Malosi Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1505

Malosi Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1505

The activities—vegetation clearing, earthworks, and use as a storage premises—were prohibited uses under the relevant planning controls for the RU4 zone. The substituted order (Stop Use Order) is appropriate given that some works are now the subject of an EPA Clean-Up Notice, and the agreement between parties satisfies jurisdictional prerequisites and statutory requirements. Therefore, the appeal is upheld and the substituted order is made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination After Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Control Orders' 'prohibited Development' 'local Environmental Planning' 'conciliation Conference' 'environmental Compliance']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Control Orders' 'prohibited Development' 'local Environmental Planning' 'conciliation Conference' 'environmental Compliance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination After Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development control order issued by Penrith City Council was valid' 'Whether the substituted development control order should be made in place of the original order' 'Whether the activities on the premises were prohibited uses under the applicable planning instruments']

Ratio Decidendi

The activities—vegetation clearing, earthworks, and use as a storage premises—were prohibited uses under the relevant planning controls for the RU4 zone. The substituted order (Stop Use Order) is appropriate given that some works are now the subject of an EPA Clean-Up Notice, and the agreement between parties satisfies jurisdictional prerequisites and statutory requirements. Therefore, the appeal is upheld and the substituted order is made.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Pursuant to ss 8.14 and 8.18(4) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the original development control order No. 2 dated 1 April 2022 is substituted by the development control order No. 1 as set out in Annexure A.']