Cranky Rock Road Action Group Inc v Cowra Shire Council and CPC Land and Peter Grant Crampton & Brian John Pattinson

Cranky Rock Road Action Group Inc v Cowra Shire Council and CPC Land and Peter Grant Crampton & Brian John Pattinson - [2006] NSWLEC 159 - NSWLEC 2006 case summary — Zoe

[19]

27 Plumb involved a case where the respondent council sought costs from the applicant following the failure of a challenge to a development consent it had granted to the third respondent. The applicant had argued that the development consent was invalid on the grounds that it was made in relation to a threatened ecological community and lacked the requisite species impact statement, public exhibition and Director-General's concurrence. It succeeded in establishing that Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) was present on the site. However it failed to establish that the development application would affect this. Justice Pearlman dismissed the application for costs by the successful party. Her Honour held at [11] that there was a high level of public interest in the proposed development and a general public interest in the protection of a threatened ecological community. It was further held at [12] that the applicant had no personal interest in the proceedings. The applicant was successful in proving the existence of CPW on the site, and hence bringing the application was justified. The proceedings raised novel matters regarding the construction of the EP&A Act and the proper interpretation and application of the eight-part test. At [26] it was further held that the basis of the challenge was arguable and not specious, and had a real chance of success. 28 The factors identified in Plumb were applied by Lloyd J in Engadine. In that case his Honour held that the proceedings were public interest litigation and that there were special circumstances which justified exercising his discretion not to award costs to the successful party because the matter raised novel and significant issues. 29 The relevant matters in Plumb were again considered by Pearlman J in Save the Showground For Sydney Inc v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (1998) 105 LGERA 254, where her Honour added the finding that a "shopping list" approach should be avoided and the factors which Stein J (as he then was) took into account in Oshlack v Richmond River Shire Council (1994) 82 LGERA 236 are not to be elevated to a fixed list. Application of these factors has been adopted in other cases such as Williams v Barrick Australia [2004] NSWLEC 306. 30 Ultimately each case must be considered on its own facts to determine if the Court should exercise its discretion in a particular way in light of the guidance provided in the cases I have referred to. Was a significant public interest issue raised? 31 The principal ground relied on by the Applicant in argument as being both novel and significant, is that related to the "No SEE ground". This ground was argued unsuccessfully before Bignold J. There is no doubt the matter is novel as Bignold J identified the parties' submissions to that effect at [46]. Novelty of itself is not sufficient to ground a claim of public interest nor did the Applicant argue that. The basis on which the matter was argued before his Honour was that the parties agreed that there was a breach of the EP&A Act because of the failure to provide a SEE. The issue was whether this rendered the development application in question invalid. His Honour concluded that it did not. I do not consider that the Applicant's case was hopeless and I note that the Respondents conceded that the case was arguable. The issue concerns the conduct of the planning process under the EP&A Act and raises a fundamental point about its operation, in my view and I accept the Applicant's submissions in this regard. I consider the issues raised were concerned with the enforcement of public law in relation to the processes undertaken for the approval of development applications under the EP&A Act. The fact that Bignold J held decisively against the Applicant does not diminish the significance of the issue in my view.

[21]

Are the proceedings "public interest" in nature? 33 The Applicant argued its objectives were, inter alia, to change the Cowra LEP to stop ad hoc rural-residential subdivision occurring and these issues were of wide community interest in the Cowra Shire. 34 The report of the Council's Director of Environmental Services dated 14 June 2005, tendered in evidence, states that ad hoc rural-residential development poses a problem in Cowra Shire because it results in the following: · Loss and fragmentation of agricultural land with its replacement with rural-residential land-use. · Increasing conflicts between rural activities and rural-residential dwellers over traditional agricultural activities, e.g. ploughing, stock movement, water access, pesticide application etc. · Inadequate and costly servicing of rural subdivisions, including roads, water supply, rural lands protection, emergency services, soil conservation services, ordinance and weeds functions, subsidized school bus service, etc which are subsidized by the wider general community. · Loss of the rural landscape, its scenic appeal and associated cultural values. · Environmental degradation through loss of habitat, pollution and erosion. · Decrease in active land management raising problems, particularly with absentee landholders, with hazards such as bushfire management, noxious weeds controls and domestic animals affecting stock and native fauna. · A range of social problems such as isolation from health, education and community services as well as isolation from areas of employment. · A negative influence on agricultural productivity, which in turn leads to less employment opportunities in the agricultural sector and impacts upon reliant agri-businesses. · Land price increases beyond farmers' means as values for rural-residential development potential not agricultural value. 35 The report of 14 June 2005 identifies that these concerns were brought to the attention of the Council by Shire residents and various government departments in mid to late 2004. 36 It is also clear that the Applicant group, and its members in their own right, undertook activity related to the objective referred to at [33]. The Applicant wrote to the Council in relation to several individual development applications and individual members made submissions in relation to the draft LEP Amendment No 14. A letter from Jennifer Westacott, the then Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, dated 11 November 2005 refers to a meeting which occurred between herself and the members of the group about the issue of ad hoc rural-residential subdivision. 37 The Respondents were at pains to distinguish between the activities conducted in the name of the Applicant group and the individual members of the group. For example, the Applicant group did not make a submission to the Council about draft LEP Amendment No 14 but several individual members did. I consider it is artificial to separate the activities of a non-profit volunteer community association from that of its individual members, where those members are pursuing the same objectives as the group of which they are a member, when assessing the level of activity undertaken by the group. Clearly the activities of the individual members are also relevant to consider when considering the group's activities. 38 It is clear that the interests of the members of the group could be in part private in that changes to neighbouring farms through rural-residential subdivisions could have potential impact on the value of their properties, and could have potential impact on their ability to expand their farms. Presumably they could also benefit financially from an ability to subdivide their properties for rural-residential subdivision which they are prepared to forgo in supporting draft LEP Amendment No 14 which, if implemented, would prohibit rural-residential development of the type at issue in these proceedings. The affidavit evidence of Mr Wanless and Mr Watt is that they have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of these proceedings. 39 It is clear that ad hoc rural-residential subdivision in the Cowra Shire presents a number of problems which are of public concern in terms of the wider Cowra community. It is not material here that it is an issue which also potentially affects private property interests. The Applicant incorporated in November 2004, in the period which the report of the Council's Director, Environmental Services identified as the time when concerns about ad hoc rural-residential subdivisions were raised with the Council. The Applicant and its members have undertaken several activities in pursuit of the Applicant's objectives, including writing submissions and letters to local and state government departments and attending meetings over a period of several months, as well as commencing these proceedings in May 2005. I consider this is litigation concerning a significant public interest issue and is public interest in nature. There are special circumstances justifying a variation to the usual costs order. 40 Given that two grounds were pursued and one is not argued to be novel and significant I consider that the appropriate award of costs is that the Applicants pay half the First and Third Respondents' costs of the hearing. Each party should pay its own costs of the costs hearing on 31 March 2006.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (9)

Cited By (1)