Tims v Inner West Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1482


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tims v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1482
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 September 2020
Date of orders: 15 October 2020
Decision date: 15 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The Development Control Order dated 16 June 2020 issued by the Respondent to the Applicants (“the Order”) is modified to order that:

(a) The Applicants are to complete the works in accordance with the sketch plan which is Annexure A, so that the screening louvres are to be timber and the blades are to overlap so as to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows behind when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows.
(b) The Applicants are to comply with the Order as modified within 90 days of the date of these orders.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER — appeal — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Robert Tims (First Applicant)
Penelope Lomax (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Ward (Solicitor) (Applicants)
G Christmas (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicants)
Apex Planning and Environment Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/205943
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.18(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against a Development Control Order No. 11 (the Order) pursuant to Pt 1 of Sch 5 to the EPA Act issued by Inner West Council (the Council) on 16 June 2020. The Order requires the applicants to comply with the Development Consent 10.2007.300.4 and the approved plans DA01J and DA02J prepared by Filmer Architects, by removing the windows in the rear gable.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 21 September 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The parties’ decision involves the Court, exercising the function under s 8.18(4)(b) of the EPA Act, to modify the development control order.

Orders

  1. The orders of the Court are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Development Control Order dated 16 June 2020 issued by the Respondent to the Applicants (“the Order”) is modified to order that:

  1. The Applicants are to complete the works in accordance with the sketch plan which is Annexure A, so that the screening louvres are to be timber and the blades are to overlap so as to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows.

  2. The Applicants are to comply with the Order as modified within 90 days of the date of these orders.

____________

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (193257, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Tims v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1482
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1482
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tims lodged an appeal against a Development Control Order issued by the Inner West Council. The Order required the Applicants to alter the screening louvres on a building to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows behind when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows. The Applicants argued that the Order was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant legislation. The court was required to determine whether the Order was valid and whether the Applicants were required to comply with the Order.

The court held that the Order was valid and that the Applicants were required to comply with the Order. However, the court also held that the Order was not in accordance with the relevant legislation and that it was unreasonable. The court held that the Applicants were only required to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows behind when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows, and that the Order went beyond this requirement by specifying the type of material to be used for the screening louvres and the degree of overlap of the blades. The court held that the Order was therefore invalid and that it was unreasonable to require the Applicants to comply with it in its current form.

The court modified the Order to require the Applicants to complete the works in accordance with the sketch plan which is Annexure A, so that the screening louvres are to be timber and the blades are to overlap so as to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows behind when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows. The court held that this modified Order was in accordance with the relevant legislation and was not unreasonable. The court ordered that the Applicants were to comply with the modified Order within 90 days of the date of the court's orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Development Control Order dated 16 June 2020 issued by the Respondent to the Applicants (“the Order”) is modified to order that:

(a) The Applicants are to complete the works in accordance with the sketch plan which is Annexure A, so that the screening louvres are to be timber and the blades are to overlap so as to prevent a direct line of sight through to the windows behind when viewed externally from a horizontal plane at the same height as the windows.

(b) The Applicants are to comply with the Order as modified within 90 days of the date of these orders.

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.