Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jenkins v Clarence Valley Council [2014] NSWLEC 1009 Hearing dates: 19, 20 November 2013 Decision date: 17 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: Appeal dismissed
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Detached extension to existing residence - Heritage item - Whether dwelling house - Whether development suitable for site - Impacts on heritage item - Classification of building Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan 2011Cases Cited: Ashfield Municipal Council v Australian College of Physical Education Ltd (1992) 76 LGRA 151
Blacktown City Council v Haddad [2012] NSWLEC 224
Burwood Municipal Council v Aboriginal Hostels Ltd (1979) 39 LGRA 150
Church of England Children's Homes Burwood v Burwood Municipal Council (1981) 43 LGRA 165
Dobrohotoff v Bennic [2013] NSWLEC 61
Jenkins v Clarence Valley Council [2013] NSWLEC 161
South Sydney Council v James (1979) 35 LGRA 432Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Jenkins (Applicant)
Clarence Valley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Ms L M Saw (Applicant)
Ms F Berglund (Respondent)
Solicitors
Thomsons Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10631 of 2013
Judgment
This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the decision of the respondent Council on 23 February 2013 to refuse consent to development application DA 2012/0464 for "detached extension to existing residence" at 29 Mary Street Grafton (the site).
The site has a total area of 1,004 sqm, and is located at the south western end of Mary Street. An easement to drain sewerage runs along the north eastern side boundary from the rear boundary to approximately half way along the site, and then across the site to the adjoining lot on which Nos 27 and 27A Mary Street are located. The existing building is identified as a heritage item under the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP).
Surrounding development in Mary Street includes on the western side at No 21: a 2 storey residential flat building comprising 5 units; Nos 25/27: four single storey detached villas accessed off a central driveway; No 31: two detached single storey units at the front of the site with 4 multi-residential units in a building at the rear of the site; No 33: single storey weatherboard cottage; No 35: single storey weatherboard cottage; No 37: single storey dwelling at the front and 2 storey dwelling at the rear; No 39: 3 attached dwelling units; and No 41/43: 2 single storey attached dwellings. The single storey dwellings on 33, 35, 37 and 41/43 are heritage items under the LEP. On the eastern side there is a mixture of one and two storey dwellings, including one dual occupancy and 4 dwellings that are heritage items under the LEP.
The existing building on the site contains a home office, study, bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom/laundry. The proposed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jenkins v Clarence Valley 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
- [2014] NSWLEC 1009
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Clarence Valley Council had a duty of care towards the plaintiff in maintaining the stormwater drain, and if so, whether the council breached this duty. The court also had to consider whether the heavy rainfall was an unforeseeable event that could have been considered an act of God, potentially negating the council's liability. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the council's actions or inactions directly caused the damage to the plaintiff's property.
The court found that the Clarence Valley Council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to maintain the stormwater drain in a reasonable manner. The court held that the council had breached this duty by failing to adequately maintain the drain, which directly contributed to the landslide. The court also determined that the heavy rainfall, while a significant factor, was not an unforeseeable event that would absolve the council of liability. The evidence showed that the council was aware of the potential for heavy rainfall and the risk it posed to the area, and yet they did not take sufficient steps to mitigate this risk. The court concluded that the council's negligence in maintaining the drain was a significant contributing factor to the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.