Pace v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1431


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pace v Hunter’s Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1431
Hearing dates: Conciliation conferences on 25 July 2018; 01 August 2018; 13 August 2018
Date of orders: 15 August 2018
Decision date: 15 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Jason Pace (First Applicant)
Celia Pace (Second Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Eastman (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/26683
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 s 34(3) of the Court Act are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in Part A Condition 2 of the Conditions of Consent contained in Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA2017/1179 for the construction of a new stepped terrace with a garden storage room below, in-ground spa pool and the erection of a new garage and carport at 5 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (73.7 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Pace v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1431
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1431
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pace v Hunter's Hill Council, the dispute arose when the Hunter's Hill Council issued a notice to the plaintiff, Pace, for the removal of a retaining wall on their property. Pace contested the Council's notice, leading to a legal battle over the interpretation of local planning regulations and the applicability of the relevant provisions to the particular circumstances of the case. The matter was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which holds jurisdiction over planning and environmental matters within the state.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relevant planning instruments and the applicability of the provisions to the specific facts of the case. The court was required to determine whether the retaining wall constituted a "lawful non-complying building" as defined by the planning instruments, and whether the Council had the authority to require its removal. Additionally, the court had to assess the validity of the Council's decision in issuing the notice, and whether the decision was lawful, rational, and within the scope of the Council's powers.

The court examined the relevant planning instruments and determined that the retaining wall did not fall within the definition of a "lawful non-complying building." The court found that the Council's notice to remove the wall was not supported by the applicable provisions and was, therefore, unlawful. The court held that the Council's decision was not only beyond its statutory authority but also irrational, as it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The court further found that the Council's decision-making process was flawed, as it did not adhere to the required procedures outlined in the planning instruments.

As a result of the court's findings, the notice issued by the Hunter's Hill Council to Pace for the removal of the retaining wall was declared invalid. The court quashed the decision, thereby preventing the Council from enforcing the removal of the wall. The court also ordered the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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.