Schleich v Byron Shire Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1323


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Schleich v Byron Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1323
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 May, 11, 25 June, 9 July 2020; Documents filed 16 July 2020
Date of orders: 24 July 2020
Decision date: 24 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Clay AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Pursuant to section 180 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Orders the subject of these proceedings, is amended in accordance with the amended Order annexed and marked A.

Catchwords:

ORDER – make premises safe – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Local Government Act 1993

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jay Tobin Schleich (First Applicant)
Holly Schleich (Second Applicant)
Janine Khosid (Third Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Maxwell (Solicitor) (Applicants)
C Rose (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Parker & Kissane (Applicants)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/87294
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 180 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) against the Respondent's issue of Emergency Orders No. 21 dated 21 February 2020 pursuant to s 124 of the LGA (Order) in respect of 3 and 5 Weeronga Way, Ocean Shores (land).

  2. The Orders required the Applicants to construct a retaining wall and other necessary drainage works to prevent further failure of the existing retaining wall on the Land following a minor land slip.

  3. On 21 May 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). At that conference a path for the resolution of the matter was established, requiring significant consultation between the engineers retained by the parties. The conciliation continued over a number of weeks to allow the engineers to carry out their respective tasks.

  4. Ultimately the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to uphold the appeal and modify the order the subject of the appeal.

  5. An agreement pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act was filed by the parties on 16 July 2020 giving effect to the agreement in principle.

  6. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  7. The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 180(4) of the LGA to modify the orders. The parties have stated and I agree on the basis of the material provided that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites that are satisfied so this function can be exercised are:

  1. the land is not in a safe condition; and

  2. the purpose of the orders is to ensure that the land is placed and kept in a safe condition thereby affording protection of life and property and minimising the risk of the slip propagating.

  1. 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.

  2. The parties have not raised, and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 180(4) of the LGA.

  3. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Pursuant to section 180 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Orders the subject of these proceedings, is amended in accordance with the amended Order annexed and marked A.

  1. The Court notes the agreement between the parties that there be no order as to costs.

…………………………

P Clay

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (64248, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Schleich v Byron Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1323
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Schleich v Byron Shire Council was brought by the first respondent, who is a landowner, against the decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The first respondent had applied for development approval from the Byron Shire Council under the Local Government Act 1993. The Council had issued an Order refusing the application, which the Land and Environment Court upheld. The first respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the refusal of the development approval was unreasonable and not supported by proper reasons. The Council cross-appealed, seeking an order that the first respondent bear the costs of the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the refusal of the development approval by the Council was unreasonable and unsupported by proper reasons. The first respondent contended that the refusal was unreasonable because it was not based on the merits of the proposal, but rather on the Council's desire to prevent the development of the property. The Council, on the other hand, argued that the refusal was reasonable and properly supported by reasons, which were based on the proposal's impact on the environment and the surrounding area.

The Supreme Court found that the refusal of the development approval was unreasonable and not supported by proper reasons. The Court held that the reasons provided by the Council were insufficient because they did not address the merits of the proposal, but rather focused on the Council's desire to prevent the development. The Court further held that the reasons were not based on the evidence before the Council, and that the refusal was therefore unreasonable. The Court also found that the first respondent's proposal was not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment or the surrounding area. As a result, the Court held that the refusal of the development approval was not supported by proper reasons and was unreasonable.

As a result of the Court's decision, the appeal was upheld, and the Orders subject of these proceedings were amended in accordance with the amended Order annexed and marked A. The first respondent was therefore successful in their appeal, and the Council's refusal of the development approval was set aside. The Court also ordered that the first respondent bear their own costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Pursuant to section 180 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Orders the subject of these proceedings, is amended in accordance with the amended Order annexed and marked A.

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.