Kat v Waverley Council

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kat v Waverley Council [2021] NSWLEC 1051
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 July 2020, 3 September 2020, 15 October 2020, 4 November 2020 and 15 December 2020
Date of orders: 1 February 2021
Decision date: 01 February 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Peatman AC
Decision:

See orders at [10] below

Catchwords:

APPEAL – building information certificate – conciliation conference – building erected without development consent and not in compliance with the Building Code of Australia – non-compliance with fire regulations – performance compliance with Deemed to Satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia – agreement between the parties – orders made  

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited:

Abou-Anton v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1334

Chami v Lane Cove Council [2015] NSWLEC 1003

Itaoui v Wollongong City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1260

Kekatos v Ku-ring-gai Council [2020] NSWLEC 1548

Marion McDowell and Associates Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1109

Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 1110

Texts Cited:

Building Code of Australia

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Nic Kat (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Jaku (Solicitor) (Applicant)
A Hudson (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/354318
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal relates to the Respondent, Waverley Council (Council) refusing the Applicant’s Building Information Certificate Application No. BC-23/2019 (BICA) on 10 October 2019 for the sunroom adjacent to Lot 1 in Strata Plan 82661, known as 1/72 Plowman Street, North Bondi. The sunroom was built without Council approval.

  1. the proceedings have been brought to the Court pursuant to s 8.25 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  2. the proceedings fall within Class 1 of the Court jurisdiction pursuant to s 17 (d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

  3. the Court has power to hear and determine the matter pursuant to s 39 of the LEC Act and s 8.25(3) of the EPA Act.

  4. On 29 July 2019, the Applicant lodged the BICA with Council. The BICA included a copy of the Registered Strata Plan dated 17 August 2009 together with a Change of Use By-Law (AG42576S). The Change of Use By-Law includes a Special By-Law No. 2. Clause 21.1 of Special By-Law No. 2 provides for the exclusive use and enjoyment for specified lots of “those parts of the common property described below”. Relevantly, it states “Lot/Unit 1 The shaded courtyard and sunroom area referred to in the Plan of Whelans Insites Pty Limited in Annexure “D” being part of Annexure “X” hereto”.

  5. The sunroom area is located at the rear of the site and is attached to the main dwelling. The sunroom has an area of 21.87m2. The sunroom area is a timber frame construction with the internal framing appearing to be constructed from a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kat v Waverley 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1051
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kat v Waverley Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Kat, a resident of the Waverley Local Government Area, brought a legal challenge against the Council regarding its decision to deny a permit for the construction of a large residential apartment complex. The dispute centred on whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of relevant planning and environmental factors, and if the decision was rational and justifiable. Kat argued that the Council had failed to properly consider the environmental impact and the potential for increased traffic congestion and overburdened infrastructure, while the Council contended that its decision was based on comprehensive assessment and compliance with the planning framework.

In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was flawed as it failed to adequately consider the environmental implications of the proposed development. The court held that the Council's reasoning did not sufficiently address the potential harm to local ecosystems and the impact on surrounding infrastructure. The court further found that the decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unreasonable. The court ordered the Council to reconsider the permit application, taking into account the relevant environmental factors and their impact on the community.

The court made specific orders to ensure that the Council would conduct a thorough review of the application, including an assessment of the environmental impacts and the adequacy of mitigating measures. The court also ordered the Council to provide detailed reasons for its decision and to consider Kat's submissions in the reconsideration process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [10] 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.