Luddenham Property Group v Penrith City Council — stop-use order revoked by agreement

Case
Luddenham Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council
Court
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Australia)
Date Decided
17 September 2026
Citation
[2026] NSWLEC 1612
Topics
planning appeals; development control orders; stop-use orders; conciliation

Background

Luddenham Property Group Pty Ltd appealed under s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) against a Part 1 Type 1 Stop Use Order issued by Penrith City Council on 25 March 2026. The order concerned land at 2207–2223 Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham.

The Land and Environment Court held a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). The parties agreed that the appeal should be upheld and the development control order revoked. They also agreed, on a no-admissions basis, that livestock-grazing activities at the site would be undertaken in accordance with an annexed plan of management.

The Court’s Holding

Commissioner Espinosa held that the agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act therefore required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

The Court upheld the appeal and revoked the Council’s Stop Use Order. The Commissioner expressly stated that the Court did not make a merits assessment of the issues originally disputed between the parties.

Key Takeaways

  • A Class 1 appeal can be resolved through a conciliation agreement where the agreed outcome is within the Court’s powers.
  • The Court revoked the Stop Use Order, rather than determining the underlying planning dispute on its merits.
  • The parties’ grazing-management arrangement was recorded on a no-admissions basis.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the effect of s 34(3) conciliation in NSW planning litigation: once parties reach an agreement that the Court could properly make, the Court must give effect to it. The resulting orders resolve the appeal without findings on the substantive merits of the original enforcement dispute.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top