Armstrong v Ashfield Municipal Council

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read
Reported Decision: 119 LGERA 384
APPEAL PARTLY DISMISSED

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Armstrong and Anor v Ashfield Municipal Council [2001] NSWLEC 277
PARTIES:

APPLICANTS:
Leonard Armstrong
Christina Armstrong

RESPONDENT:
Ashfield Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 40184 of 2001
CORAM: Talbot J
KEY ISSUES: Existing Use Rights :- inference to be drawn from historical records - effect of consent to continuation of use under cl 34 of the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance - categorisation of use.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 106, s 106(b)(i), s 109B
Local Government Act 1919 s 341, s 342 AS
Ashfield Local Environment Plan 1985
County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance cl 24, cl 34, cl 34(1), cl 34(2)
Ordinance No. 105 Town and Country Planning - General Interim Development
CASES CITED: North Sydney Municipal Council v Boyts Radio and Electrical Pty Ltd and Others (1989) 67 LGRA 344;
Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales v Sydney City Council (1987) 61 LGRA 305;
Shire of Perth v O'Keefe and Another (1964) 110 CLR 529;
South Sydney City Council v M. & D. Cooper (Bignold J, NSWLEC, 28 May 1997, unreported);
Woollahra Municipal Council v Banool Developments Pty Limited (1973) 129 CLR 138;
Woollahra Municipal Council v Hinton (1967) 13 LGRA 417
DATES OF HEARING: 29/10/2001, 20/11/2001 (final written submissions)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
12/07/2001
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANTS:
Mr DP Wilson (Barrister)
SOLICITORS:
Wilshire Webb

RESPONDENT:
Mr MG Craig QC
SOLICITORS:
Pike Pike & Fenwick



JUDGMENT:


    IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 40184 of 2001
    ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J
    OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 7 December 2001

    Leonard Armstrong
    Christina Armstrong
    Applicants
    v
    Ashfield Municipal Council

    Respondent

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


    1. The applicants are the proprietors of land known as lot 1 DP 908000, 6 Kensington Road, Summer Hill (“the premises”). Erected on the land is a building currently divided into four flats. Under the Ashfield Local Environment Plan 1985 (“the LEP”), gazetted on 20 December 1985, the land is in Zone No. 2 (a) (Residential Zone). The use of the land for the purposes of a residential flat building has been at all times prohibited in the Residential 2(a) zone.

    2. The first applicant, Leonard Armstrong, has commenced class 1 proceedings by way of an appeal against a refusal of a development application made to Ashfield Municipal Council (“the council”) for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building. On 13 July 2001 the council was granted leave to amend its statement of issues in the class 1 proceedings to include the following issues:-
          18. (a) Whether the use of the existing building is an “existing use” within the meaning of s.106 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .
            (b) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, whether the proposed development is prohibited.


    3. These class 4 proceedings were commenced on 5 October 2001.

    4. The class 4 application seeks a declaration in the following form:-
          A declaration…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armstrong v Ashfield Municipal Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] NSWLEC 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Leonard and Christina Armstrong, sought to establish that the use of their property at 6 Kensington Road, Summer Hill, as a residential flat building constituted an existing use under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. They appealed against the Ashfield Municipal Council's refusal of their development application for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building. The council argued that the applicants needed to demonstrate a continuous use of the property specifically as a four-flat residential building. The central legal issue was whether the historical use of the property could be classified as an existing use under the relevant planning legislation and if the council's consent in 1953 validated this use. The court examined the historical records, including electoral rolls, Valuer-General records, and council documents, to determine the continuity and nature of the property's use. The court found that the property had been used for residential purposes since at least 1949 and that the council's 1953 consent confirmed this use as an existing use under the Planning Scheme Ordinance. The court concluded that the use of the property as a residential flat building, configured as four flatettes, was an existing use permitted under the Act. The court ordered that the use of the building for multiple occupancy residential accommodation, including as a residential flat building, was an existing use within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Costs were reserved, and the exhibits were ordered to be returned.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.