Planning Panel calls on council to involve it in appeals
The Local Planning Panel has called on Central Coast Council include it in appeals to the Land and Environment Court against its decisions.
The item which led to the Panel's resolution was a "case law update", discussed behind closed doors at its June 22 meeting.
However, the resolution implies that the Council has not previously involved the Panel.
It also implies that the Council could proceed to conciliation in Court on development applications where council staff had previously recommended approval, without consulting the Panel.
"The Panel confirmed that it should have the opportunity to provide instructions on any appeals against Panel decisions, that Council should monitor the progress of all appeals, and that Council should come back to the Panel for further instructions if matters do not proceed as expected," the Panel resolved.
The Panel also "requested Council to ensure that each assessment report contains a conclusion which explains the rationale for Council's recommendation(s) in a manner informed by the lessons from this case".
It "requested Council to come back to the Panel with a revised template recommendation for Clause 4.6 matters".
The case involved was Denny v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 27, in which the court upheld an appeal against the approval of a mobile phone tower in Wards Hill Rd, Killcare.
The Court found that the Planning Panel did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision and that it failed to consider bushfire provisions of the Act.
The court found that clause 4.6 of the Local Environment Plan "required the Panel to look at all the objectives of the height of buildings development standard and all the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living Zone in order to reach the necessary satisfaction".
"The Panel refers to relevant objectives which are not identified.
"This language does not reflect the test under clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) suggesting the necessary satisfaction could not have been reached in compliance with clause 4.6."
In an online report about the case, Shaw Reynolds Lawyers noted: "All three respondents (the Planning Panel, Optus Mobile and Council) filed 'submitting appearances', meaning that the respondents did not actively take part in defending their position and did not put forward any submissions."
Council staff had recommended to the Panel that it "note the case law update and recommendations following the recent decision of the Land and Environment Court in Denny v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 27".
The Council staff recommendations have not been disclosed.
SOURCE:
Local Planning Panel agenda 2.1, 13 Jul 2023