Environmental & Planning
Environmental & Planning judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
Pollution fine includes environmental restoration contribution
Costs Apportionment in Environmental Dispute
NSW Court of Appeal dismisses appeal on legal costs in compulsory land acquisition
Land and Environment Court Denies Claimant’s Request to Amend Summons
Appeals Dismissed: Development Consent and Environmental Planning
Development Consent Granted for Mixed-Use Building with Conditions
Compulsory Acquisition for Tunnel Construction: No Compensation Payable
The court ruled that compensation is not payable for the compulsory acquisition of substratum land for the construction of a tunnel, unless specific conditions are met. This decision applies the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.
Refusal of Development Application for Commercial Marina at Mosman
Business Owners Found Guilty of Contempt for Operating Outside Permitted Hours
Development Consent for Secondary Dwelling Refused Due to Non-Compliance
Owner Builder Permit Granted Due to Special Circumstances
Land and Environment Court Allows Modification to Remove Pedestrian Bridge
Swimming Pool Safety Orders Enforced in NSW
In a recent case, the Land and Environment Court of NSW ordered a property owner to comply with fencing and vegetation standards to ensure swimming pool safety and public health. The court cited the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Local Government Act 1993 in its decision.
Development Application Appeal Resolved Through Agreement in Land and Environment Court
Land and Environment Court Allows Rooftop Terrace Appeal
The Land and Environment Court allowed an appeal for adding a rooftop terrace to an approved three-storey dwelling. The court considered height restrictions and privacy concerns and approved the modification, subject to specific conditions.
Companies Fined for Asbestos Pollution During Construction
Two companies were fined for polluting land with asbestos fill during construction. The court considered the risks to human health and safety and the state of mind of the defendants' directors. The offences were not deliberate, but mitigating factors were considered.