Stewart v Inner West Council

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

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

Owners Strata Plan 40546 v McRae [2023] NSWLEC 1203

Stewart v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1240

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Robert Stewart (First Appellant)
Ms Shuiping Zhou (Second Appellant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Robert Stewart (self-represented) (First Appellant)
Ms Shuiping Zhou (self-represented) (Second Appellant)
Mr R White (Respondent)

Solicitors:
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:

[2023] NSWLEC 1240

Date of Decision:
19 May 2023
Before:
Sheridan AC
File Number(s):
2022/284452

JUDGMENT

Nature of appeal and outcome

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. The Council responded to the appellants’ application on 27 June 2022, three days after their application…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Stewart and Inner West Council was brought before the court to determine the validity of a decision made by the Council to deny a development application for a residential apartment complex. The parties disputed whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations. The court was tasked with reviewing the administrative decision and determining if the Council's decision was correct.

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.