Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd v Director-General of the Department of Planning (2). País/Territorio Australia Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha May 20, 2011 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Juez Biscoe. Número de referencia 2011] NSWLEC 83 Idioma Inglés Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen. Resumen In July 2009, the local environmental plan making process was amended through changes to Part 3 of the EP&A Act. Under the new system, known as the ‘gateway plan-making process, certain pending draft Local Environment Plans (LEPs), that were in preparation prior to 1 July 2009, are able to continue to be made under the repealed plan-making provisions of the EP&A Act. The South Tralee development proposes the rezoning of rural land near Queanbeyan, south of Canberra, to residential land, with more than 2,000 homes proposed to built on the land by the Village Building Company (“VBC”), supported by Queanbeyan City Council (“the Council”). The Canberra Airport opposes the project, saying homes will be exposed to unacceptable aircraft noise. These proceedings were the second legal challenge by the airport to the Council's preparation of a draft LEP for South Tralee. The first challenge was successful in January 2010. The airport mounted challenges to the validity of two decisions made at intermediate stages of a process for the making of a local environmental plan (“LEP”) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.The first decision challenged was the decision of the council to issue a certificate under s 65 certifying that the draft LEP may be publicly exhibited (“Submission Decision”).The second decision challenged was the decision made by the Director-General to issue a certificate pursuant to s 65 (“Certificate Decision”). In relation to the challenge to the first decision, the grounds of challenge were: that the Council failed to prepare an environmental study of the land (“LES”) as required by s 57(1) because the purported LES 2010 was not an objective, disinterested, study of the land but merely a study of Village's specific proposal for residential development, that there was a failure to comply with s 57(1) because the LES 2010 was uncertain in its operation,. that the Council failed to have regard to a LES as required by s 61 either because the purported LES 2010 was not a LES; or, if it was a LES, the Council prepared the draft LEP without having regard to it, that the Council failed to consult in the preparation of the LES 2010 and the draft LEP as required by s 62, that the Council failed to comply with its duty to take into account the submissions made in response to consultations under s 62 because it gave merely perfunctory reference to those submissions, that the Council's decision to submit the draft LEP to the Director-General under s 64 was infected by apprehended bias, that the Council failed to comply with its duty to take into account the submissions made in response to consultations under s 62 because it gave merely perfunctory reference to those submissions. The issue of asserted bias was a significant focus of the Courts judgment. The challenges were on the basis that VBC was the proponent for, and had a financial interest in, the rezoning and also acted as a "decision-maker"; that VBC had "an association" with Council; that the Council had a "financial interest" in the outcome of the process; and that the Council "prejudged' the issue of rezoning, having formed a concluded view on matters central to the preparation of the LES 2010 and the draft LEP 2010. The challenges to the second decision were either preconditioned upon the success of the first challenge, or asserted failure to take into account relevant considerations.All of these claims were rejected by the court and the airport was ordered to pay both the Councils and the Departments costs. Texto completo COU-156937.pdf