Barich v Parramatta City Council - [2014] NSWLEC 1259

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Barich v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1259
Hearing dates: 12 and 13 November 2014
Decision date: 16 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Moore SC
Decision:
Subject to consideration of an operative date, the application to categorise 83 Marion Street, Harris Park as being within the Business General rating subcategory of Parramatta City Council's business rating category is granted.

Catchwords: RATING: Sub-categorisation; centres of activity; characteristics of site sets it apart from Central Business District
Legislation Cited: Local Government Act 1993
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011
Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2007
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 28 (Parramatta)
Cases Cited: Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1077
Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 177
Chamwell Pty Limited v Strathfield Council [2007] NSWLEC 114; (2007) 151 LGERA 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Dr A Barich (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Mr A Pickles, Barrister (Applicant)
Mr J Hutton, Barrister (Respondent)
Barrak Lawyers (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30155 of 2014

Judgment

Introduction

SENIOR COMMISSIONER: Revenue that councils raise by rates comes from land within the local government area classified as either residential, farming, mining or business through the processes set out in ss 514 to 518 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). The council determines which of these four categories is to be attached to a parcel of land - with the default category of business if a parcel of land is not able to be categorised as residential, farmland or mining. The Act also permits a council to divide land within any category into such subcategories of the principal category as the council considers appropriate.

An owner of land who considers that the categorisation of a property is inappropriate is given the right under the Act, pursuant to s 525, to seek to have the categorisation of the land changed to a new category nominated in the application for change of category.

In dealing with any such application, the Council must consider the application for re-categorisation through the lens provided by s 525(3) of the Act. This provision is in the following terms:

(3) The council must declare the land to be within the category nominated in the application unless it has reasonable grounds for believing that the land is not within that category.

Where a council has established a number of subcategories within any of the principal categories, a similar process applies whereby an owner can seek to have a property moved to a different subcategory. The provisions of s 525(3) apply to such application to change subcategory in the same fashion that they apply to an application to shift between the four principal categories.

It is within this framework that the applicant in these proceedings seeks to have his property at 83 Marion Street, Harris Park shifted between subcategories within the business category of the rating structure of Parramatta City Council (the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Barich v Parramatta City 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: [2014] NSWLEC 1259
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barich v Parramatta City Council involved a dispute over the classification of a property located at 83 Marion Street, Harris Park. The applicant, Barich, sought to have the property categorised as part of the Business General rating subcategory under the Parramatta City Council's business rating category. The primary issue before the court was whether the property in question met the criteria for this specific subcategory classification. This classification would affect the rate at which the property would be taxed by the council.

The court was required to consider the specific criteria set out by the council for the Business General rating subcategory. These criteria included the nature of the business operations conducted at the property, the type of goods or services offered, and the overall commercial activity level. The court needed to determine if the evidence presented by Barich demonstrated that the property met these criteria sufficiently to warrant the classification sought. This involved a careful analysis of the property's use and the extent to which it aligned with the council's guidelines.

The court examined the evidence provided by Barich and considered the council's objections. It found that the property did indeed meet the criteria for the Business General rating subcategory. The court noted that the property was primarily used for commercial purposes, offering services that fit within the guidelines provided by the council. As a result, the court concluded that the application to categorise the property should be granted. The court's decision was based on the substantial alignment of the property's use with the criteria set out by the council.

The court granted the application, subject to an appropriate operative date being determined. This decision recognised the commercial nature of the property and its alignment with the council's classification criteria.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subject to consideration of an operative date, the application to categorise 83 Marion Street, Harris Park as being within the Business General rating subcategory of Parramatta City Council's business rating category is granted.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Barich v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1259
Hearing dates:	12 and 13 November 2014
Decision date:	16 December 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Moore SC
Decision:	Subject to consideration of an operative date, the application to categorise 83 Marion Street, Harris Park as being within the Business General rating subcategory of Parramatta City Council's business rating category is granted.
Catchwords:	RATING: Sub-categorisation; centres of activity; characteristics of site sets it apart from Central Business District
Legislation Cited:	Local Government Act 1993 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2007 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 28 (Parramatta)
Cases Cited:	Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1077 Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 177 Chamwell Pty Limited v Strathfield Council [2007] NSWLEC 114; (2007) 151 LGERA 400
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Dr A Barich (Applicant) Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr A Pickles, Barrister (Applicant) Mr J Hutton, Barrister (Respondent) Barrak Lawyers (Applicant) Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30155 of 2014