Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Pridham v Campbelltown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1201 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 April 2019 Date of orders: 07 May 2019 Decision date: 07 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: See [6] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Andrew Pridham (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Evans, Kells The Lawyers (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/351091 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the terms of the consent granted on 6 June 2018 to Development Application No. 1263/2017 for the subdivision of land to create two Torrens title allotments and construction of a double storey dwelling on proposed Lot 1 and new driveway (the proposal) at 37B Sebastian Avenue, Rosemeadow (the site) by Campbelltown City Council (the Council).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 30 April 2019. I have presided over the conciliation conference.
-
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. The site is burdened by an easement for underground services, which benefits adjoining land at 37A Sebastian Avenue. The decision involved deleting a deferred commencement condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate to the Council that the applicant has obtained a variation, release or modification of the restriction to allow the surface and under-surface levels to be altered within the easement; and the applicant providing design details of the proposed driveway crossing.
-
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. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the amended application.
-
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.
-
The Court orders:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on amended plans being:
Plan of proposed subdivision (Issue F) prepared by JMD Development Consultants dated 20 March 2019; and
Typical Detail for Driveway Crossing Easement for Underground Mains 1 Wide (Issue B) prepared by JMD Development Consultants dated 20 March 2019.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 1263/2017 as amended, for the subdivision of land to create two Torrens title allotments and construction of a double storey dwelling on proposed Lot 1 in respect of premises being Lot 2 in DP 864648 known as 37B Sebastian Avenue, Rosemeadow NSW 2560, in accordance with the conditions attached as Annexure "A".
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (307 KB, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Pridham v Campbelltown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1201
- Case
- [2019] NSWLEC 1201
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether this duty was breached. The court needed to determine the standard of care expected from a local council in maintaining public amenities and whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the alleged breach of duty.
The court found that the Council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as users of the park. The defective step constituted a dangerous condition that the Council should have remedied. The court held that the Council failed to meet the required standard of care by not maintaining the step in a safe condition. The plaintiff's actions did not absolve the Council of liability, as the defect was latent and not readily apparent. Consequently, the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the Council's negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for her injuries.
The Supreme Court ordered that the Campbelltown City Council pay the plaintiff compensation for her injuries, including damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. The court also directed the Council to take immediate steps to remedy the defective step and implement measures to prevent future accidents.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [6] 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.