No Comments

Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Wollongong Recycling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 125

The above case in the Land and Environment Court reminds us of the crucial role that investigators of a Public Authority, such as Council Officers, play in upholding the foundational principles and goals of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The carrying out of development without consent or not in accordance with the consent undermines the objects of the Act, and Council Officers are usually the ones who bring this conduct to the attention of the Court.

 “People need to be aware that the offence of carrying out development not in accordance with development consent is a crime, that offenders will be prosecuted and that the Court will impose significant penalties on offenders”  Chief Justice Preston

Introduction

It may seem strange to some people that in today’s day and age where there are large scale campaigns to encourage more recycling by everyone, that an actual recycling plant should be penalized for recycling more than it is lawfully allowed to do on the site. However, the Land and Environment Court made such a decision recently in relation to an offence by a large recycling company operating in Wollongong.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Clarity Regarding Council Entry to a Residential Premise

The recent decision of the Land and Environment Court in Bobolas v Waverly Council (No 2) [2020], the latest instalment of cases between Bobolas and Waverly Council (‘Council’), provides clarity as to the powers of entry possessed by councils onto residential land. This decision considered an application for judicial review challenging a section 22A order issued by Council is accordance to section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (‘the Act’).

The order sought by Council on 29 January 2020 was to remove waste and refrain from collecting further waste at the property by 26 February 2020. Pursuant to section 124 of the Act, a section 22A order enables council to issue such an order ‘to remove or dispose of waste that is on any residential premises or to refrain from keeping waste on those premises’ if ‘the waste is causing or is likely to cause a threat to public health or the health of any individual’.
Continue reading…

No Comments

UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 6) [2020] NSWLEC 63

A recent Land and Environment Court claim brought in respect of Class 3 proceedings to determine the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of a leasehold interest has resulted in the determination that the applicant be awarded nil compensation taking when into consideration outstanding occupation fees, as well as an order for a non-party cost against the director of the applicant company.

In late 2016, Sydney Metro served a Proposed Acquisition Notice on UTSG Pty Ltd (“UTSG”) in respect of its leasehold interest in premises located in Park Street, Sydney, for the purposes of construction of the Sydney Metro – City and South West Project. Sydney Metro had already acquired the freehold interest in the Park Street property, and advised UTSG they required vacant possession of the property by April 2017 and that rent remained payable for occupation of the premises. Rent remained at the amount previously paid by UTSG, being $31,402 per month (plus GST of $3,140) to be paid to Sydney Metro.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Is the need for a neutral or better outcome a requirement for success with respect to clause 4.6?

In a recent decision in the Land and Environment Court (LEC), the Court has given further clarification to the type of consideration that needs to be given to clause 4.6 of the standard instrument LEP.

The significant decision was given in the case Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 where Preston CJ clarified the appropriate approach to the consideration of clause 4.6. The importance of this judgment is that a clause 4.6 submission does not require developments which do not comply with the applicable development standard to have a neutral or better environmental planning outcome than a development that does not.

By way of background – a “Clause 4.6” in the standard instrument LEP which permits a consent authority to grant development consent for a development that would contravene a development standard, where the consent authority is satisfied of the following two standards:

  1. a written request from the applicant adequately demonstrating that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there is sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention; and
  2. Continue reading…