Reference no: EM133566967 , Length: word count:1500

Planning and Environmental Law

David Robinson and David Brigden, August 2010

Question 1. Write a case note on SJ Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 128

Question 2. If the Land and Environment Court had declared the development in Si Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 128 to be in respect of 'designated development, what would be the implications for the developer?

Question 3. What enforcement action could be taken, and who could take it, if the developer proceeded to stockpile the excavated material in Si Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 128 without first obtaining development consent?

Question 4. Assume that, at the outset of its project planning, the developer in SJ Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 128 had sought your advice as to whether project approval could be obtained under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ('EPAA'). Give that advice, referring closely to the relevant legislation.

Question 5. Assume that an endangered ecological community under Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, 'White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland' ('White Box EEC') is present on the site in Si Connelly CPP Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 128. Taking into account the relevant discussion in Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010] NSWLEC 48, describe:

a. the applicable biodiversity assessment requirements (under Part 4 EPAA); and

b. the options available to Ballina Shire Council in determining this aspect of the development application, including with regard to the possible conditions of consent it might impose so as to maintain or improve regional biodiversity outcomes with respect to the White Box EEC.