David Hannan v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1055


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

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

  1. The appeal in respect of the property known as 4 Broderick Street, Balmain or Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1031094, is upheld.

  2. 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)

Details
AGLC
David Hannan v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1055
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1055
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Hannan, a resident of Sydney, brought an action against the Inner West Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Hannan sought an injunction and damages for nuisance, as well as compensation for loss of amenity. The dispute centred around the alleged noise and dust from a construction site operated by the Council. Hannan argued that the construction activities significantly affected the quality of his life, causing him distress and discomfort. He claimed that the Council had failed to adhere to the necessary noise and dust control measures, contravening the relevant planning laws and regulations.

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.