Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 136 Hearing dates: 21 February 2024 (further submissions received from Council on 28 February 2024 and from Mr Grant on 27 March 2024) Date of orders: 12 December 2024 Decision date: 12 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [62]
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — Development application — No development consent for amusement park structures and attractions — Certain structures and attractions to be dismantled
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 9.46
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 24
Kiama Local Environmental Plan 1996
Kiama Local Environmental Plan 2011
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, cl 2.31
Cases Cited: Edwards v Allmen Engineering Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 138
Grant v Kiama City Council (No 3) [2005] NSWLEC 723
Grant v Kiama Council [2005] NSWLEC 58
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335; (1987) 63 LGRA 361
Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Bruce Grant (Cross-respondent / Applicant)
Kiama Municipal Council (Cross-claimant / Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J B Grant, self-represented (Cross-respondent / Applicant)
Dr J Smith (Cross-claimant / Respondent)
Self-represented (Cross-respondent / Applicant)
RMB Lawyers (Cross-claimant / Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00266278 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Introduction and outcome
-
By cross-summons filed 24 June 2022, Kiama Municipal Council seeks declaratory and consequential injunctive relief against John Bruce Grant in relation to Mr Grant's conduct in constructing and operating various attractions, structures, devices, and amusement rides in the form of an amusement park known as “Granties Maze” on land at 219 Donovan Road, Broughton Village, south of Kiama (the ‘land’), in circumstances where Council alleges that the various attractions, structures, devices, and amusement rides have been erected and operated without development consent.
-
These proceedings were originally commenced by Mr Grant by way of Class 4 application filed 17 September 2021 whereby Mr Grant sought relief that Council be restrained from entering the land to dismantle and remove certain structures (including attractions, devices, and amusement rides) the subject of three development control orders issued by Council. Council’s cross-summons is the remaining matter before the Court in circumstances where Mr Grant's application was struck out on Council’s application on 24 June 2022.
-
For the reasons that follow, I find that Council is entitled to specific declaratory and consequential injunctive relief in relation to a number of discrete amusement rides and attractions on the land.
Outline
-
These reasons for judgment are structured as follows. First, I will note the background facts in relation to earlier development applications submitted to Council by Mr Grant and the development consent(s) that have been issued in relation to the land. I will then consider further evidence (some of which is contested) marshalled in the hearing in my consideration of the parties’ detailed submissions. I note that Mr Grant appeared in the hearing before me without legal representation.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Grant v Kiama Municipal Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWLEC 136
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court included whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether proper procedures were followed. The applicant argued that the Council failed to properly consider relevant environmental factors and did not follow its own policies and guidelines. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was based on substantial evidence and followed due process.
The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and analysed the relevant legislation, policies, and case law. The court found that the Council had indeed failed to properly consider certain environmental factors and that the decision-making process had procedural flaws. Consequently, the court determined that the Council's decision was unreasonable and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [62]
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.