Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gosford City Council v Verde Terra Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWLEC 163 Hearing dates: 23 September 2013 Decision date: 23 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Biscoe J Decision: (1) The hearing dates set down for 12 days commencing on 30 September 2013 are vacated. (2) The matter is stood over for the purpose of making final orders to a day in the last week of term in 2013, if possible before Justice Biscoe. (3) The parties are to approach the Registry within 48 hours to fix that date. Catchwords: Practice and procedure - application to vacate hearing dates in light of heads of a settlement agreement. Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Gosford City Council (Applicant) Verde Terra Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Mangrove Mountain Memorial Club Limited (Second Respondent) Mangrove Mountain Landfill Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Danny John Wilmott, Reginald Etienne, William and James Douglas as Trustees for the Returned and Services League of Australia (New South Wales Branch) (Mangrove Mountain Sub-Branch) Representation: COUNSEL: N Eastman (Applicant) I Hemmings (First and Third Respondents) P J Menadue (Second Respondent) J Kalantas (Fourth Respondent) SOLICITORS: P J Donnellan & Co (Applicant) Hunt & Hunt (First and Third Respondents) Brennan Tipple Partners (Second Respondent) Taperell Rutledge Lawyers (Fourth Respondent) File Number(s): 40900/12 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1This is an oral motion by the applicant, supported by the first and third respondents, to vacate the hearing of this matter, which is listed for 12 days commencing on 30 September 2013. The motion is not opposed by the other respondents. 2For the purpose of this motion only, I will assume that the background facts are along the lines alleged in the further amended points of claim. The applicant is Gosford City Council. The first respondent, Verde Terra Pty Ltd, is a company that controls a waste facility operation and carries out related civil works on land at Wiseman's Ferry Road, Central Mangrove, also known as the Mangrove Mountain Memorial Golf Course. The second respondent, Mangrove Mountain Memorial Club Limited, is the lessee and occupier of the land and operates the golf course pursuant to a lease. The second respondent has granted permission to the first respondent to operate the waste disposal facility to carry out related civil works on the land. The third respondent, Mangrove Mountain Landfill Pty Limited, is a company that operates a waste facility operation and carries out related civil works on the land pursuant to an agreement between it and the first respondent, or alternatively, on behalf of the first respondent. Three individual are registered proprietors as joint tenants of the land and hold the land on trust for the fourth respondent, the Returned and Services League of Australia (NSW Branch) (the Mangrove Mountain sub-branch). 3On 6 October 1998 the applicant granted development consent subject to conditions to the second respondent for the purpose of remodelling the golf course on the land from nine to 18 holes. The consent authorised part of the land to be used for the purpose of a "waste facility" and permitted non-putrescible waste to be imported to the land for filling and reshaping so as to enable remodelling and expansion of the golf course. Condition 1 required operations of the waste facility to be carried out in accordance with a "landfill environmental management plan" prepared by Perram and Partners" except they modified many conditions of the consent and requirements of any regulatory authority. Condition 2 required operations of the waste facility and remodelling to be carried out in accordance with an environmental impact statement prepared by TGT Consulting Services Pty Ltd. 4In 2003 the first respondent commenced carrying out development subject to the consent. Between 2003 and 2011 land civil works were carried out. The applicant contends that certain work has not been carried out in accordance with the consent. By reason of the non-compliance, it is alleged that environmental harm has been caused. The applicant claims declaratory and injunctive relief. 5The parties have engaged in voluntary mediation over two and a half days. Without admissions, the applicant and the first and third respondents, who are the principal protagonists, have entered into heads of agreement by which they intend to resolve the dispute. At the moment the terms of the heads of agreement are confidential until final Court orders. 6On 20 September 2013 the solicitors for the applicant and the first and third respondents met with officers from the Environment Protection Authority NSW to indicate their intention that the first respondent prepare and gain approval of that Authority for an amended LEMP and LMP, which will lead to an amendment in the Environment Protection Licence applicable to the subject land. These actions are to take place prior to final Court orders. 7It is in these circumstances that the Court is requested to vacate the hearing dates. The Court is also requested to stand the matter over for making of final orders to a date in the last week of term in 2013. In the circumstances, I propose to accede to these requests. The applicant and the first and third respondents suggest that a day may be needed to make the final orders. I am not sure that is correct but I am prepared to proceed upon that basis. The second and fourth respondents have indicated that they may have an interest in the making of the final orders. 8The orders of the Court are as follows: (1)The hearing dates set down for 12 days commencing on 30 September 2013 are vacated. (2)The matter is stood over for the purpose of making final orders to a day in the last week of term in 2013, if possible before Justice Biscoe. (3)The parties are to approach the Registry within 48 hours to fix that date. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 September 2013