Cai v Fairfield City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cai v Fairfield City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1657
Hearing dates: 15 October 2021
Date of orders: 28 October 2021
Decision date: 28 October 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bradbury AC
Decision:

See orders at [41]

Catchwords:

APPEAL – development control order – demolish works order – building erected without development consent – procedural fairness – order modified

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 9.34, 8.18

Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Wei Cai (First Applicant)
Xi Ma (Second Applicant)
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Cai (Authorised Agent) (Applicants)
S Shneider (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/118595
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In the course of investigating a complaint in relation to activities on a neighbouring property, an investigation officer employed by the Fairfield City Council (Council) observed what appeared to him to be an unauthorised dwelling (Building) in the rear yard of the Applicants’ property at Lot 9 DP 216835 known as 11 Wadds Avenue Cabramatta (Land). Subsequent investigations confirmed the absence of any development consent for the Building.

  2. On 6 April 2021 the Council gave each of the Applicants a development control order (Order) in identical terms which required the demolition of the Building, the disconnection of all associated plumbing and electrical works and the removal of the concrete slab on which the Building had been erected. The Applicants, who are the owners of the Land, have appealed against the Order pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  3. For the reasons set out in this judgment I have decided to modify the Order to extend the time for compliance to allow a reasonable time for the Applicants to obtain a building information certificate pursuant to Div 6.7 of Part 6 of the EPA Act in relation to the Building and development consent to authorise the future use of the Building.

Background

  1. The Order was given pursuant to s 9.34(1) of the EPA Act, which allows an Order to be given in accordance with the table to Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the EPA Act. Item 3 in the table allows an Order to be given requiring the demolition or removal of a building where a building requiring planning approval is erected without approval. Such an order can be given to the owner of the building.

  2. On 22 March 2021, prior to giving the Order, the Council gave each of the Applicants notice of its intention to give the order. A copy of that notice is attached to the Class 1 Application (Ex A). In accordance with cl 8 of Sch 5 of the EPA Act, the notice included a statement of the Council’s intention to give the order, incorporated a copy of the draft development control order (which included the terms of the proposed order), indicated the period proposed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cai v Fairfield 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
[2021] NSWLEC 1657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Cai, the applicant, and Fairfield City Council, the respondent. The dispute centred on the respondent's decision to deny the applicant's application for a permit to operate a convenience store. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the respondent's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the decision was made without proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and failed to provide adequate reasons for the denial. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision was based on sound planning considerations and was within the scope of its statutory powers.

The court examined the respondent's decision-making process and the reasons provided for denying the permit. It found that the respondent had failed to adequately consider the relevant planning policies and had not provided sufficient reasons for the decision. The court held that the decision was therefore unlawful and unreasonable. Consequently, the court quashed the respondent's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of proper planning decision-making and the need for decision-makers to provide clear and adequate reasons for their decisions. The court also highlighted the importance of considering relevant planning policies and the need for decision-makers to act in a procedurally fair manner. The final orders of the court included quashing the respondent's decision and remitting the matter back to the council for reconsideration, with specific directions on the matters to be considered and the reasons to be provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [41]

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.