Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1612 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 November 2016 Date of orders: 19 December 2016 Decision date: 19 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; demolition of all improvements and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sharmila Sivabalakan (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr G McKee, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent)
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00257346 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 2016/180/1 for demolition of all improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 28 Patricia Street Mays Hill.
-
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:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Title
Drawing No.
Date
Revision
Prepared by
Site Analysis
A001
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Site Information/ 3D Views/ Adaptable Housing Details
A002
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Basement Plan
A101
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Ground Floor/Typical Unit Layout
A102
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
1st Floor/ 2nd & 3rd Floor
A103
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
4th Floor
A104
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Elevations (North-South)
/Schedule of Finishes
A201
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Elevations (West-East)/Streetscape Analysis
A202
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Sections/ Driveway Sections
A301
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Solar Access Study/ Cross Ventilation Study
A401
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Shadow Diagrams/ Wider Local Context (Current)
A402
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Shadow Diagrams/ Wider Local Context (Potential)
A403
November 2016
D
Gus Fares Architects
Landscape Plan
2016.0501DA1-1
1 November 2016
B
TSG Landscape Architects
Landscape Plan
2016.0501DA1-2
1 November 2016
B
TSG Landscape Architects
Cover Sheet, Legend & Drawing Schedule
D00
31 October 2016
B
Australian Consulting Engineers
Basement Stormwater Drainage Plan
D01
31 October 2016
C
Australian Consulting Engineers
Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan
D02
31 October 2016
C
Australian Consulting Engineers
Site Stormwater Drainage Details 1
D03
31 October 2016
C
Australian Consulting Engineers
Site Stormwater Drainage Details 2
D04
31 October 2016
C
Australian Consulting Engineers
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan & Details
D05
31 October 2016
C
Australian Consulting Engineers
Document Title
Prepared by
Dated
BASIX Certificate No. 721562M_02
1 December 2016
Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report
Horticultural Management Services
5 December 2016
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2016/180/1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 5, part 4 storey residential flat building comprising 13 units over basement parking accommodating 13 car parking spaces, on the land at 28 Patricia Street, Mays Hill, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
…………….
G T Brown
Commissioner
257346.16 (C) gtb (548 KB, pdf)
257346.16 - Final approved plans (6.69 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1612
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1612
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Cumberland Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether the council breached that duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to assess whether Sivabalakan's own actions contributed to his injuries and, if so, how that would affect the apportionment of liability. Additionally, the court needed to consider the standard of care expected from the council in organizing and overseeing public events.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Cumberland Council did indeed owe a duty of care to Sivabalakan as a participant in a council-sponsored event. The court found that the council had failed to implement adequate safety measures, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. It was determined that the council's breach of duty was the primary cause of the accident, and Sivabalakan's contributory negligence was minimal. Consequently, the council was held liable for the majority of the damages suffered by Sivabalakan. The court ordered the Cumberland Council to pay damages to Sivabalakan, reflecting the extent of his injuries and losses.
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.