Moulds v Wollongong City Council

[2007] NSWLEC 178

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Moulds v Wollongong City Council [2007] NSWLEC 178

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Albert David Moulds

RESPONDENT
Wollongong City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10563 of 2006

CORAM:

Bly C

KEY ISSUES:

Section 121B Order :- clearing of site and vegetation restoration

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990

DATES OF HEARING:

21/03/2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

21 March 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr M. J. Stevens, barrister
instructed by: W. Lawson, solicitor
of William Lawson Solicitors

RESPONDENT
Mr A. M. Pickles, barrister
instructed by: M. Cotham, solicitor
of Kells The Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

21 March 2007

10563 of 2006 Albert David Moulds v Wollongong City Council

This decision was given extemporaneously. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against an order dated 6 June 2006 issued by the respondent council to the applicant under s 121B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The order was issued following the necessary notice of intention and relates to certain work carried out on the applicant’s land in April 2005 and required inter alia bush regeneration works including weeding, planting and maintenance.

2 The irregular shaped site at 13 Callistemon Road, Cordeaux Heights (Lot 224 DP 809234) has an area of about 2.3 ha. It contains an array of native and non-native vegetation including certain threatened species (Cynanchum elegans) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The site is zoned 7(c) Environmental Protection Residential under the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990. In this zone the clearing of land and subdivision require development consent.

3 The Court notes that the applicant proposes to develop the site as is permissible in the zone, by subdivision for the purpose of residential development. A development application to this effect has been lodged with the respondent council.

4 The Court had the benefit of an extensive inspection of the site in the company of the parties, their advisors and the court-appointed expert, Miss T James, who is a flora/ecological consultant. This facilitated an understanding of the extent of the clearing works that had been carried out and the extent and nature of the necessary remediation works.

5 Since the inspection, and with the encouragement of the Court, the parties in consideration of not only the advice of Miss James but also council’s own experts and the applicant’s engineer, Mr Wells, have now produced draft orders which, have now been agreed. These orders require weed removal, native plant regeneration and subsequent maintenance in accordance with a qualified bush regeneration contractor. The Court is now invited to make those orders effectively by consent.

6 The applicant invited the Court, perhaps unnecessarily, to note that these orders, would not act as a bar or an impediment to the council dealing with the application for the subdivision of the land.

7 The orders were tendered as Exhibit 1 and in upholding the appeal I hereby make those orders. Finally, Exhibits 1 and A are retained, otherwise the various documents and tendered exhibits that the Court no longer needs are returned.

___________________

T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
ljr