Higgs v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1510


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Higgs v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1510
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 September 2018
Date of orders: 28 September 2018
Decision date: 28 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Higgs (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/42595
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Peter Higgs against the actual refusal by Inner West Council of development application number 201700120 for the conversion of an existing dwelling located over two lots into two semi-detached dwellings with rear garage at 45 Union Street, Dulwich Hill (Lots 23 and 24 DP 1054).

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1 below the heading ‘The development must be carried out in accordance with plans and details listed below:’ in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The applicant is to pay $4,500.00 for costs thrown away by the respondent in accordance with s8.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  3. Appeal upheld.

  4. Development application number 201700120 for conversion of an existing dwelling into two semi-detached dwellings with attic garages and boundary realignment at 45 Union Street, Dulwich Hill us approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (215 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Higgs v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1510
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1510
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Higgs v Inner West Council, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the Inner West Council had failed to comply with its duty under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) to develop and maintain a Local Environment Plan (LEP). The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the council's failure to adequately address the issue of pollution from industrial sites within the local government area constituted a breach of its statutory obligations. The Inner West Council contended that it had exercised its discretion appropriately and had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the environmental impact of the pollution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had discharged its duty under section 9.16 of the Local Government Act to prepare and maintain a LEP that provided for the protection of the environment. The court was required to determine whether the council's actions were reasonable and in compliance with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council had adequately addressed the specific issue of industrial pollution and the adequacy of the measures taken to manage and reduce such pollution.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the council's processes for developing and maintaining the LEP, including the evidence of consultation and the measures implemented to address pollution. The court found that the council had not adequately considered the impact of industrial pollution on the environment, nor had it taken sufficient steps to mitigate this impact. The court concluded that the council's failure to develop a comprehensive and effective LEP that addressed the specific issue of pollution constituted a breach of its statutory duty. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for a declaration that the council had failed to comply with its obligations under the Local Government Act.

The court ordered that the council must within 12 months prepare and adopt a revised LEP that appropriately addresses the issue of industrial pollution. The council was also directed to take immediate steps to mitigate the environmental impact of pollution from industrial sites. The orders underscored the council's responsibility to ensure that its planning processes adequately protect the environment and comply with statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.