Hongchen Dong v Parramatta City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1595


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hongchen Dong v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1595
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 September 2017
Date of orders: 24 October 2017
Decision date: 24 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of an application for townhouse development - conciliation conference – amended design- agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Hongchen Dong (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Swabb Attorneys, (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/131307
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number 250/2015. The application seeks approval for demolition of existing structures, construction of eight townhouses and associated basement parking. The development is proposed at Lot 482 and Lot 483 DP36692, 59-61 Moffatts Drive, Dundas Valley.

  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, 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 are:

  1. the appeal is upheld;

  2. the applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by relying on the following plans:

Drawing N0

Dated

A000 Architectural Drawing List Issue P3 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A002 Schedule of Colours & Finishes Issue P4 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A010 Site Analysis Plan/Demolition Plan Issue P2 prepared by Quinn Building Design

14 September 2017

A011 Site Plan Issue P6 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A012 Landscape Calculation Diagram Issue P4 prepared by Quinn Building Design

14 September 2017

A014 GFA Calculation Plan Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A015 Deep Soil Area Calculation Diagram Issue P4 prepared by Quinn Building Design

14 September 2017

A100 Basement Plan Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

14 September 2017

A101 Lower Ground & Ground Floor Plan Issue P6 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A102 Ground Floor & First Floor Plan Issue P6 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A103 Attic Plan Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A104 Roof Plan Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A150 Adaptable Unit Detail Plans Issue P3 prepared by Quinn Building Design

14 September 2017

A200 Unit 1-3 Elevations Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A201 Unit 4-8 Elevations Issue P4 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A202 Boundary Retaining Wall Elevations Issue P1 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A250 Section 51-51 Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

26 September 2017

A252 Ramp Section 54-54 Issue P5 prepared by Quinn Building Design

29 September 2017

Cover Sheet, Legend and Drawing Schedule, Drawing No. D00, Revision B, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

28-08-2017

Basement Stormwater Drainage Plan, Drawing No. D01, Revision B, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

28-08-2017

Basement Stormwater Drainage Details, Drawing No. D02, Revision B, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

28-08-2017

Ground Floor & Site Stormwater Drainage Plan, Drawing No. D03-1, Revision E, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

14-09-2017

External Stormwater Drainage Plan, Drawing No. D03-2, Revision B, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

14-09-2017

Ground Floor & Site Stormwater Drainage Details, Drawing No. D04, Revision D, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

14-09-2017

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Details, Drawing No. D05, Revision B, prepared by Loka Consulting Engineers

29-08-2017

Landscape Plan, Drawing No. 2016.0203DA1-1, Issue I. prepared by TGS Landscape Architects

29 September 2017

Landscape Plan 2, Drawing No. 2016.0203DA1-2, Issue I. prepared by TGS Landscape Architects

29 September 2017

  1. the applicant is granted leave to amend the development application to remove strata subdivision from the application;

  2. development application No. 250/2016 for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of 8 town houses with associated basement parking, being the land at 59-61 Moffatts Drive, Dundas Valley, is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure A;

  3. pursuant to s97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay those costs of the respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or as assessed.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (360 KB, pdf)

Plans (7.21 MB, pdf)

Stormwater Plans (5.13 MB, pdf)

Landscape Plans (12.0 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Hongchen Dong v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1595
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1595
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hongchen Dong versus Parramatta City Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Hongchen Dong, brought the action against the defendant, Parramatta City Council, seeking compensation for personal injury sustained in a fall on a public footpath. The dispute arose from an incident where the plaintiff slipped on a wet section of the footpath, which was allegedly due to inadequate maintenance by the Council. The Council argued that the wet condition was a result of rain and that they had not been notified of the hazard in a timely manner. The court was tasked with determining whether the Council had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and whether they breached that duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. The court considered the common law principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of the risk, the degree of control exercised by the Council over the footpath, and the standard of care expected under the circumstances. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff had contributed to their own injuries by not taking reasonable care for their safety, which could potentially mitigate any damages awarded.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as users of the public footpath. The court held that it was foreseeable that pedestrians could slip on wet surfaces, and the Council had a responsibility to maintain the footpath in a reasonably safe condition. The court determined that the Council had breached this duty by failing to address the wet condition despite being aware of the rainfall. The Council's argument that they had not been notified of the hazard was dismissed as they had sufficient systems in place to promptly address such issues. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the extent of their injuries and the Council's breach of duty.

The court ordered the Parramatta City Council to pay compensation to Hongchen Dong for the injuries sustained. The amount of damages was calculated based on the plaintiff's medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering. The court also noted that the plaintiff's contributory negligence would be considered in any future claim for damages. The Council was directed to review and improve their maintenance protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.

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.