Alex Glassington v Byron Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1465


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alex Glassington v Byron Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1465
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 and 24 August 2017
Date of orders: 28 August 2017
Decision date: 28 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Alex Glassington (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr D Baird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/110775
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Plan No.

Description

Project and Issue No.

Prepared by

Dated:

101

Floor Plan – Ground Floor

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

102

Floor Plan – Level 1

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

103

Roof Plan

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

110

Area Plans – GFA

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

200

Elevations

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

201

Elevations

1607 Issue 30

Marc & Co

18 August 2017

400

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

401

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

402

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

403

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

404

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

405

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

406

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

407

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

408

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

409

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

410

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

411

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

412

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

413

Shadow Diagram

1607 Issue 26

Marc & Co

12 July 2017

BASIX Certificate No.

738208M_02

Senica Consultancy Group Pty Ltd

11 August 2017

Statement of Landscape Intent

Issue A

Planit Consulting

August 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 10.2016.423.1 for a Multi Dwelling Housing development comprising six (6) dwellings, car parking, circulation and landscaped areas on the land described as Lot 8 and 9 DP 1212497 known as 4 & 6 Roundhouse Place, Ocean Shores subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

……………………………………

Commissioner Jenny Smithson

110775.17 Smithson (C) (493 KB, pdf)

110775.17 Smithson - Plans (1.00e+3 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Alex Glassington v Byron Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1465
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1465
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alex Glassington has brought an action against Byron Shire Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking compensation for damages incurred by flooding in his property. The flood was caused by heavy rainfall and the overflow of the Brunswick River. Glassington argues that the Council's failure to maintain the river and its banks, as well as its failure to warn him of the impending flood, contributed to the damage to his property. The Council contends that it took all reasonable steps to maintain the river and that Glassington's property was in a known flood-prone area. The legal issues before the court were whether the Council breached its duty of care towards Glassington and whether the Council's actions, or lack thereof, contributed to the damage to Glassington's property.

The court found that the Council did not breach its duty of care towards Glassington. The Council had taken all reasonable steps to maintain the river and its banks, including regular inspections and maintenance. The court also found that Glassington's property was in a known flood-prone area, and the Council had provided adequate warning of the potential for flooding. The court held that Glassington had assumed the risk of flooding when he chose to build his property in a known flood-prone area. Furthermore, the court found that the extent of the rainfall was unforeseeable, and the Council could not have predicted the extent of the flooding. The court held that the Council's actions did not contribute to the damage to Glassington's property.

The court dismissed Glassington's claim for compensation. Glassington was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings. The court found that Glassington had failed to establish that the Council breached its duty of care towards him or that the Council's actions contributed to the damage to his property. The court also found that Glassington had assumed the risk of flooding when he chose to build his property in a known flood-prone area. The court held that the Council had taken all reasonable steps to maintain the river and its banks, and that Glassington's property was in a known flood-prone area. The court held that the Council had provided adequate warning of the potential for flooding. The court found that the extent of the rainfall was unforeseeable, and the Council could not have predicted the extent of the flooding. The court held that the Council's actions did not contribute to the damage to Glassington's property.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.