Nambucca Shire Council v Mirage Property Group Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] NSWLEC 136

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Nambucca Shire Council v Mirage Property Group Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] NSWLEC 136

APPLICANT PARTIES : Nambucca Shire Council RESPONDENT Mirage Property Group Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S) : 40870 of 2007

CORAM: Sheahan J

KEY ISSUES: Contempt :- penalty

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss.3A and 21A

CASES CITED: Nambucca Shire Council v Mirage Property Group Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 84

DATES OF HEARING: 9 April 2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 9 April 2008

APPLICANT Mr M Wright SOLICITORS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Deacons

RESPONDENT Mr W van Ede, Solicitor of E H Tebbutt and Sons

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Justice Sheahan

9 April 2008

40870 of 2007

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL v MIRAGE PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD (No.2)

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: On 22 February 2008 I found the Respondent Company guilty of contempt, despite its plea of "not guilty". See my judgment at [2008] NSWLEC 84. As agreed on that occasion I adjourned the matter for further hearing on the question of penalty and that hearing has been conducted today. 2 The contempt is of Orders I made by consent on 4 December 2007. These Class 4 proceedings had been on foot since 6 September 2007, following concerns in the Council as to the management by the respondent company of its subdivision development on the subject site, which is proximate to Beer Creek in the Nambucca River area. The purpose of the Orders was to minimise environmental harm and the respondent company admitted at the earlier hearing that some such harm had occurred between the making of the orders and that hearing. 3 The subdivision was approved by Council in 1993 and the property was bought by the respondent company sometime after April 2005. Construction commenced in accordance with the consent on 15 August 2006. 4 An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was required by Condition 11 of the consent. As I noted in pars 3-6 of my earlier judgment, the consent orders of December 2007 sought to enforce that plan, and secure weekly reporting on its implementation, which was to have expert supervision. 5 The supervisor was required by the consent orders to also prepare a Flocculation and Sediment Treatment Plan and include data on sediment monitoring in the weekly reports. The Flocculation and Sediment Treatment Plan was to be submitted to Council by 18 December 2007. 6 These contempt proceedings concern the orders for submission of the Flocculation plan and the weekly reporting.