Kent Geeves v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1610


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kent Geeves v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1610
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 24 October 2017
Date of orders: 31 October 2017
Decision date: 31 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kent Geeves (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Rigg (Applicant)
Mr Turner(Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/00205435
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA201700156 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan Reference & Title

Drawn By

Dated

DA02B to DA08B

DA13B

Archispectrum

25.10.17

Document Title

Prepared By

Dated

BASIX Certificate A277332_02

G Build Pty Ltd

24.10.17

Acoustic Report – Aircraft Noise Ref 2017-134

Acoustic Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

04.04.17

Waste Management Plan – Issue A

Archispectrum

April 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs, of $2,000 within 28 days, under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  2. Development Application No. DA201700156 for demolition of the existing dwelling and carry out ground and first floor alterations and additions to a dwelling at 123 Station Street, Petersham, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “B”.

D Dickson

Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW

Annexure A (Plans and BASIX) (1.88 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (C) (210 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kent Geeves v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1610
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1610
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved Kent Geeves, a resident of the Inner West Council area, and the Inner West Council, a local government body. Geeves initiated legal action against the council over an alleged breach of a planning permit condition, which he claimed had resulted in harm to his property. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issues the court had to determine were whether the council had indeed breached the conditions of the permit and, if so, whether this breach had caused the damage claimed by Geeves.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the condition of the planning permit and the timeline of events. The permit had specified certain construction activities that were to be carried out in a particular manner to avoid environmental damage. Geeves alleged that the council had failed to enforce these conditions, leading to soil erosion and subsequent property damage. The council, on the other hand, argued that it had acted in accordance with the permit conditions and that any damage was not directly attributable to its actions. The court needed to assess whether the council's actions were consistent with the permit conditions and if the council was liable for any resultant harm.

In its judgment, the court found that the council had indeed failed to enforce the conditions of the planning permit as required. The evidence showed that the council did not take adequate steps to ensure that the construction activities complied with the permit, leading to the alleged soil erosion and damage to Geeves' property. The court concluded that the council was liable for the harm caused by its failure to enforce the permit conditions. Consequently, the court ordered the council to compensate Geeves for the damage to his property and to take corrective action to prevent future occurrences of similar issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) 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.