Malta-Fell v Byron Shire Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1448


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Malta-Fell v Byron Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1448
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 August 2020
Date of orders: 24 September 2020
Decision date: 24 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

Refer to orders at [12]

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Dustin Marta-Fell (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Young (Solicitor) (Applicant)
P Vergotis (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)
McCabe Curwood (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/384646
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Dustin Malta-Fell (the Applicant) has appealed Byron Shire Council’s (the Respondent’s) refusal of an application for a Building Information Certificate (BIC) (Application No. 50.2019.38) which was lodged on 17 October 2019 (Application). The Application relates to the property located at 251 Upper Wilsons Creek Road, Upper Wilsons Creek (Lot 1 DP 814747) (the Subject Site).

  2. The Application relates to the following structures located on the Property:

  1. a single storey timber and ‘hardiplank’ clad building;

  2. associated on-site sewage management system;

  3. a rainwater tank; and

  4. rock retaining walls in the vicinity of the timber and ‘hardiplank’ clad building.

  1. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.25(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction.

  2. These proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 8.25(3) of the EP&A Act.

  3. The Court had arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which was held on 17 August 2020, and I presided over that conciliation conference.

  4. 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 granting consent to the Applicant’s development application, subject to conditions.

  5. 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.

  6. The Respondent has advised that, in its opinion, the matters that arise for consideration under s 6.25(1) of the EP&A Act are satisfied having regard to the information that was provided within the Applicant’s application for a Building Information Certificate (BIC) (Application No. 50.2019.38), together with the additional information that accompanies the Parties’ agreement in this matter.

  7. The Parties agree that there are no jurisdictional prerequisites in these proceedings which would prevent the Court from exercising its function under s 39 of the LEC Act.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. The Court orders that:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following plans and additional documentation

  1. The plans prepared by Pitts Built titled “Proposed Farm Shed Wilsons Creek”, drawings A01 and A02 dated 1 September 2020.

  2. The report prepared by Lucena Civil & Structural Engineers titled “Peer Review of Engineering Certificates for Building and retaining wall construction at 251 Upper Wilsons Creek Road Upper Wilsons Creek”, dated 8 September 2020.

  1. The Applicant is to undertake the work required in the plans referred to in paragraph (1)(a) above within 60 days of the date of these orders, such work including but not limited to:

  1. the replacement of the window and door on the northern elevation of the structure with a sliding glass door and return.

  2. the deck at the northern end of the structure is to be removed.

  3. the replacement of the windows and doors on the eastern elevation of the structure with roller doors.

  4. the placement of ramps in front of the roller doors.

  5. the removal of any air conditioning condenser and the satellite dish on the roof.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Respondent is directed to issue within 14 days of the date of these orders, a building information certificate in respect of the structure located at 251 Upper Wilsons Creek Road, Upper Wilsons Creek (Lot 1 DP 814747).

……………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Malta-Fell v Byron Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1448
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1448
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Malta-Fell and Byron Shire Council centred around the council's decision to refuse a permit for the construction of a dwelling on Malta-Fell's property. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Malta-Fell challenged the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and discriminatory. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to deny the permit was lawful and whether it was based on valid grounds under the relevant planning legislation.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed whether the council's decision was within its lawful powers. It considered whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient grounds and whether the council had followed the correct procedures in making the decision. The court also evaluated whether there was any evidence of bias or discrimination in the council's decision-making process. Ultimately, the court determined that the council's decision was lawful and based on valid grounds. The council had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and there was no evidence of bias or discrimination.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the permit was reasonable and within its lawful powers. The evidence demonstrated that the decision was based on relevant considerations, such as the impact on the local environment and compliance with planning regulations. The court concluded that the council had followed the correct procedures and that there was no basis to overturn the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision to refuse the permit was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refer to orders at [12]

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.