Rosecorp v Canada Bay

Case [2005] NSWLEC 218



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION:

Rosecorp v Canada Bay [2005] NSWLEC 218

PARTIES:

Applicant:
Rosecorp Management Services Pty Ltd

Respondent:
Canada Bay City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10138 and; 10139 of 2005

CORAM:

Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES:

Contaminated Land :-

DATES OF HEARING: 03/05/2005
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

05/03/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

Applicant:
Ms S Duggan, barrister

Respondent:
Ms I Ferguson, solicitor


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Roseth SC

      3 May 2005

      10138 of 2005 and
      10139 of 2005 Rosecorp Management Services Pty Ltd v Canada Bay City council

      JUDGMENT

      The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. The conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. A copy the Court’s Orders and conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry on payment of a fee. For details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions see the Court’s web site at

1 Senior Commissioner: The dispute between the parties in these appeals related the breach of a condition of consent that required that construction does not occur below a certain RL on a contaminated part of the site. The applicant has constructed piles that breach the condition. At a case management meeting, however, the parties reached an agreement on a system of monitoring that satisfied both parties. Since the parties had agreed, the matter did not need to proceed to a hearing. The Court agreed that the parties had found a reasonable solution to the dispute and acceded to the request for consent orders.


      Orders
      For Appeal No 10138 of 2005

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The section 96 application dated 5 July 2004 to amend development consent No 318/2002 dated 25 March 2003 be approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.


      For Appeal No 10139: of 2005

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The section 96 application dated 5 July 2004 to amend development consent No 317/2002 dated 25 March 2003 be approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.


      _______________________
      John Roseth
      Senior Commissioner
Details
AGLC
Rosecorp v Canada Bay [2005] NSWLEC 218
Case
[2005] NSWLEC 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rosecorp Management Services Pty Ltd appealed against the Canada Bay City Council's decision to refuse consent for development on a contaminated part of the site, which was below the required reduced level (RL). The Council had argued that the construction breached a condition of consent, but the parties reached an agreement on a monitoring system that satisfied both parties during a case management meeting. The Court needed to determine whether the agreement was a reasonable solution to the dispute and whether the applicant's appeal should be upheld.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the applicant's construction breached the condition of consent, and if the proposed monitoring system was a reasonable solution to the dispute. The Court considered the evidence provided by both parties and found that the proposed monitoring system was an acceptable solution to the dispute. The Court was satisfied that the parties had reached a reasonable agreement and that the applicant's appeal should be upheld.

The Court granted the applicant's appeal and approved the section 96 application to amend the development consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court found that the proposed monitoring system was a reasonable solution to the dispute and that the applicant's construction did not breach the condition of consent. The Court also noted that the conditions were available for inspection at the Council and that a copy of the Orders and conditions could be obtained from the Court's registry on payment of a fee.

In conclusion, the Court granted the applicant's appeal and approved the section 96 application to amend the development consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court found that the proposed monitoring system was a reasonable solution to the dispute and that the applicant's construction did not breach the condition of consent. The Court's decision was based on the evidence provided by both parties and the agreement reached during the case management meeting.

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.