Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Stewart v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 136 Hearing dates: 16 November 2023 Date of orders: 16 November 2023 Decision date: 16 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal on questions of law – Commissioner’s decision to refuse permit for tree removal – tree in heritage conservation area – development consent required to remove tree – tree of a listed species in development control plan – permit required to remove tree – whether development consent or permit required in circumstances – whether misconstruction of development control plan – application of incorrect development control plan – whether error material
Legislation Cited: Environment and Planning Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 1.5(1)(f), 3.43(5), 4.3, 4.12, 4.16(1), 8.2
Inner West Local Environmental Plan cl 1.8A
Land and Environment Court Act1979(NSW) s 56A(1)
Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 cll 5.9(3), 5.10(2), 5.10(2)(a)(iii),5.10(3)
Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plan) Amendment (Vegetation) Order 2017 cl 2
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 ss 2.2(1), 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Hinkler Ave 1 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2023] NSWCA 264
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Robert Stewart (First Appellant)
Ms Shuiping Zhou (Second Appellant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Robert Stewart (self-represented) (First Appellant)
Ms Shuiping Zhou (self-represented) (Second Appellant)
Mr R White (Respondent)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/191039 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Land and Environment Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Class 1
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 19 May 2023
- Before:
- Sheridan AC
- File Number(s):
- 2022/284452
JUDGMENT
Nature of appeal and outcome
-
Mr Stewart and Ms Zhou (the appellants) have appealed against the decision and order of a Commissioner of the Court to dismiss their appeal concerning an application for a permit to remove a tree.
-
The appellants are the owners of land at 32 Kentville Ave, Annandale. They lodged with Inner West Council (the Council) on 24 June 2022 an application to remove a tree, a Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinosum), growing in the rear yard of their property. The tree is about 12 metres in height, with a canopy spread of 15 metres. The application was made using the form required by the Council, under s 2.11(1)(a) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP), to apply for a permit to prune or remove trees on private land. The appellants identified in their application that they were making a Tree Minor Works Request as the tree was of a species listed in Control C7 of the Inner West Council Tree Management Development Control Plan, adopted on 11 February 2020 (the Tree DCP).
-
The Council responded to the appellants’ application on 27 June 2022, three days after their application…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Stewart v Inner West Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 136
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations, if the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors, and if the decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court was required to examine the evidence presented, the decision-making process, and the applicable legislation and policies to determine if the Council's decision was justified.
The court found that the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations and was made in accordance with the applicable legislation and policies. The court determined that the Council had considered all relevant factors and that the decision was both lawful and reasonable. The court concluded that the decision-making process was procedurally fair and that the Council had exercised its discretion appropriately. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Council was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
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.