The proceedings concerned an appeal against the respondent Council’s decision to refuse a development application. The Planning and Environment Court heard that the land in question was predominantly used for cattle grazing, and a temporary quarry was proposed to be built on a portion of it. The co-respondent by election (an owner of nearby land) raised several concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed development, but primarily argued that there was no ‘need’ for the quarry development. As such, and in accordance with the relevant statute, the onus rested upon the appellant to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient need for the development to warrant the appeal being allowed.
In consideration of evidence given at trial, the Court was dissatisfied with the level of need demonstrated by the appellant; a moderate to medium need, rather than a strong need, was established. Nevertheless, the need could not be described as insignificant. The Court went on to consider that the land would only be marginally impacted by the proposed development, and the benefits of the development outweighed this impact. Consequently, the Court found in favour of the appellant.
John Ware appeared on behalf of the respondent Council, instructed by McInnes Wilson.
The judgment is available here.