Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SAM BUSBRIDGE v NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL [2017] NSWLEC 1210 Hearing dates: 21 April 2017 Date of orders: 21 April 2017 Decision date: 21 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Sam Busbridge (Applicant)
North Sydney Council(Respondent)Representation: G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
M. Pearce, North Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/45506 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Condition A1 of Annexure "A". The parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 282/2016 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling, including new pool, an open car stand within the front setback and landscape works is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A" hereto.
The s34AA Conciliation Conference / Hearings dates of 6 & 7 June 2017 are vacated
…………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
45506.17 Annexure A (C) (151 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sam Busbridge v North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1210
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the scope of the council's regulatory powers under the relevant legislation and by-laws, and whether the council's decision was reasonable and justified. The plaintiff argued that the council's prohibition was an unlawful restriction on his personal freedom and recreational activities. The council, on the other hand, contended that the restriction was necessary to ensure public safety and to prevent damage to the public infrastructure.
The court examined the relevant legislative framework and the specific by-laws that governed the use of public spaces. It found that the council had the authority to enact by-laws to regulate activities in public areas for the purpose of maintaining public safety and order. The court also considered the council's reasons for imposing the skateboarding ban, including concerns about potential damage to the infrastructure and the risk of injury to users of the public space. After weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the council's decision was reasonable and within its lawful powers. The court found that the council had acted in accordance with the applicable legislation and by-laws, and that its decision to prohibit skateboarding was justified on the grounds of public safety and infrastructure protection.
The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's claim against the North Sydney Council was dismissed. The council's decision to prohibit skateboarding in the specified public area was upheld, and the plaintiff was not granted the relief sought in his claim.
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.