Burwood Council v Wanless

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Burwood Council v Wanless [2011] NSWLEC 248
Hearing dates:	14/12/2011
Decision date:	14 December 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Biscoe J
Decision:	Orders to remove overgrown vegetation
Catchwords:	CIVIL ENFORCEMENT:- to restrain breaches of Local Government Act 1991 being failure to comply with council order for removal of overgrown vegetation on respondent's property.
Legislation Cited:	Local Government Act 1993, ss 124, 132, 673, 678
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Burwood Council (Applicant)
Representation:	COUNSEL: Mr S Shneider, solicitor (Applicant) N/A (Respondent) SOLICITORS: Houston Dearn O'Connor (Applicant) N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):	40831 of 2011

Judgment

1. Burwood Council brings civil enforcement proceedings in Class 4 of the Court's jurisdiction, pursuant to s 673 of the Local Government Act 1993 ( LG Act ), to remedy or restrain alleged breaches of the LG Act, being the failure of the respondent, Miss Susan Wanless, to comply with an order it issued for the removal of overgrown vegetation on her property in Croydon. Miss Wanless has not appeared in the proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Miss Wanless is the owner and occupier of residential premises located at 22 Austin Ave, Lot 11 Deposited Plan 11258, Croydon. The subject premises are overgrown with grass and other vegetation, and beset with a quantity of weeds, refuse and litter which the Council seeks to have removed. The Council is particularly concerned that the subject premises are a harbourage for vermin including mice, rats and cockroaches.

1. In December 2008 Council received a complaint which asserted that the garden of the subject premises was overgrown and that cockroaches and rats were nesting therein.

1. The Council's Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mr John Mills, subsequently attended the subject premises to investigate the complaint. He described Miss Wanless as "very agitated and defensive". She refused Mr Mills access to the subject premises, so Mr Mills gained access to a neighbouring property. From this vantage point he observed that the back of the subject premises was "overgrown and had weeds and the like growing very high in it."

1. From this inspection Mr Mills formed the view that the premises harboured pests and vermin such as mice, rats and cockroaches.

1. By letter of 22 December 2008 Mr Mills wrote to Miss Wanless to inform her that Council was in receipt of a complaint regarding the overgrown condition of her property, and that she was required to:

"Remove from the subject premises overgrown vegetation and vegetative matter whether alive or dead which is or is likely to become a harbourage for rubbish and vermin and maintain the property in a neat and tidy manner."

1. Council requested that Miss Wanless complete the required work within 14 days in order that the matter be "amicably resolved".

1. By letter of 30 December 2008 Miss Wanless confirmed receipt of the Coucil's letter, requesting that the Council disclose the source of the complaint and stating that:

"There certainly can be no amicable resolution under these set of circumstances and goodwill does not and cannot…