Oliver Steele v Waverley Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1393


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Oliver Steele v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1393
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 July 2017
Date of orders: 21 July 2017
Decision date: 21 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray 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: Oliver Steele (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/369885
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following plans and documentation in the proceedings:

Reference/Dwg No

Title/Description

Prepared By

Date

Architectural Drawings Nos.

00-01, 01-02, 05-01 to 05-12, 12-00, Revision 9, Revision s34

Steele Associates Architecture,

16 May 2017

Landscape Plans

LPDA17-17 page number 1, rev E

LPDA17-17 page number 3, rev A

Conzept Landscape Architects

06.06.2017

20.07.2016

Reports/Certificates/Statements/Plans

Cert. No. 840384M_02

BASIX Certificate

12.07.2017

Site Waste and Recycling Management Plan (SWRMP) and Checklist

  1. Pursuant to Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant agrees to pay the Respondent’s costs in the fixed amount of $5,000 within 28 days.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-411/2016 for the demolition of the existing single storey residential building, and the construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising six units (4 x 2 bedroom, 2 x 3    bedroom), with an attic level and basement comprising eight car parking spaces, at 585 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

369885.16 (C) (71.7 KB, docx)

369885 Gray - Plans (1.81 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Oliver Steele v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1393
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1393
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oliver Steele versus Waverley Council, the dispute involved the demolition of a property at 22B Military Road, Bondi Junction, which was carried out by the Council. The plaintiff, Oliver Steele, sought to challenge the legality of the demolition, arguing that it was carried out without proper authorisation and compensation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the Waverley Council had the authority to carry out the demolition without first obtaining a court order, and if the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the loss of his property. This required an examination of the relevant statutory provisions under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), which govern the powers of local councils regarding property and demolitions.

The court found that the Waverley Council had indeed acted within its statutory authority under section 143 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) by carrying out the demolition as it was deemed to be in the interest of public safety and welfare. The court further determined that the Council had followed the necessary procedures and that there was no requirement for a court order in this instance. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation as the property was in a state of disrepair and the demolition was carried out to prevent further deterioration and potential harm to the public. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law precedents.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the Waverley Council was found to have acted lawfully in demolishing the property. The plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation from the Council. The court's decision upheld the authority of local councils to act in the public interest, provided they adhere to the statutory requirements set out in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

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.