LWP Property Group Pty Ltd and City Of Swan

The case between LWP Property Group Pty Ltd and the City of Swan involves a dispute concerning the maintenance requirements for landscape areas in the Ellenbrook Village 6 Development Plan. The matter was heard and determined in the Western Australian Supreme Court. The developer, LWP Property Group Pty Ltd, sought a review of a particular requirement within the Development Plan that mandated the maintenance of landscape areas until July 2014 or five years after the sale of the last lot, whichever was earlier. The developer contended that this requirement was unreasonable and inappropriate, arguing that the maintenance requirement should generally be limited to two years.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the maintenance requirement imposed by the City of Swan was reasonable, appropriate, and in line with standard practice. The court had to determine whether the extended maintenance period was justified and whether the two-year maintenance period proposed by the developer was a more appropriate standard. In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the development, the typical practices in similar developments, and the potential impact of the maintenance requirement on the developer's operations and financial viability.

The court found that the maintenance requirement as set out in the Development Plan was unreasonable and inappropriate. It noted that the extended maintenance period was not aligned with standard practice and placed an undue burden on the developer. The court held that a two-year maintenance period was generally appropriate and would adequately ensure the proper upkeep of the landscape areas. Consequently, the court varied the requirement to reflect a two-year maintenance period following the completion of each relevant stage of public open space in Village 6. The court's decision thus allowed the application for review and modified the specific maintenance requirement within the Development Plan accordingly.

In light of its findings, the court ordered that the application for review be allowed and that the requirement in question be varied to reflect a two-year maintenance period after the completion of each relevant stage of public open space in Village 6. This decision provides clarity on the appropriate maintenance period for similar developments and ensures that the requirements imposed are reasonable and in line with standard industry practices.