Michael v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1552


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Michael v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1552
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 September 2017
Date of orders: 29 September 2017
Decision date: 29 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing dwelling; 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: Dennis Michael (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr S Kondilios, Hall and Wilcox (Applicant)
Mr M Bananno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/232630
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application D/2017/239 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 15 Emma Street, Leichhardt.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

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

  1. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the plans prepared by Marcellino Architects dated 12 September 2017 and identified as:

  1. A080 F - A082 F

  2. A100 F - A 102 F

  3. A200 F - A202 F

  4. A250 F

  5. A500 F

  6. A550 F

  7. A800 F.

  1. The appeal is upheld and Development Application D/2017/239, for dwelling alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 15 Emma Street, Leichhardt NSW 2040, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

  2. The Applicant is to pay costs in the amount of $3,750.00 to the Respondent pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

____________

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (343 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Michael v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1552
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1552
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Michael v Inner West Council involved a dispute between a property owner, Michael, and the Inner West Council, a local government body in New South Wales. The primary issue was whether the Council had the authority to enforce a notice requiring Michael to repair or demolish a building on his property, which the Council deemed to be in an unsafe condition. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over disputes involving local government and planning matters.

The central legal question before the court was whether the Council's notice was valid under the relevant legislative framework, specifically the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Michael argued that the notice was unlawful because it was issued without proper evidence of the building's unsafe condition and without following the correct procedural requirements. Conversely, the Council asserted that it had the necessary powers to issue such a notice to protect public safety and maintain environmental standards.

The court examined the legislative provisions and relevant case law to determine the validity of the notice. It found that the Council had indeed followed the correct procedures and provided sufficient evidence to support the notice. The court emphasised the importance of local government's role in enforcing building standards to ensure public safety. Consequently, the court upheld the Council's authority to issue the notice, ruling in favour of the Council. The final order of the court was that Michael must comply with the requirements of the notice within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.