Savell v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1517


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Savell v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1517
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5, 26 October 2016
Date of orders: 03 November 2016
Decision date: 03 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; alterations and additions to an approved but not constructed dwelling; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jonathan Savell (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Ms J McKelvey, barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00160765
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application D/2015/735 for alterations and additions to an approved but not constructed dwelling at 22 Charlotte Street Rozelle.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. 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 on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”;

  2. The 4.6 variation to clause 4.3A(3)(b) of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 prepared by the Applicant is agreed by the parties to be well founded and is upheld;

  3. The 4.6 variation to clause 4.4(2) of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 prepared by the Applicant is agreed by the parties to be well founded and is upheld;

  4. The appeal is upheld; and

  5. Development application D/2015/735 lodged on 22 December 2015 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

The Court notes that agreement of the parties that there is to be no order as to costs of the proceedings.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

160765.16 - Annexure A (127 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Savell v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1517
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1517
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Savell v Inner West Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Savell, and the Inner West Council. The plaintiff, a property owner, sought relief against the council's actions in relation to a building permit and subsequent construction work. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Savell contended that the council had unlawfully granted a building permit and had failed to enforce building regulations, leading to significant property damage. The council argued that it had acted within its statutory powers and that Savell had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to issue the building permit and whether it had breached its statutory obligations in enforcing building regulations. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Savell had suffered damages as a result of the council's actions and if the council's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The court also considered whether there were any defences available to the council, such as estoppel or laches, that could negate Savell's claims.

The court examined the legislative framework governing building permits and the council's enforcement powers. It assessed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the permit issuance and the construction work. The court found that the council had indeed issued the building permit in error, as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court held that the council had failed to enforce building regulations adequately, resulting in significant property damage to Savell. The court ruled that Savell's claims were substantiated and that the council's actions were unreasonable. As a result, the court ordered the council to compensate Savell for the damages incurred and to take corrective action to address the issues arising from the construction work.

The court also addressed the council's potential defences, concluding that none of the defences presented were sufficient to negate Savell's claims. The final orders included a monetary compensation for Savell and mandated specific actions by the council to rectify the situation. The council was required to pay the costs associated with the remediation of the property damage and adhere to the court's directives for future enforcement of building regulations.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.