Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the Respondent's issue of a Development Control Order number 11 (compliance order) pursuant to s 9.34(1)(a) and Part 1 of Schedule 5 (DCO) to the Applicant in respect of lot 38 in DP 271003 and known as 2/31 Hayters Drive, Suffolk Park (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 8 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. The Applicant owns the Site which is currently tenanted and the tenant keeps a dog on the Site. The DCO required the Applicant to:

Comply with Condition 1 of development consent 10.2007.286.3 by removing any dog or dogs from the Premises.

4. The Respondent agrees that the DCO should be revoked because it is an invalid order.

5. 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 revoking the DCO.

6. 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.

7. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 8.18 of the EPA Act to revoke a development control order.

8. 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 of the EPA Act to revoke a development control order on the basis of it being an invalid order pursuant to the terms of s 9.34 of the EPA Act. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed jurisdictional note provided to the court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197f2f9c4d3f0ebf3d64e4f1)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.