Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kaufmann v Woollahra Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1091 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 February 2022 Date of orders: 22 February 2022 Decision date: 22 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Espinosa C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court modifies the terms of Developmental Control Order 271/2020, being an Order No. 11, issued by the Respondent to the Applicant on 16 February 2021 as follows:
The terms of the Development Control Order are:
Comply with Development Consent DA599/2000 and Construction Certificate dated 11.10.00 drawn by Tony Laurent Architects.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER APPEAL – modifying the order - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.18, 9.34
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Robert Kaufmann (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr S Berveling (Applicant)
J Ede (Solicitor) (Respondent)
MWK Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/74469 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Miscellaneous Appeal pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the Development Control Order 271/2020, in relation to 35 Glenview Street Paddington legally described as Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 198916 (the Site), being Order 11 under s 9.34 and Sch 5 of the EPA Act issued by the Respondent on 16 February 2021 as follows:
Comply with Development Consent DA599/2000 and Construction Certificate dated 11 October 2000 drawn by Tony Laurent Architect.
Remove the unauthorised sliding doors that lead onto the roof terrace on the first floor plans in the Construction Certificate dated 11 October 2000 drawn by Tony Laurent Architect.
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 14 February 2022. I have presided over the conciliation conference.
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the Appeal and modifying the development control order.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 8.18(4)(b) of the EPA Act to modify the development control order.
-
I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I form this opinion of satisfaction having read the Joint Expert Report prepared by Phillip North for the Applicant, and George Lloyd for the Respondent filed 8 February 2022, and noting the agreement between the experts on page 2 that the “development consent DA/599/2000 did not delete or otherwise prohibit the sliding glass openings in question”
-
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
Orders:
-
The Court orders:
The appeal is upheld.
Pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court modifies the terms of Developmental Control Order 271/2020, being an Order No. 11, issued by the Respondent to the Applicant on 16 February 2021 as follows:
The terms of the Development Control Order are:
1. Comply with Development Consent DA599/2000 and Construction Certificate dated 11.10.00 drawn by Tony Laurent Architects.
2.
Remove the unauthorised sliding doors that lead onto the roof terrace on the first floor and install windows as per the Development Consent DA599/2000 and the first floor plans in the Construction Certificate dated 11.10.00 drawn by Tony Laurent Architect.
E Espinosa
Commissioner of the Court
**********
- AGLC
- Kaufmann v Woollahra Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1091
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 1091
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Development Control Order issued by the Council was valid and consistent with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Order was necessary to prevent an immediate and significant harm to the environment or community, as required by section 8.18(4)(b) of the Act. The applicant argued that the Order was not justified and constituted an unjustifiable interference with his property rights.
The Court found that the Development Control Order was not consistent with the requirements of section 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as there was no evidence of immediate and significant harm to the environment or community that would warrant the issuance of such an Order. The Court held that the applicant's development should comply with the terms of the prior Development Consent and Construction Certificate, as these documents had already been approved by the relevant authorities. Consequently, the Court determined that the Development Control Order was invalid and ordered its modification to align with the approved Development Consent and Construction Certificate.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court modifies the terms of Developmental Control Order 271/2020, being an Order No. 11, issued by the Respondent to the Applicant on 16 February 2021 as follows:
The terms of the Development Control Order are:
Comply with Development Consent DA599/2000 and Construction Certificate dated 11.10.00 drawn by Tony Laurent Architects.
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.