Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

Case [2010] NSWLEC 1355


NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION:
Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1355

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Parramatta City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):
10780 of 2010

CATCHWORDS:
CONSENT ORDERS; SECTION 121B ORDER

LEGISLATION CITED:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CORAM:
Tuor C

DATES OF HEARING:
26 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 October 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT
Mr S Malesev (Agent)

RESPONDENT
Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor
of Sparke Helmore

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Tuor C

26 October 2010

10780 of 2010    Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd  -v  Parramatta City Council

This determination was given extemporaneously
and has been edited prior to publication

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER:  This is an appeal against Order 19 dated 31 August 2010, being a stop work order pursuant to s 121B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Order) issued by Parramatta City Council (council) for a dual occupancy development at 25 Ryde Street Epping.  The issues in dispute between the parties have been resolved and the parties are seeking consent orders from the Court.

  2. The consent orders seek to modify the Order to require specified works to be undertaken by 30 November 2010.  The works relate to adjustments to windowsill heights to conform to the development consent issued by the Court on 3 April 2007 (Appeal number 10532 of 2006). 

  3. I am satisfied that the issues in dispute between the parties have been satisfactorily resolved and that the consent orders can be issued. 

Orders

  1. The Court orders by consent that:

    1.          The Order given by Parramatta City Council pursuant to s 121B dated 31 August 2010 is modified so as to be in terms of the Order annexed hereto and marked “A”.

    2.          The Order as amended is upheld.

    The Court notes that each party is to pay its own costs of the proceedings.

    ___________________

    Annelise Tuor
    Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1355
Case
[2010] NSWLEC 1355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd sought relief from a stop work order issued by Parramatta City Council in relation to a dual occupancy development at 25 Ryde Street, Epping. The Council had issued the stop work order under section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, citing non-compliance with the approved development consent. The applicant, Champion Home Sales, appealed the order to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, arguing that the issues had been resolved and that the Council's order should be modified to allow for specific works to be undertaken by a certain date.

The court was required to determine whether the issues between the parties had indeed been resolved and whether the proposed consent orders were appropriate modifications to the original stop work order. The court had to consider the terms of the development consent issued on 3 April 2007 and assess whether the proposed modifications aligned with those terms. The court also needed to ensure that any orders made would be enforceable and in the public interest.

The court found that the issues between the parties had been satisfactorily resolved and that the proposed consent orders were appropriate. The court accepted that the works outlined in the consent orders were necessary to bring the development into compliance with the approved development consent. The court noted that the modifications sought were reasonable and would not compromise the integrity of the development consent. The court was satisfied that the consent orders would allow the applicant to proceed with the development while ensuring compliance with the relevant planning laws.

The court issued the consent orders as requested, modifying the original stop work order to require specific works to be undertaken by 30 November 2010. The court noted that each party would bear their own costs of the proceedings. The modified order was upheld, and the case was resolved with both parties agreeing to the terms of the consent orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.