Desa v Willoughby City Council

Case [2025] NSWLEC 1096


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Desa v Willoughby City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1096
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 November 2024
Date of orders: 21 February 2025
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Upon the Respondent being satisfied that the following works (works) have been carried out:

(a) the reduction of the eastern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 4.5m northwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Eastern Fence Reduction);

(b) the reduction of the southern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 900mm westwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Southern Fence Reduction);

(c) the removal of decking along the Eastern Fence Reduction and Southern Fence Reduction zones for a distance of 900mm westwards and a distance of 4.5m northwards, from its south eastern boundary corner; and

(3) The Respondent is directed, within 14 days of the date of these orders, to issue a building information certificate for:

(a) the boundary fence; and

(b) the decking.

on the land at 67 Tindale Road, Artarmon, legally known as Lot 5 Section G in Deposited Plan 4154.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – building information certificate – conciliation conference – agreement to rectification works – agreement between the parties – orders made

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 6.25, 8.25

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34

Local Government Act 1993

Swimming Pools Act 1992, s 7

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, Pts 2, 3

Swimming Pools Regulation 2018, cll 4, 5

Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Desa (First Applicant)
Daisy Desa (Second Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Merlino (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Litigant in person (Applicants)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/282882
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.25(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the Applicants against the Respondent's refusal of the Applicants' Building Information Certificate (No BIC/2023/57) (BIC Application) relating to 67 Tindale Road, Artarmon, legally known as Lot 5 Section G in Deposited Plan 4154 (Site).

  2. The Court has power to dispose of these proceedings under its Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

  3. The BIC Application was lodged by the Applicants on 6 December 2023. It is sought in relation to fence and decking works undertaken without consent at the Site. The Respondent refused the BIC Application on 5 February 2024.

  4. On 1 August 2024, the Applicants commenced these Class 1 proceedings under s 8.25(1) of the EPA Act in respect of the Respondent’s refusal of the BIC Application. The parties agree that the proceedings were commenced within the appeal period prescribed by s 8.25(2) of the EPA Act.

  5. On hearing an appeal in connection with a building information certificate under s 8.25(1) of the EPA Act, pursuant to s 8.25(3), the Court may do any one or more of the following –

(a)  direct the council to issue a building information certificate in such terms and on such conditions as the Court thinks fit,

(b)  revoke, alter or confirm a notice to supply information,

(c)  make any other order that it considers appropriate.

  1. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 20 November 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  2. Following the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is for the appeal to be upheld, the Applicant to carry out specified works, and upon finalising these works to the satisfaction of the Respondent, the Respondent be directed under s 8.25(3) of the EPA Act to issue a building information certificate in respect of the unauthorised works undertaken at the Site. Further, the parties agree that all contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions, and the Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply have been resolved by the completion of the works by the Applicants agreed at the conciliation conference.

  3. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I form this state of satisfaction as this decision falls within the power of the Court as set out in s 8.25(3) of the EPA Act to “direct the council to issue a building information certificate in such terms and on such conditions as the Court thinks fit” (at subs (a)). Further;

  1. The Applicants are the registered proprietors of the Site upon which the unauthorised works were constructed (and upon which the BIC Works are proposed to be carried out) and provided consent to the BIC Application when it was lodged with the Respondent.

  2. In directing the Respondent to issue a building information certificate I have considered the matters listed at s 6.25 of the EPA Act. The parties agree, and I accept, that there are no matters discernible by the exercise of reasonable care and skill that would entitle the council, under the EPA Act or the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) to either order the building to be repaired, demolished, altered, added to or rebuilt or take proceedings for an injunction or order for demolition.

  3. I accept the Respondent’s submission that the requirements for child-resistant barriers for outdoor swimming pools in s 7(1)(b) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (SP Act), and the relevant safety and building standards in cll 4 and 5(1) of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2018 (SP Regs) have been considered and addressed.

  4. The parties agree, and I accept, that following the completion of the works required by the orders, the fence and decking will be satisfactory with reference to the standards under Pts 2 and 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

  5. I accept the parties agreed submission that the unauthorised works do not breach any development standards in Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012).

  1. Having reached the requisite state of satisfaction, I am required under s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the grant of a BIC.

  2. Accordingly, the Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Upon the Respondent being satisfied that the following works (works) have been carried out:

  1. reduction of the eastern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 4.5m northwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Eastern Fence Reduction);

  2. the reduction of the southern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 900mm westwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Southern Fence Reduction); and

  3. the removal of decking along the Eastern Fence Reduction and Southern Fence Reduction zones for a distance of 900mm westwards and a distance of 4.5m northwards, from its southeastern boundary corner.

  1. The Respondent is directed, within 14 days of the date of these orders, to issue a building information certificate for:

  1. the boundary fence; and

  2. the decking.

on the land at 67 Tindale Road, Artarmon, legally known as Lot 5 Section G in Deposited Plan 4154.

D Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Desa v Willoughby City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1096
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1096
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Desa, and the respondent, Willoughby City Council, were involved in a dispute concerning a building application and subsequent enforcement action taken by the Council. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The appellant, a property owner, had applied for and subsequently received approval for building works. However, the Council later issued a notice of compliance requiring the appellant to make changes to the approved works. The appellant sought review of the Council's decision, arguing that the works required were not within the scope of the approved application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council had the authority to require the appellant to carry out works that were not specified in the approved building application. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Council's actions constituted an invalid exercise of its enforcement powers under the relevant planning legislation. The court also needed to consider whether the Council had acted unreasonably or without proper regard to the statutory requirements in issuing the notice of compliance.

The court found in favour of the appellant, ruling that the Council did not have the authority to require the appellant to carry out works that were not specified in the approved building application. The court held that the Council's actions constituted an invalid exercise of its enforcement powers and that the Council had acted unreasonably in issuing the notice of compliance. The court found that the Council had not properly considered the statutory requirements and had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court also found that the Council had not followed the correct procedures in issuing the notice of compliance.

The court ordered that the appeal be upheld and directed the Council to carry out specific works to reduce the height of the boundary fences and remove decking in certain areas. The court also ordered the Council to issue a building information certificate for the boundary fence and decking within 14 days of the date of the orders. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of the Council's enforcement powers and the importance of following proper procedures and considering statutory requirements when issuing notices of compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Upon the Respondent being satisfied that the following works (works) have been carried out:

(a) the reduction of the eastern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 4.5m northwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Eastern Fence Reduction);

(b) the reduction of the southern boundary fence height by 300mm for a distance of 900mm westwards from its southeastern boundary corner (Southern Fence Reduction);

(c) the removal of decking along the Eastern Fence Reduction and Southern Fence Reduction zones for a distance of 900mm westwards and a distance of 4.5m northwards, from its south eastern boundary corner; and

(3) The Respondent is directed, within 14 days of the date of these orders, to issue a building information certificate for:

(a) the boundary fence; and

(b) the decking.

on the land at 67 Tindale Road, Artarmon, legally known as Lot 5 Section G in Deposited Plan 4154.

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.