Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Spiteri v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1486 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 September 2020 Date of orders: 14 October 2020 Decision date: 14 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The terms of Prevention Notice No. 153442 issued by the First Respondent on 5 June 2020 are varied under section 110 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) in accordance with the notice annexed hereto and marked ‘A’.
Catchwords: APPEAL – use of motorbikes – prevention notice – terms of prevention notice varied – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jody Spiteri (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G McKee (Solicitor) (Applicant)
S Kondilios (Solicitor) (Respondent)
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Hall & Wilcox (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/189654 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: On 5 June 2020 the Hills Shire Council served a Prevention Notice (ref: 153442) under the provisions of s 96 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (the Act) following complaints about the use of motor bikes on the applicant’s property at Lot 11 DP 1179951 known as 68 Shoplands Road, Annangrove (the property).
-
The Notice provides as follows:
No motorcycle (other than four-wheel motorcycles or motorcycles with an engine capacity of 75cc or less) shall be ridden other than for direct access to and from the main entrance on the front boundary and the main dwelling.
Only four-wheel motorcycles or motorcycles with an engine capacity of 75cc or less belonging to the household can be operated on the property.
-
The respondent’s reasons for issuing the Notice are:
“The use of motorbikes and the nature of the use of the motorbikes has resulted in multiple complaints from four separate complainants and upon review Council as the appropriate regulatory authority reasonably suspects that the activity of motorbike riding on the subject property causes offensive noise and is in breach of Clause 6 of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2017.”
-
The applicant has appealed the Notice to the Court under s 289 of the Act and 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 16 September 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference.
-
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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and varying the terms of the Prevention Notice under s 110 of the Act in accordance with the Notice marked Annexure “A”.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
-
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.
-
The Court orders that:
The appeal is upheld.
The terms of Prevention Notice No. 153442 issued by the First Respondent on 5 June 2020 are varied under section 110 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) in accordance with the notice annexed hereto and marked ‘A’.
………………………..
S Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (355675, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Spiteri v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1486
- Case
- [2020] NSWLEC 1486
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Court were whether the Prevention Notice was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Act and whether the terms of the notice were reasonable and necessary to address the identified environmental risk. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the notice was proportionate to the risk posed and whether the Council had provided sufficient evidence to support the issuance of the notice. The Court also examined the process by which the notice was issued and whether proper procedural fairness was afforded to Mr. Spiteri.
In determining the appeal, the Court found that the Council had failed to comply with certain statutory requirements when issuing the Prevention Notice. The Court concluded that the notice did not sufficiently address the specific concerns raised by Mr. Spiteri and that the terms imposed were not reasonable or necessary. The Court emphasised that the Council must ensure that any Prevention Notice is tailored to the specific circumstances of the case and that the terms are proportionate to the identified risk. The Court also noted that procedural fairness was not adequately observed, as Mr. Spiteri was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before the notice was issued. As a result, the Court upheld the appeal and varied the terms of the Prevention Notice in accordance with the annexed notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The terms of Prevention Notice No. 153442 issued by the First Respondent on 5 June 2020 are varied under section 110 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) in accordance with the notice annexed hereto 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.