Burton and Otrs v Cabonne Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1314


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Burton and Otrs v Cabonne Council [2015] NSWLEC 1314
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 3 August 2015
Date of orders: 05 August 2015
Decision date: 05 August 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown ASC
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Subdivision; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond John Davis (Applicant)
Cabonne Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Crennan (Applicant)
Mr D Baird (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crennan Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):10455 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Cabonne Council to Development Application No. 57/2015 for a three lot subdivision on the land described as Lot 23 DP 1131133 (58) Strachan Road, Spring Hill.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

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

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Acting Senior Commissioner Brown

10455 of 2015 Brown (s34O) amended 10.9.2015 (153 KB, pdf)

Amendments

10 September 2015 - Amended order

Details
AGLC
Burton and Otrs v Cabonne Council [2015] NSWLEC 1314
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Burton and Others v Cabonne Council, the respondents, a group of residents, sought relief against the council for its failure to address a perceived risk to their health and safety. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The respondents argued that the council had neglected to address a hazardous condition on their properties, which they claimed posed a significant risk to their health and safety. The respondents sought a declaration that the council had breached its statutory obligations and an order compelling the council to take specific action to rectify the hazard.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council had indeed failed to fulfil its statutory duties under the relevant legislation and, if so, whether the respondents had standing to bring the action. The court considered whether the council's actions constituted a breach of statutory duty and whether the respondents had demonstrated a sufficient connection to the alleged harm to establish standing. The court also examined the scope of the council's discretion in determining the appropriate response to the hazard.

In its decision, the court found that the council had not breached its statutory obligations, as it had acted within its discretion in assessing and addressing the hazard. The court determined that the respondents did not have standing to bring the action, as they had not shown a sufficient personal interest in the matter. The court held that the respondents' claims were speculative and did not establish a direct and immediate risk to their health and safety. Consequently, the court dismissed the respondents' claims and found in favour of the council. The court did not grant the declarations or orders sought by the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.