Prime Form Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2025] NSWLEC 1061


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prime Form Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1061
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference held 24 January 2025
Date of orders: 6 February 2025
Decision date: 06 February 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1)   The appeal is upheld.

(2) Pursuant to section 8.18(4)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Development Control Order NO-687/2023 dated 10 October 2023 relating to the use of the site located at 1505 Camden Valley Way, Leppington NSW 2179, legally described at Lot 100 DP 1176542, issued to the Applicant by the Respondent is substituted by the Development Control Order set out in Annexure A, being an order that the Respondent as the relevant enforcement authority could have given.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER APPEAL – stop use – time to comply - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.18

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021, Ch 3

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Prime Form Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C Koikas (Applicant)
A Jucha Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bick and Steele (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/353355
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Control Order Appeal pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the issue of a Development Control Order NO-687/2023 dated 10 October 2023 to stop use of premises as a ‘storage premises’ and remove all materials and items associated with the use including but not limited to scaffolding and formwork materials (DCO) related to premises at 1505 Camden Valley Way Leppington legally described as Lot 100 in DP 1176542 (the Site).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 24 January 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and substituting the DCO for another DCO.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 8.18(4)(c) of the EPA Act to substitute for the development control order any other order that the relevant enforcement authority who gave the order could have given.

  6. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 8.18(4)(c) of the EPA Act to substitute a DCO with another order.

  7. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. The reasons I am so satisfied are as set out in the reasons for the Order in the substituted Order at Annexure which are as follows:

  1. The Applicant is the occupier of the Site.

  2. The Site is zones B5 – Business Development, SP2 – Infrastructure -Classified Road and SP2 – Infrastructure – Drainage under Ch 3 Sydney Region Growth Centres of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021. Development for the purpose of “storage premises” is prohibited at the Site.

  1. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Orders:

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Pursuant to section 8.18(4)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979, the Development Control Order NO-687/2023 dated 10 October 2023 relating to the use of the site located at 1505 Camden Valley Way, Leppington NSW 2179, legally described at Lot 100 DP 1176542, issued to the Applicant by the Respondent is substituted by the Development Control Order set out in Annexure A, being an order that the Respondent as the relevant enforcement authority could have given.

  1. The Court notes that the parties have agreed to each party to pay their own costs.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

**********

Details
AGLC
Prime Form Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1061
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1061
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prime Form Group Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to challenge the legality of a Development Control Order issued by the Liverpool City Council, the respondent, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The order in question, DCO NO-687/2023, was issued on 10 October 2023 and pertained to the use of a specific site at Leppington. The appellant contended that the order was beyond the powers of the council and thus invalid. The dispute reached the Court, which was tasked with determining the validity of the council’s decision and the scope of its authority under the Act.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Development Control Order issued by the council was within its statutory authority. Specifically, the Court had to examine whether the council's actions were consistent with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The appellant argued that the council had overstepped its powers by issuing a DCO that restricted the use of the site more than what was permissible under the Act. Conversely, the council maintained that its actions were justified and within the bounds of its legislative authority.

The Court, after a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and the relevant case law, found in favour of the appellant. It was determined that the council's Development Control Order exceeded its authority under section 8.18(4)(c) of the Act. The Court found that the council had not acted in accordance with the legislative framework, leading to the conclusion that the order was invalid. Consequently, the Court substituted the original Development Control Order with an order that aligned with what the council could legally impose, as outlined in Annexure A of the judgment.

In light of the Court's findings, the appeal was upheld, and the original Development Control Order was substituted with the one set out in Annexure A. This order reflects what the council, as the relevant enforcement authority, could have lawfully issued under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Pursuant to section 8.18(4)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Development Control Order NO-687/2023 dated 10 October 2023 relating to the use of the site located at 1505 Camden Valley Way, Leppington NSW 2179, legally described at Lot 100 DP 1176542, issued to the Applicant by the Respondent is substituted by the Development Control Order set out in Annexure A, being an order that the Respondent as the relevant enforcement authority could have given.

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.