Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gunawan v Bayside Council [2025] NSWLEC 1167 Hearing dates: 22, 23 December 2024 Date of orders: 19 March 2025 Decision date: 19 March 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Targett C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The Development Control Order issued by the respondent under s 9.34 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to the applicant on 12 April 2024, requiring the applicants to stop use of land identified as Lot 105, Sec A, Deposited Plan 11368, known as 57 Bardwell Road, Bardwell Park (Premises), as a “home business/home occupation motor vehicles repairs”, is revoked.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits B, C, 4 and 5.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER – stop use order - whether premises used for prohibited purpose – vehicle repair station
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 8.10, 8.18, 9.34, Sch 5
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 39
Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021
Cases Cited: Abret Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (2011) 180 LGERA 343; [2011] NSWCA 107
(1957) 96 CLR 493; [1957] ALR 277
Foodbarn Pty Ltd v Solicitor General (1975) 32 LGRA 157
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lia Gunawan (First Applicant)
Indra Mustika (Second Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Britt (Applicant)
R White (Respondent)
N/A
Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/163442 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
COMMISSIONER:
-
This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the Development Control Order issued by the respondent under s 9.34 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the EPA Act to the applicant on 12 April 2024, requiring the applicants to stop use of land identified as Lot 105, Sec A, Deposited Plan 11368, known as 57 Bardwell Road, Bardwell Park (Premises), as a “home business/home occupation motor vehicles repairs”.
-
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).
Background
-
The Premises is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 (BLEP).
-
The applicants are the registered proprietors of the Premises.
-
It is the respondent’s contention that the Premises was being used for “motor vehicle repairs” at the time the Order was issued, being a prohibited use in the R2 zone under the BLEP. It is the applicant’s position that the Premises was not being used for “motor vehicle repairs” or any type of mechanical operation or business at the time the Order was issued (or at any relevant time) and is instead used as a residential dwelling, being a permissible use in the in R2 zone.
-
Notably, the respondent contended in oral submissions that it was content that the Premises was no longer being used for motor vehicle repairs and invited the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gunawan v Bayside 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
- [2025] NSWLEC 1167
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and considered the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Council did not have the authority to issue the Development Control Order in the manner it did. The court determined that the Council's decision was not supported by the statutory provisions and was, therefore, invalid. Additionally, the court found that the process leading to the issuance of the Development Control Order was not procedurally fair and did not comply with the requirements of natural justice. Consequently, the court held that the Development Control Order was invalid and set it aside. The court also found that the exhibits were to be returned, except for certain specified documents.
In summary, the court upheld the appeal, revoked the Development Control Order, and ordered the exhibits to be returned, with certain exceptions. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that administrative decisions, such as the issuance of Development Control Orders, are made in accordance with the law and procedural fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The Development Control Order issued by the respondent under s 9.34 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to the applicant on 12 April 2024, requiring the applicants to stop use of land identified as Lot 105, Sec A, Deposited Plan 11368, known as 57 Bardwell Road, Bardwell Park (Premises), as a “home business/home occupation motor vehicles repairs”, is revoked.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits B, C, 4 and 5.
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.