Background
Charles Vella appealed a development control order issued by Penrith City Council on 27 February 2026. The order was a restore works order concerning unauthorised vegetation removal at 96–104 Leitch Avenue, Londonderry.
The appeal was dealt with at a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). The parties agreed to replace the original order with a modified development control order requiring implementation of a vegetation management plan prepared by Dr T Hawkesbury for part of the site, within an agreed timeframe.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Walsh upheld the appeal and substituted the Council’s 27 February 2026 order with the order set out in Annexure A to the parties’ agreement. The substituted order was made under Div 9.3 and Sch 5, item 10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The Court was satisfied that the agreed outcome was within its power and could properly be made under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act. The Council had authority to issue the relevant restore works order, and the agreed modified order was said to comply with applicable notice, representation, natural-justice and procedural-fairness requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A restore works order may address unauthorised vegetation removal under the EPA Act.
- On appeal, the Court may substitute a development control order with another order the enforcement authority could have made.
- Where a conciliated agreement is within power, s 34(3) requires the Court to dispose of proceedings in accordance with it.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in resolving development control order appeals through conciliation. It confirms that an agreed vegetation-management outcome may replace an original enforcement order where the statutory prerequisites are met and the resulting order is one the Court could lawfully make.