Gosch C v Snowy River S C

Case [2004] NSWLEC 158


NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION:      Gosch C v Snowy River S C [2004]  NSWLEC 158 revised - 14/05/2004

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Gosch C

RESPONDENT
Snowy River Shire Council

CASE NUMBER:      11257, 11259, 11260            of        2003

CATCH WORDS:     Designated Development

LEGISLATION CITED:

CORAM:        Bly C

DATES OF HEARING:          10/3/2004

EX TEMPORE DATE:          10/03/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT
Mr A Pickles, barrister
SOLICITOR
Macedone Christie Willis

RESPONDENT
Mr A Bradbury, solicitor
SOLICITOR
Minter Ellison

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

11257 of 2003

Bly C

10 March 2004

Gosch C
Applicant

v

Snowy River Council
Respondent

Judgment

  1. These three appeals before the Court relate to orders under involving an on-farm tourist accommodation facility at lot 2 DP 626888 West Lyn Road, Jindabyne.

  1. The parties have consulted extensively in relation to these orders, with some being resolved and consent orders sought. Several orders remain in dispute.

  1. In relation to appeal 11257 of 2003, consent orders were tendered as Exhibit 1, and having no reason to conclude otherwise, I make those orders in accordance with the exhibit.

  1. In relation to appeal 11260 of 2003, orders were provided in Exhibit 2 and 5 of the six orders were agreed, and again I agree that orders 1 through 5, excluding 6, can be made. I will return to order number 6 shortly.

  1. Similarly, in relation to appeal 11259 of 2003, orders numbers 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 in Exhibit 3 were not in dispute and I am satisfied that those orders can be made, leaving orders 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 in dispute.

  1. The matters which remain in dispute fall into two categories - the removal of double beds from one person bedrooms as required by condition 12 in development consent 83/88 (issued on 12 July 1988,) and the reinstatement of the hobby and music rooms within the building from a manager’s suite to their approved uses including the removal of the kitchen from the music room.

  1. In relation the double beds’ issue, I note that condition 12 in the consent relevantly requires that bedrooms 1, 3 and 5 are approved as sleeping accommodation for no more than one person in each bedroom. These rooms have provided within them double beds, and the relevant orders seek to have these bedrooms reinstated to comply with the condition by the removal of these double beds and replacing them with single beds.

  1. I do not accept that the provision of double beds in these rooms by itself necessarily infringes the condition.  It is clear that these double beds make the rooms capable of being occupied by two people, but this capability is not in itself an infringement.         There are other ways that the condition could be infringed even if a single bed were placed in that room, in that a portable bed could be added to the single bed and that would result in a non-compliance with the condition.

  1. Today I heard no evidence that these rooms are being used by two people, even though there is a possibility that this is the case. This matter is, I have concluded, a matter of management, and if necessary, enforcement.

  1. In the circumstances I have decided that orders 5, 7 and 9 in relation to appeal 11259 of 2003 should be altered to require that each of these rooms may only be used by one person at any one time, and that the requirement for the removal of the double beds will be excluded.

  1. An additional order, as indicated as a possibility by Mr Pickles, will be included, requiring that, in relation to these three rooms, the manager of the premises will maintain a register in relation to these rooms, which register will contain details of their use.

  1. In relation to the manager’s suite issue, I am not concerned that this development may possibly be categorised as two separate dwellings because I have decided that its principal and relevant categorisation is as an “on-farm tourist accommodation”.  I do not accept that it is a dual occupancy development. Despite its present likely non-approved configuration, the manager’s suite is effectively a dwelling with the remainder of the building comprising accommodation for guests.  Such an arrangement, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the relevant essentials of on-farm tourist accommodation.

  1. In this context, there was no planning evidence that such an arrangement would be inappropriate, and I find no problem with it.      More particularly, I find no planning problem with the provision of a kitchen and additional bedroom for the manager in the manner now provided.

  1. It is possible that the kitchen, and indeed the whole building, especially in the context of the fire safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia, do not meet such standards, and if this presumption is correct, this is a matter of considerable concern.         It is also possible that the use of the building in its present form is not strictly in accordance with existing consents.  If this is so, this could be rectified, particularly in terms of future use, by a development application.

  1. As for the fire safety matter to which I have referred, I have decided that although it would not be a perfect mechanism to achieve this end, that a building certificate should be obtained.  This will provide a means, albeit indirect, of dealing with fire safety matters. It is of little concern to me how the building is actually categorised under the BCA.  Instead it is a matter of ensuring that, for health and safety reasons, the building is up to modern standards.  I have thus decided that the kitchen need not be removed, nor need the hobby room be reinstated as such, if a building certificate has been obtained.

  1. Orders 6 in Exhibit 2 and orders 2 and 3 in Exhibit 3 will be retained but suspended for a reasonable period so as to allow a building certificate to be obtained.

  1. Orders to the effect of the above will be issued in due course. Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and A are retained.

________________________
T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court

nm/mp

Details
AGLC
Gosch C v Snowy River S C [2004] NSWLEC 158
Case
[2004] NSWLEC 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, the case of Gosch C v Snowy River S C involved an appeal concerning an on-farm tourist accommodation facility located at lot 2 DP 626888 West Lyn Road, Jindabyne. The applicant, Gosch C, appealed against orders issued by the Snowy River Shire Council, which required modifications to the facility to comply with development consent conditions. The council sought to enforce compliance with specific conditions related to bedroom occupancy and the use of certain rooms within the facility.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the conditions imposed by the Snowy River Shire Council were justified and enforceable under the relevant planning and development laws. Specifically, the court had to determine if the removal of double beds from certain bedrooms and the reinstatement of specific rooms to their approved uses were necessary to comply with the development consent conditions. The applicant argued that the conditions were overly restrictive and not strictly necessary for compliance.

The court examined the conditions in the development consent and the current use of the rooms in question. It concluded that while the provision of double beds in certain bedrooms could potentially infringe the consent conditions, this was not necessarily the case if the rooms were used by only one person at a time. The court decided that the condition could be enforced through management and monitoring rather than by physically removing the double beds. The court also found that the manager’s suite, along with the rest of the building, could be considered as on-farm tourist accommodation, and the current arrangement did not constitute a dual occupancy development. The court ordered that a building certificate be obtained to address potential fire safety concerns, thereby allowing the kitchen and additional bedroom for the manager to remain in place.

In conclusion, the court made several orders to modify the development consent conditions. It allowed the removal of double beds to be excluded and instead required the manager to maintain a register of room usage. The orders regarding the reinstatement of specific rooms were suspended to allow for the acquisition of a building certificate. These orders aimed to balance compliance with development consent conditions and the practical management of the facility.

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.