Australia: Case note: Huntlee Pty Ltd and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure v Sweetwater Action Group Inc [2011] NSWCA 378

On 8 December 2011, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Huntlee Pty Ltd and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure v Sweetwater Action Group Inc [2011] NSWCA 378 overturning the decision of the Biscoe J in the Land and Environment Court declaring the rezoning of the Huntlee New Town Site invalid.

The decision has important implications for parties to voluntary planning agreements.


  • Registration of a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) may be a suitable means of enforcement under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (EPA Act).
  • Each planning authority must assess the developer's obligations in a VPA and consider whether a means of enforcement offered by the developer is likely to eliminate or reduce to a commercially acceptable level the risk that each VPA obligation will not be performed. This assessment should take account of the:
    • commercial context in which the VPA will operate;
    • developer's capacity to comply with its obligations; and
    • likely availability and effectiveness of the specified means of enforcement.
  • Under the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55), the Director-General, in the process of preparation of a draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) and not the Minister who recommends the making of a SEPP, has to be satisfied about the extent of any contamination of the land the subject of rezoning.


The proceedings concerned the rezoning of the Huntlee New Town Site comprising 1,702 hectares located in the Lower Hunter region south of Branxton (Site). Huntlee Pty Ltd (Huntlee) sought the rezoning of the Site for a large-scale residential and mixed use development over a period of 20-25 years (Project). Ultimately, the Project will provide up to 7,500 dwellings accommodating about 20,000 residents, 200 hectares of employment lands and conservation lands.

On 8 July 2010, Huntlee requested that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (Minister) consider rezoning the Site by way of its inclusion as a State Significant Site (SSS) under Schedule 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (MD SEPP). The Minister agreed to consider the Site as a potential SSS and initiated an investigation into the proposal.

In connection with the rezoning proposal, Huntlee offered to enter into a VPA with the Minister and the Minister for Environment to make the following contributions towards environmental conservation offsets:

  • transfer of 5,612 hectares of land for environmental conservation comprising 607 hectares of land within the Site, 17 hectares for "Persoonia Park" and 4,988 hectares of land throughout the Lower Hunter region (Conservation Offset Lands Contribution);
  • monetary contributions in the amount of $1.1 million comprising $100,000 towards the conservation of Persoonia pauciflora and $1 million towards the management of the conservation offset lands (Monetary Contribution).

On or about 2 December 2010, the Minister executed the VPA and recommended to the Governor the making of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 Amendment (Huntlee New Town Site) 2010 (MD SEPP Amendment) which effected the rezoning of the Site. The Governor then made the MD SEPP Amendment.

Sweetwater Action Group Inc (Sweetwater) challenged the Minister's recommendation to the Governor on the following grounds:

  1. failure to comply with clause SEPP 55;
  2. taking into account an irrelevant consideration, namely, the VPA that did not provide for enforcement by a "suitable means" as required by section 93F(3)(g) of the EPA Act; and
  3. reasonable apprehension of bias.

At first instance, Biscoe J held that the MD SEPP Amendment was invalid on the basis of Grounds 1 and 2. Sweetwater was unsuccessful on Ground 3.


In respect of Ground 1, the primary judge found that the decision to recommend the MD SEPP Amendment was invalid because the Minister failed to comply with the conditions in clause 6 of SEPP 55. Clause 6 of SEPP 55 specifies mandatory requirements to which a "planning authority" must have regard to in determining whether to rezone land.

In reaching this conclusion, Biscoe J held that the Minister was the relevant "planning authority" on the basis that he was responsible for preparing the MD SEPP Amendment. While a contamination investigation report was considered by the Director-General, the findings of that report were not adequately summarised in a briefing note to the Minister for the Minister to formed the requisite state of satisfaction. For these reasons, the Land and Environment Court found the Minister had failed to comply with SEPP 55.

In relation to Ground 2, Sweetwater did not allege that the provisions of the VPA relating to the transfer of the Conservation Offset Lands Contribution did not comply with section 93F(3)(g) of the EPA Act. Instead, Sweetwater argued that the VPA did not provide for "the enforcement of the agreement by suitable means, such as the provision of a bond or guarantee", as required by the EPA Act, in respect of the Monetary Contribution only.

The Land and Environment Court held that the reference to "suitable means, such as a bond or guarantee" required "an additional, independent and enforceable assurance" that the developer's obligations under the VPA would be fulfilled. Although the Court conceded that the examples "bond or guarantee" are not exhaustive, the suitable means must be ejusdem generis, ie. security of the same general kind as a bond or guarantee. On this basis, the Court found that the registration of the VPA on title was an insufficient means of enforcing the Monetary Contribution against Huntlee or a subsequent landowner in the event of default.

On the basis that the VPA failed to comply with section 93F(3)(g), the primary judge held that the VPA should not have been considered by the Minister in deciding to recommend the MD SEPP Amendment to the Governor. The Court held that the effect of the Minister having regard to an irrelevant consideration was to invalidate the MD SEPP Amendment.

This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal by Huntlee and the Minister in separate proceedings. Orders were made by the Court allowing both appeals to be heard concurrently.



The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the appeals and set aside the first instance decision (Sackville AJA delivering the leading judgment with Beazley JA and Tobias AJA agreeing).

In respect of compliance with SEPP 55, the Court held that the primary judge was in error in concluding that the MD SEPP Amendment was invalid by reason of non-compliance with clause 6 of SEPP 55. The Court indicated, without deciding, a preferred view that the Minister's power to recommend the making of a SEPP is an exercise of the executive power, rather than a statutory power conferred by the EPA Act.

Irrespective of the source of the Minister's power, there is nothing in the EPA Act suggesting that the making of a "valid" Ministerial recommendation is a necessary precondition to the Governor exercising the power conferred by section 37(1) to make a SEPP. Rather the power of the Governor to make a SEPP is only conditional upon advice of the Executive Council, and the requirement that the SEPP be for the purpose of environmental planning by the State. Therefore, regardless of the status of the decision of the Minister to recommend the MD SEPP Amendment, the Governor, on advice of the Executive Council, validly exercised the power conferred by section 37(1).

In any event, the Court found that the mandatory requirements set out in clause 6 of SEPP 55 operate only to constrain a planning authority in the preparation of an environmental planning instrument and not a Ministerial recommendation to make a SEPP. By the time the Minister recommended the MD SEPP Amendment to the Governor, the process of preparation of the SEPP had concluded and the making of the SEPP had commenced. For these reasons, the Ministerial recommendation to the Governor to make the MD SEPP Amendment fell outside the scope of clause 6 of SEPP 55.


In relation to the VPA , the Court held that the document provided for enforcement by "suitable means" and rejected the application of the ejusdem generis principle adopted by Biscoe J. Instead, the Court said the ordinary meaning of "suitability" is to be assessed "by reference to whether the means of enforcement is likely to eliminate or reduce to a commercially acceptable level the risk that the obligation created by the planning agreement will not be performed and that the planning authority or the community will not received the intended benefits". This assessment of the suitability of a means of enforcement offered by a developer requires consideration of the:

  • capacity of the developer to comply with the relevant obligations;
  • commercial context in which the VPA will operate; and
  • likely availability and effectiveness of the specified means of enforcement.

In this instance, the relevant obligation on Huntlee was its ability to pay the Monetary Contribution in a series of instalments. The risk associated with this obligation was mitigated by registration of the VPA on title and, prior to registration, the creation of an equitable interest in the land sufficient to support the Minister's lodgement of a caveat on the title of the Site. The Minister only had to withdraw the caveat once the VPA had been registered.

Based on the particular wording of the Huntlee VPA, following its registration, the obligation to pay the Monetary Contribution ran with the land until the obligation was discharged. While Huntlee may transfer the land to another developer, the safeguard in the particular provisions of the Huntlee VPA required that before any transfer takes place, the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed purchaser has the financial capacity to pay the Monetary Contribution and the purchaser must enter into a deed of novation with the Minister.

Although registration of the VPA does not necessarily eliminate entirely the risk that Huntlee might default in making the Monetary Contribution, the obvious purpose of the registration mechanism was to bind successors in title as contemplated by section 93H(3) of the EPA Act. This mechanism ensures that the owner of the Site for the time being is liable to pay the Monetary Contribution as and when the instalments are due. For this reason, the VPA was said to provide for suitable means of enforcement.

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal did not comment about the time at which security must be provided under a VPA.

That the value of Huntlee's land clearly exceeded the Monetary Contribution payable under the VPA was a factor to be considered in assessing suitability of enforcement mechanisms.


  • Registration of a VPA is now clearly available as a potential means of securing enforcement.
  • Planning authorities will likely undertake a risk assessment in respect of developer's capacity to perform each individual obligation in a VPA. This will include establishing the developer's capacity to perform including by reference to the value of the relevant property and the borrowings the developer has in place.
  • Security for performance of VPA's need not be provided solely by bank guarantee, as has become the practice.
  • Developers will need to be prepared to outline to planning authorities the commercial context in which their VPA obligations are to be performed, as this must be considered by planning authorities in assessing the suitability of enforcement mechanisms offered by developers.
  • A developer is not automatically released from its obligations under a registered VPA when the relevant land is sold. The planning authority must expressly agree to such a release.
  • SEPP 55 cannot be ignored in the process of preparing a draft environmental planning instrument. Developers taking short cuts with environmental site assessment at rezoning stage do so at their peril as this decision clarifies the obligation of local councils (for LEP's) and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (for SEPP's) to comply with clause 6 of SEPP 55. Having said that, a SEPP made by the Governor in accordance with section 37(1) of the EPA Act will not be held invalid if there is a failure to comply with clause 6 of SEPP 55.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions