The Court dismissed a joinder application under s 8.15(2) of the EPA Act, holding that none of the five issues the neighbouring heritage property owners sought to raise (landscape area non-compliance, privacy, heritage impacts, vibration damage risk, and structural impacts) would fail to be sufficiently addressed without their joinder. On landscape area, the Court found the statutory construction question could be resolved by counsel for the existing parties without the joinder applicants' expert. On privacy, the Court held that the issue was a question of fact assessable at site view, and that the applicants' concerns were already documented in objections and expert reports available to the parties. On heritage, the Court found the Council's existing contention was broad enough to encompass the impacts raised. On vibration and structural damage, the Court noted these were typically addressed through conditions of consent. The late filing of the motion (one week before a s 34 conciliation conference) was noted but not determinative.
The full text is available to signed-in members.