Layman v Sutherland Shire Council

[2003] NSWLEC 4

>

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Layman & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 4

PARTIES:

APPLICANTS
Steven Layman
Peter Anthony Terrett
Julene Marjorie Terrett

RESPONDENT
Sutherland Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10100 of 2002

CORAM:

Cowdroy J

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- consent refused - appeal - council consenting to orders for identical development

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

24/10/2002

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

10/24/2002

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANTS
Mr P Terrett (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
Terrett Lawyers

RESPONDENT
Mr C Mathieson (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
n/a

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

10100 of 2002

Cowdroy J

24 October 2002

Steven Layman

Peter Anthony Terrett

Julene Marjorie Terrett

Applicants
v

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent

Judgment

1 In this matter the Court is requested to grant approval to an application class 1 which was filed on 15 February 2002.

2 A development application was made to the respondent (“the council”) for approval for a curved metal awning addition to an existing dwelling (“the land”). Such application was refused by council on 27 February 2001. The council enumerated five reasons for refusal. Prima facie each of those reasons appears to be a matter of significance. The council now consents to orders being made for approval, despite there having been no change to the plans.

3 The applicants claim that existing use rights apply to the land and that such rights justify a grant of consent for the proposed development. They have tendered a report of Steven Layman dated 21 October 2002 which explains the basis of the existing use and which shows that existing use rights pertain to the land. The council accepts that such evidence establishes the applicants’ claim to existing use rights. Accordingly council submits the appeal should be upheld.

4 The evidence of the council is contained in a report by Mark Adamson, town planner. It would have been far more helpful if council had provided evidence by way of an affidavit setting out the reasons for its acceptance of the proposal and for its acknowledgment that its five reasons for rejection of the proposal should now not be sustained.

5 The Court takes note that there are no objectors and that the council accepts without question the contents of the report of Mr Steven Layman. One neighbour has provided written support for the development.

6 The Court makes the following observation. Where there has been an initial refusal of a development application for reasons which are prima facie valid, and there is a subsequent reversal of council’s opinion, the Court should be provided with reasons which explain the basis of such reversal. Such evidence is especially required in those instances in which no change is made to the development application or plans.

Orders

7 The Court will make the orders sought. The Court therefore makes the orders by consent as set out in the consent orders dated 24 October 2002 signed by the applicants’ solicitor and the solicitor for the respondent and initialled by me.