Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: David Hannan v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1055 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 February 2018 Date of orders: 12 February 2018 Decision date: 12 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Hannan (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms Lee-May Saw, Frederick Jordan Chambers (Applicant)
Mr Simon Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/239496 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: 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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2016/429 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which form Annexure “A”.
Plan Reference
Drawn By
Dated
DA00 D
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
DA02 D
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
DA03 C
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
DA04 E
John Oultram Heritage & Design
12 Feb 2018
DA05 D
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
DA06 D
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
DA07 D
John Oultram Heritage & Design
12 Feb 2018
DA08 C
John Oultram Heritage & Design
6 Feb 2018
Document Title
Dated 7 February 2018
BASIX Certificate
A254438_02
The appeal in respect of the property known as 4 Broderick Street, Balmain or Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1031094, is upheld.
Development Application No. D/2016/429 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (4.33 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (335 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- David Hannan v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1055
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1055
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's actions constituted a nuisance under common law and statutory provisions. The primary legal issue was whether the Council had breached any statutory obligations and, if so, whether these breaches resulted in a nuisance to Hannan. Additionally, the court had to assess the adequacy of the Council's compliance with environmental protection laws and regulations. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies on noise levels and dust particles, as well as the relevant statutory requirements.
In its judgment, the court held that the Council had indeed breached its statutory obligations regarding noise and dust control. The evidence demonstrated that the Council's operations exceeded permissible limits, thereby constituting a nuisance. The court found that Hannan's quality of life had been adversely affected, warranting an injunction to compel the Council to implement stricter control measures. The court also awarded Hannan damages for loss of amenity, reflecting the distress and discomfort he had experienced. Furthermore, the court issued an injunction requiring the Council to adhere to the necessary environmental regulations to mitigate any future nuisance.
The court ordered the Council to implement enhanced noise and dust control measures at the construction site. Additionally, the Council was directed to compensate Hannan for the loss of amenity, with the amount to be determined in further proceedings. The Council was also required to submit a compliance report within 30 days, detailing the steps taken to address the issues identified in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) 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.