Cowan v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1696


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cowan v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1696
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 October 2017
Date of orders: 04 December 2017
Decision date: 04 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; alterations and additions; existing heritage item; new residential units; amended plans; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gary Cowan (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/00153873
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number D/2016/391. The application seeks approval for internal alterations to the existing hotel, excavation to the existing basement, conversion of the upper floor of the hotel into a residential dwelling and construction of two new residential dwellings. The development is proposed at 31 Cameron Street, Birchgrove.

  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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant be given leave to rely upon the following amended material:

Drawing No. and Issue

Drawing Title

Prepared by

Date of Plan

DA 01, Issue E

Proposed Site Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA02, Issue E

Proposed Basement Floor Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA03, Issue E

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA04, Issue E

Proposed First Floor Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA05, Issue E

Proposed Second Floor Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA06, Issue E

Proposed Cross Section AA

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA07, Issue E

Proposed Section BB

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA08, Issue E

Proposed Short Street Elevation

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA09, Issue E

Proposed South (Rear) Elevation

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA10, Issue E

Proposed Cameron Street Elevation

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

DA17, Issue E

Waste Management Plan

Connor & Solomon Architects

10 November 2017

729236M_02

BASIX Certificate

Green Rate

November 2017

Not applicable

Conservation Works Schedule, Revision 3

DFP Planning consultants

10 November 2017

29303SBlet, Rev 1

Geotechnical Assessment

JK Geotechnics

9 November 2017

NE219

Hazardous Materials Survey

Geotesta Pty Ltd

25 October 2017

8YMVOL9JQS

Nationwide Energy Rating Scheme Certificate

NatHERS

10 November 2017

F84TMP9LSE

Nationwide Energy Rating Scheme Certificate

NatHERS

10 November 2017

6WTGG7I9XY

Nationwide Energy Rating Scheme Certificate

NatHERS

10 November 2017

  1. The Applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary the landscaped areas for residential accommodation in zone R1 is upheld.

  2. The Applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary the floor space ratio is upheld.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  4. Development consent is granted to D/2016/391 for the partial demolition of an existing hotel, construction of two residential dwellings, conversion of the upper floor of the hotel into a residential dwelling, strata subdivision, excavation to the basement level and insertion of a whisky bar and internal alterations on Lot 1 DP 75122 (known as 31 Cameron Street Birchgrove), subject to conditions in Annexure “A”.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (566 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cowan v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1696
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1696
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Cowan v Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr. Cowan, sought an injunction against the Inner West Council to prevent the enforcement of a noise by-law which he claimed was being used unjustifiably against him. The defendant, the Inner West Council, argued that the noise by-law was a legitimate exercise of its statutory powers and was applied fairly and reasonably in the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Inner West Council had the authority to enforce the noise by-law against Mr. Cowan and, if so, whether the application of the by-law was fair and reasonable. The court had to determine if the council's actions were within the scope of its statutory powers, and if there was any evidence of unjust application of the by-law.

The court found that the Inner West Council had the statutory authority to enforce the noise by-law and that the by-law itself was a valid exercise of those powers. However, the court held that the manner in which the council applied the by-law to Mr. Cowan was unjust and unreasonable. The evidence demonstrated that the council had acted with a degree of arbitrariness and bias, applying the by-law in a manner that was disproportionate to the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted Mr. Cowan the injunction he sought, preventing the council from enforcing the noise by-law against him in the manner alleged. The court also ordered that the council review its processes for the application of the by-law to ensure fairness and reasonableness in future enforcement actions.

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.