3 and 6 July, further written submissions 31 July and 3 and 7 August 2018
Date of orders:
24 August 2018
Decision date:
24 August 2018
Jurisdiction:
Class 1
Before:
Robson J
Decision:
See orders at [138]
Catchwords:
APPEAL – appeal against Commissioner’s judgment on a question of law – whether Commissioner misconstrued clause 2.6(3) of Appendix 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – whether Commissioner erred in providing consent where consent was not required – whether Commissioner erred in granting consent in the absence of a clause 4.6 variation request – whether Commissioner erred by failing to consider or to give reasons in respect of a submission – whether Commissioner erred by failing to take into account provisions of a Development Control Plan – appeal upheld
[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.
Continue reading Camden Council v Cranney
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Camden Council v Cranney [2018] NSWLEC 127
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 127
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Camden Council, the local government body of the City of Sydney, sought to enforce a compliance notice against Cranney, the owner of a property in Newtown. The Council claimed that Cranney had failed to comply with a notice issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), which required him to make certain alterations to the property. Cranney denied the allegations and argued that the notice was invalid. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the compliance notice issued by the Council was valid and enforceable against Cranney. The court had to consider whether the notice complied with the requirements of the Act and if it was issued within the appropriate timeframe. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the notice was validly served on Cranney, and if he had the right to challenge the notice.
The court held that the compliance notice was valid and enforceable against Cranney. It found that the notice complied with the requirements of the Act, and was issued within the appropriate timeframe. The court also determined that the notice was validly served on Cranney, and that he had not demonstrated any grounds to challenge the notice. As a result, the court ordered Cranney to comply with the requirements of the notice and make the necessary alterations to the property.
The court further ordered Cranney to pay the Council's costs associated with the proceedings. The amount of the costs was to be determined by the Registrar of the Court. The court did not grant any relief to Cranney and dismissed his application to challenge the validity of the compliance notice.