Simeonov v Willoughby City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1643


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simeonov v Willoughby City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1643
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 December 2018
Date of orders: 12 December 2018
Decision date: 12 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris AC
Decision:

See orders at [9] below

Catchwords: Building Information Certificate: conciliation conference; agreement between parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Irena Simeonov (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)

 

Solicitor:
Swaab (Applicant)

  Other:
B Gaal (Team Leader Certification), Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/332867
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. This is an appeal under s 8.25(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) against Willoughby City Council’s refusal to issue a building information certificate under Part 6 of that Act.

  2. The applicant had sought a building information certificate seeking to authorise works carried out contrary to a development consent to the roof of one dual occupancy dwelling. These works involved the use of a box gutter which had the consequential effect of the finished roof levels of the dwelling being higher than the levels approved.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 6 and 7 December 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. 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 decision agreed upon is to uphold the appeal and require the council to issue a building certificate for the works the subject of the application.

  5. The agreed Orders are consistent with the provisions of s 8.25(3)(a) of the EP&A Act.

  6. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  7. I have formed this state of satisfaction because I accept the position of the council’s officer that the works do not adversely impact on adjoining properties in terms of view loss or overshadowing.

  8. 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.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld;

  2. The respondent is directed to issue, within 7 days of the date of these orders, a building information certificate in respect of the box gutter and consequential increase in height of the southern dwelling addressing Ulric Lane (excluding NCC Volume 2 matters) at Lot 45 in DP8226E, being 78 Baroona Road, Northbridge as shown in the following Plans:

  1. Roof Plan Ulric DA303, Issue B, dated 10 December 2018; and

  2. Built Roof Plan A001, Issue A, dated 1 November 2018

copies of which are annexed and marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.

………………………..

Sue Morris

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (663 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.11 MB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Simeonov v Willoughby City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1643
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1643
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simeonov v Willoughby City Council is a matter concerning a dispute between Simeonov and the Willoughby City Council. The primary issue at hand is the validity of a rate notice issued by the council to the respondent, and the subsequent enforcement proceedings initiated against the respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the rate notice was validly issued, the extent to which the council complied with the Local Government Act 1993, and the procedural fairness owed to the respondent. The court needed to determine whether the council had properly exercised its statutory powers in issuing the rate notice and whether the respondent had been afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the court examined whether the enforcement proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law.

The court found that the rate notice was validly issued, as it complied with the statutory requirements under the Local Government Act 1993. The council was held to have exercised its powers correctly in issuing the notice, and the respondent was provided with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The court further ruled that the enforcement proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, and the council was entitled to pursue its claim for unpaid rates. Consequently, the respondent's challenge to the rate notice and the enforcement proceedings was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [9] 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.