued characteristics of the town centre and encouraging development which recognises and responds to the existing town fabric. 2. To enhance its role as a holiday destination for an increasing number of visitors. 3. To maintain and enhance its role as an important recreational and social centre including community gathering place for residents and tourists alike".

Height limits for the town centre are dealt with in section 1.4, and it is clear that the intention is to impose a 12 metre height limit (measured from natural ground level to uppermost ceiling) on the subject site. DCP 1998 provides:

"Where an applicant wishes to depart from these height limits the applicant will need to demonstrate all of the following: · compliance with the objectives of the DCP, · the proposed variation will not negatively impact on the character of the precinct, · the proposed variation is part of a development that results in other urban design advantages such as: * a desirable pedestrian link is to be provided or maintained, * significant restoration works on heritage items are to be carried out as part of the development, * demonstrable architectural merit that enhances the desired future character of the precinct In circumstances where variation is sought, the Council may require an independent assessment of the proposal".

Draft Amendment 93 (clause 5), as noted above, would amend the LEP by deleting from clause 8(1) the definition of "floor space ratio map" and by deleting both clauses 28A and 28B.

Counsel for both sides drew the Court's attention to the opinions expressed by their respective planning experts regarding these instruments (see Exhibits D7 and H2 ). They have provided useful background information, but I have paid no regard to such portions of them as express a view on the legal questions before the Court.

On 11 January 1999 an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council carried a resolution which relevantly:

· Approved DCP 1998. · Resolved to give public notice of that decision, "with the DCP to become effective from that date", within 28 days. · Repealed DCP 1997 as at the date of the public notification of DCP 1998. · Inserted in DCP 1998, as adopted, a note to the effect that it replaces DCP 1997. · Amended clause 5 of (draft) Amendment 93 so that it will amend the LEP: (a) by deleting the definition of "floor space ratio map" in clause 8(1); (b) by adding to clause 8(1) - "'town centre map' means the map marked Hastings Local Environmental Plan - Town Centre Map";

(c) by deleting clause 28A, and clause 28B(1), and adding as a new clause 28B(1): "This clause applies to land shown diagonally hatched on the Town Centre Map". · noted that Council would be required to prepare a map which details the area now to be covered by clause 28B.

The relevant publication notifying the substitution of DCP 1998 for DCP 1997, pursuant to the resolution of 11 January 1999, occurred on 20 January 1999.

It would appear that the purpose of the resolution on 11 January 1999 was not only to replace the DCP, but to seek an amendment to the LEP to ensure its consistency with the new DCP.

The applicant contends that without the gazettal of the proposed changes to the LEP, including a new map, there is "a hiatus" between the repeal of DCP 1997 and the coming into effect of DCP 1998, which needs the LEP to be amended to give it meaning and scope.

The first question posed in the Amended Notice of Motion is whether DCP 1998 generally conforms to the provisions of the LEP and/or the REP.

The applicant contends that the height controls imposed on the Horton Street Precinct are inconsistent with and contrary to:

(a) the objectives and requirements of the REP; (b) the objectives of the 3(a) zone, set out in clause 12 of the LEP; and (c) Clause 28B of the LEP;

and that DCP 1998 is invalid because those height controls are, in so far as they are repugnant to the objectives of the REP and the LEP, "inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of" the LEP and the REP.

Section 36 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ('the EPAA') provides that a State environmental planning policy prevails over a regional environmental plan or a local environmental plan made before or after the policy to the extent of any inconsistency, should the regional environmental plan expressly provide. In accordance with this, section 36 (3) sets out that a regional environmental plan prevails over a local environmental plan, made before or after the regional environmental plan to the extent of any inconsistency, if the local environmental plan provides.

"... a development control plan shall generally conform to the provisions of the local environmental plan or the draft local environmental plan which applies to the land to which the development control plan applies".

Despite the hierarchical framework attaching to the various environmental planning instruments, the EPAA does not provide that a development control plan needs to be consistent with a regional environmental plan or a State environmental planning policy.

Thus the relevant question is one of repugnancy or inconsistency between the LEP and DCP 1998. I accept the submission of Mr Robertson, for the respondent, in that the question of inconsistency between the North Coast REP and the Hastings DCP 1988 is not relevant under the EPAA.

The applicant relied upon the decision of Guideline Drafting and Design v Marrickville Municipal Council (1988) 64 LGRA 275 ("Guideline Drafting") in which Bignold J (at 278) considered a clause of a DCP, which purported to restrict the location of refreshment rooms to the ground floor of buildings. The relevant LEP permitted, with development consent, refreshment rooms without restriction. It was held that a DCP that "absolutely prohibits the establishment or use of a refreshment room other than on the ground floor of a building cannot be reasonably regarded as 'generally conforming' to the provisions of [the] local plan".

However, Guideline Drafting was disapproved, at least in part, but, in my view, most relevantly for present purposes, by the Court of Appeal in North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd [No 2] (1996) 93 LGERA 23.

Cole JA, with whom Abadee and Meagher JJ agreed, stated in Ligon (at 31):

"I see no reason why a development control plan, in providing more detailed planning considerations may not, by imposing criteria by way of restriction or specification of necessary requirements to be met before the development consent contemplated by a North Sydney Local Environmental Plan is granted, should not be regarded as conforming with the wider North Sydney Local Environmental Plan. In my opinion that aspect of the decision in Guideline Drafting should be regarded as wrongly decided... A detailed plan which contained a provision contrary to the wider plan would not be in conformity with it, but a provision which is restrictive or prohibitive unless certain conditions are met is not such a contrary provision."

In my opinion, the legal test stated and used by the Court of Appeal in Ligon is binding on this Court and is the proper one to apply in this situation. 35. DCP 1998, to the extent that it provides a height limit on the subject site, is not inconsistent with the LEP which is silent on the issue. The DCP in so attending to detail is performing the function envisaged for DCPs by section 72(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Accordingly, I answer the first question in the Amended Notice of Motion in the affirmative .

The second question asks whether, given that the answer to the first question is in the negative, this Court should take into consideration the provisions of DCP 1998 in determining the development application which is the subject of these proceedings.

The LEP is proposed to be amended, in accordance with the Council resolution of 11 January 1999, to achieve conformity between it and DCP 1998.

Mr McEwen submitted what became known as "the hiatus" argument, namely that because the amendments to the LEP, adopted by the respondent, have not been gazetted, DCP 1998 does not conform with the LEP and is consequently invalid.

I cannot agree with this submission. Whilst the effective operation of DCP 1998 may be affected by the anticipated gazettal of amendments to the LEP, its validity as a DCP, made by Council in accordance with the EPAA, is not affected.

However, as the answer to question (a) as framed in the Amended Notice of Motion is in the affirmative , question (b) as framed does not arise.

There is no need to address the third question in the applicant's Amended Notice of Motion, which asked whether, if both earlier answers were negative, the Court should take into consideration the provisions of DCP 1997 in determining the development application.

I therefore, deal with the three questions as follows:

Question (a): "Whether Development Control Plan 20 - 1998 - Port Macquarie Town Centre approved by the respondent on 11 January 1999 (the 'approved DCP20') generally conforms to the provisions of the Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987?"

"If the answer to question (a) is in the negative, whether this Court should nonetheless take into consideration the provisions of the approved DCP 20 in determining the development application which is the subject of these proceedings?"

"If the answer to the questions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are in the negative, whether this Court should take into consideration the provisions of the Development Control Plan 20 1997 Port Macquarie Town Centre in determining the development application which is the subject of these proceedings?"

45. The exhibits may be returned and the matter remitted for determination on the merits, commencing Monday 8 February 1999, in the light of the answers summarised above.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS AND THE PRECEDING 12 PAGES ARE A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HEREIN OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE T.W. SHEAHAN.

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.