Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Clark & Anor v Gosford City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1218 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Clark & Anor
Gosford City CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10313 of 2010 CORAM: Murrell C KEY ISSUES: APPEAL :- Appeal against Order under s.121B of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Consent OrdersLEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 DATES OF HEARING: 25 June 2010 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 25 June 2010 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
Mr S Tipple (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Brennan Tipple PartnersRESPONDENT
Mr M Everingham (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Gosford City Council
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESMurrell C
10313 of 2010 Clark & Anor v Gosford City Council25 June 2010
This determination was given extemporaneously
and has been edited prior to publication
JUDGMENT
1 This matter has come before me today as Consent Orders. The applicant had appealed against an Order under s 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 issued by Gosford City Council.
2 The applicant has agreed to certain works and the council is satisfied and has no outstanding issues. As such, the parties have agreed to enter into Consent Orders.
3 By way of background the terms of the Order issued state:
On 17th day of January 2000 Gosford City Council granted an approval ("the development consent') to Development Application numbered 6352 of 1999 pursuant to Part IV of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for a "proposed multi level dwelling house and freestanding caravan port" subject to conditions of the development consent.
Condition 13 of the development consent required "the existing dwelling (barn) is not to be used as a second occupancy and for this purpose the kitchen and laundry are to be removed prior to occupation of the new dwelling."
Reasons for Order:The development consent is not being complied with in that a kitchen and laundry are established in the barn and persons are occupying the barn.
Council has decided in the circumstances to issue this Order as the most effective method to bring about compliance with the development consent.Council is concerned that failure to comply with the conditions of the development consent has increased the traffic movements to and from this residential Lot affecting the amenity of adjacent residences served by the same driveway.
- This Order Requires:
- From the kitchen, the fridge, hot plate and range hood, dishwasher and associated cupboards and draws, pantry, and breakfast bar and associated cupboards and draws.
- From the laundry, the sink, associated cupboards and benches, washing machine, dryer and linen cupboard.
- That you comply with the development consent by removing from the barn all the kitchen and laundry facilities including but not limited to:
4 The parties have agreed to delineate more narrowly than what the Order sought as originally issued.
5 I am satisfied given that there are no objectors and given that both parties have consented to the terms of the amended Order for there is no reason as to why the Court should not agree to the Consent Orders signed and as handed up today.
6 Accordingly, for the record, the Court agrees to the Consent Orders agreed to between the parties as follows:
1. By consent, the appeal is upheld.
2. The applicant is to carry out works pursuant to Environmental Planning and Assessment Act section 121B, order 15; on Lot 17 DP 1037430 Lea Avenue, Wamberal as modified by this Order.
4 The work to be completed by 9 July 2010.3. Remove from the barn, the kitchen and laundry facilities including plumbing but limited to: from the kitchen; the fridge, hotplate and dishwasher, from the laundry; the sink, washing machine and dryer.
___________________
- J S Murrell
Commissioner of the Court
DJ
- AGLC
- Clark v Gosford City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1218
- Case
- [2010] NSWLEC 1218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the appeal should be upheld and whether the Consent Orders signed and handed up today should be agreed to by the court. The court had to determine whether there was any reason as to why the court should not agree to the Consent Orders agreed to between the parties. The court had to consider the fact that there were no objectors and that both parties had consented to the terms of the amended order.
The court found that there was no reason as to why the court should not agree to the Consent Orders agreed to between the parties. The court was satisfied that the amended order was more narrowly delineated than what the original order sought. The court agreed to the Consent Orders as follows: the appeal was upheld, the applicant was to carry out works pursuant to Environmental Planning and Assessment Act section 121B, order 15, on Lot 17 DP 1037430 Lea Avenue, Wamberal, as modified by this Order, and the kitchen and laundry facilities, including plumbing, were to be removed from the barn, limited to the fridge, hotplate and dishwasher from the kitchen, and the sink, washing machine, and dryer from the laundry. The work was to be completed by 9 July 2010.
In conclusion, the court agreed to the Consent Orders agreed to between the parties, and the applicant was required to carry out works to comply with the development consent. The court found that there was no reason as to why the court should not agree to the Consent Orders. The applicant was required to remove the kitchen and laundry facilities, including plumbing, from the barn and complete the work by 9 July 2010.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.