Revised transitional arrangements applicable to Part 3A projects…

On 1 October 2011 Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) was repealed.

At that time, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Regulation 2011 (the Part 3A Repeal Reg) also came into force.

The Part 3A Repeal Reg inserted transitional provisions into Schedule 6A of the Act.

On 1 December 2011, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Further Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Regulation 2011 (the Further Amendment Reg) commenced.

The Further Amendment Reg revises the transitional arrangements made by the Part 3A Repeal Reg to provide clarity in some areas where there was previously some ambiguity or unintended consequences.

A summary of the main areas of amendment is as follows.

Definition of ‘transitional Part 3A project’

The definition of ‘transitional Part 3A projects’ has been amended to mean the following:

  • an approved project (whether approved before or after the repeal of Part 3A)
  • a project that is the subject of an approved concept plan (whether approved before or after the repeal of Part 3A)
  • a project for which environmental assessment requirements for approval to carry out the project (other than under s75P(1)(A)), or for approval of a concept plan for the project, were last notified or adopted within 2 years before the relevant Part 3A repeal date (unless the environmental assessment is not duly submitted within 2 years after the repeal of Part 3A or such further period as the Director-General allows by notice in writing to the proponent),
  • a project for which an environmental assessment (whether for approval to carry out the project or for approval of a concept plan for the project) was duly submitted before the relevant Part 3A repeal date.

However development is not a transitional Part 3A project if:

  • it ceased to be a project to which Part 3A applied before the repeal of Part 3A; or
  • it ceases to be such a project in the future.

The amendments clarify that the repeal of provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 that previously declared development as a project to which Part 3A applied does not affect whether or not development is a transitional Part 3A project.

Restriction on approvals of projects

Generally speaking, Part 3A continues to apply to transitional Part 3A projects.

However, approval cannot be granted for a transitional Part 3A project if the development is only a transitional Part 3A project because it is the subject of:

  • an approved concept plan,
  • environmental assessment requirements for approval of a concept plan or
  • an environmental assessment for approval of a concept plan.

Approval for a project can be granted granted under s75P(1)(c) when a concept plan for a transitional Part 3A project is approved.

Carrying out of development under approved concept plans

A concept plan which has been approved under Part 3A, either before or after the repeal of Part 3A, will fall within clause 3B of schedule 6A of the Act.

Amongst other things, cl3B provides that:

  • if Part 4 of the Act applies to the carrying out of the development, then the development is taken to be development that may be carried out with development consent under Part 4 despite anything to the contrary in an environmental planning instrument; and
  • if Part 5 of the Act applies, the development is taken to be development that may be carried out without development consent under Part 4 despite anything to the contrary in an environmental planning instrument;
  • development standards in the concept plan approval have effec;
  • a consent under Part 4 must be generally consistent with the terms of the concept plan approval;
  • environmental planning instruments and development control plans to not have effect to the extent they are inconsistent with the terms of the concept plan approval;
  • any order or direction under s75P(2) made when the concept plan was approved continues to have effect.

Modification of concept plans

Further clarity has also been provided concerning the the ability to modify concept plans.

A new cl3C  provides that s75W (which provides for the modification of concept plans) continues to apply for that purpose whether or not the concept plan was approved before or after the repeal of Part 3A and whether or not it is a transitional Part 3A project.

State significant development and State significant infrastructure

Specified development that was a project to which Part 3A applied immediately before the repeal of Part 3A may be declared to be State significant infrastructure or State significant development whether or not it is a transitional Part 3A project. If so, it ceases to be a transitional Part 3A project.

 

Posted in planning | development | Leave a comment

Sweetwater Decision on Security under Planning Agreements Overturned

Today the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the decision of Biscoe J of the Land and Environment Court regarding the requirements for security under planning agreements in Sweetwater Action Group Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 106 .

We have previously posted about the uncertainty and difficulty created by Biscoe J’s decision which was to the effect that the Court was to consider objectively whether security provided in a planning agreement was suitable, and that the security should be an independent means of enforcing the agreement, such as a bond or guarantee.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal held that the question of whether a planning agreement provides for a  ‘suitable means’ of enforcement is not a matter to be determined objectively by a court. It can be determined by the relevant planning authority, having regard to factors such as the commercial context of the planning agreement, whether the means of enforcement adequately eliminates the risk that the obligation will not be performed, and the likely effectiveness of the means of enforcement. The financial capacity of the developer can also be relevant.

The means of enforcement does not need to be in the nature of a bond or guarantee.  In this case, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that provisions which ensured subsequent owners of the relevant land would be bound by the planning agreement provided a suitable means of enforcement (although the Court noted, this was not strictly a matter for the Court to determine – they did so only because the point was argued before them).

The Court of Appeal did, however, consider that there should be a means of enforcement of each individual obligation.

The decision confirms the view we have expressed previously that where a contribution is to be made, for example, prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate, that should be adequate security, as the development cannot proceed in the absence of the contribution being made.

The decision of the Court of Appeal should be welcomed by the development industry and planning authorities alike as it returns flexibility to the planning agreement system, and removes a potentially significant impediment to the participation by some developers in the system.

Posted in development contributions | planning agreements | Comments Off

Conditions proposed by objector requiring carbon offsets in Part 3A coal mine expansion upheld

In Hunter Environment Lobby Inc v Minister for Planning & Anor [2011] NSWLEC 221, Pain J in the Land & Environment Court determined an appeal on the merits broughtby an environmental lobby group against an approval granted by the Minister under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) for a coal mine expansion. Environmental issues raised by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the coal mine, including the ability to impose conditions requiring carbon offsets to mitigate the effects of climate change, were considered. Continue reading

Posted in environment | ESD | climate change, planning | development | Comments Off

The end of the Councillor as MP?

The Division of Local Government in the Department of Premier and Cabinet has called for submissions in response to its Discussion Paper ‘Dual Roles: Councillors as Members of Parliament in NSW’, which it released on the 28th November 2011. Continue reading

Posted in local government and administrative law | Comments Off

Commonwealth approval to be required for certain mining operations

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Australia’s Water Resource) Bill 2011 was introduced into the Senate on 1 November 2011.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to require approvals (under Part 9 of the EPBC Act) to be obtained for actions taken in the course of mining operations that have or will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the quality, structural integrity or hydraulic balance of a water resource (Actions). Continue reading

Posted in environment | ESD | climate change | Comments Off

Validity of a condition development consent – underground cables

A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal -  Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 308 – held that a condition of development consent requiring  a developer to place telecommunications and electricity cables underground (Cabling Condition) was valid and enforceable when assessed by reference to the ‘scope and purpose’ of the statutory power under which it was imposed, as well as its practical effect. Continue reading

Posted in local government and administrative law, planning | development | Comments Off

Conflicting objectives and overlapping purposes – A recent case looks at permissibility under Local Environment Plans

In a recent decision – Abret Pty Ltd vWingecarribee Shire Council [2011] NSWCA 107 – the News South Wales Court of Appeal  has considered the role of objectives in local environment plans as well as how to determine the permissibility of developments with multiple and overlapping purposes. Continue reading

Posted in local government and administrative law, planning | development | Comments Off

Recent case on exercise of power to grant consent and validity of public notices

A recent decision of the NSW Land and Environment Court – Brown v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 172 – has found both a development consent granted by the Council, and a public notice of the grant of consent to be invalid.

The Applicant, Mr Brown, challenged the validity of a determination of Randwick City Council (‘Council’) granting consent for the erection of a new elevated swimming pool and deck at a neighbouring property.

Council’s Co-coordinator refused the development application under delegated authority in September 2009.  At a Council meeting in November 2009 Council proceeded to grant consent to the application subject to 28 conditions, without any reference to the prior refusal. Continue reading

Posted in planning | development | Comments Off

Commencement of expanded protection to whistleblowers

In a previous post on this site (which can be accessed here) , we discussed the proposed changes to the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (PID Act) which will expand protection to whistleblowers in relation to local government matters. Most of those changes commenced on 1 November 2011. Continue reading

Posted in local government and administrative law | Comments Off

NSW Planning Review

As part of the NSW Planning System Review, submissions are being encouraged from members of the public and community groups in four key areas: Continue reading

Posted in planning | development | Comments Off