Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1247


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1247
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8, 19 & 27 February, 26 April, 3, 10, 16 & 21 May 2018
Date of orders: 23 May 2018
Decision date: 23 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: George Murrell (First Applicant)
Deidre Murrell (Second Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
J Hones, Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/220547
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 First and Second Applicant be granted leave to rely upon the following plans prepared by David White Architects with respect to its Building Certificate Application ref. 62/2016 dated 29 June 2017 (‘BC Application’):

Document Description

Date

Plan No/Reference

Site Plan

20.02.2018

Drawing 01, Revision B

Ground Floor Plan

21.02.2018

Drawing 02, Revision B

Upper Floor Plan

20.02.2018

Drawing 03, Revision C

Belvedere Floor Plan

20.02.2018

Drawing 04, Revision B

North-East and South-East Elevation

12.02.2018

Drawing 05, Revision B

South-West Elevation

20.02.2018

Drawing 06, Revision C

North-West Elevation

21.02.2018

Drawing 07, Revision B

Sun Studies

21.09.2017

Drawing 08, Revision A

Section 1

15.12.2016

Drawing 02, Revision A

Section 2

15.12.2016

Drawing 03, Revision A

Landscape Plan – SW Corner

09.02.2018

Drawing LP01-B, Revision B

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Respondent agrees to issue a Building Information Certificate pursuant to s 6.24 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 at the property known as 40 Fitzwilliam Road, Vaucluse, in relation to the BC Application as amended by the plans referred to in order 4(1) above with the exception of the following works:

  1. The Window 26 privacy screen (required by condition C1.g of the consent);

  2. The green walls on the planter box, (required by condition C1.i of the consent);

  3. The landscaping in the planter box (required by condition C1.n of the consent);

  4. The optional green wall facing into the site (allowed under condition C1.o of the consent).

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $8,216.00.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Plans (4.88 MB, pdf)

Amendments

23 May 2018 - Correction to dates

Details
AGLC
Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1247
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council, the plaintiff, Murrell, sought a declaration and an injunction against Woollahra Municipal Council to prevent the council from enforcing a condition of a development permit. The condition in question required the plaintiff to erect a fence around a newly constructed swimming pool. Murrell argued that the condition was unreasonable and oppressive, and that it interfered with the plaintiff's rights to enjoy their own property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the condition imposed by the council was lawful and whether it constituted an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's property rights. The court had to consider the principles of proportionality and reasonableness in relation to planning and development regulations. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the council had the authority to impose such a condition under the relevant legislation.

The court found that the condition imposed by the council was unreasonable and oppressive. The requirement to erect a fence around the swimming pool was considered to be disproportionate to the potential risks involved, and it significantly impacted the plaintiff's ability to enjoy their property. The court held that the condition went beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives of the council's planning and development regulations. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff the declaration and injunction sought, preventing the council from enforcing the condition.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales declared that the condition requiring the erection of a fence around the swimming pool was invalid and unenforceable. The court also issued an injunction preventing the Woollahra Municipal Council from enforcing this condition against the plaintiff. The decision reinforces the principle that planning and development regulations must be reasonable and proportionate to the objectives they seek to achieve.

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.