Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2020] NSWLEC 1349 Hearing dates: 7-8 July 2020 Date of orders: 07 August 2020 Decision date: 07 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: Refer to orders at [92] below
Catchwords: APPEAL – development control order – stop works order – development not carried out in accordance with construction certificate – risk of land slippage – how discretion should be exercised in the circumstances
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Cases Cited: Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd (No 3) (2014) 206 LGERA 40; [2014] NSWCA 404
Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Lazarus SC (Applicant)
A Pickles SC (Respondent)
Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/78744 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: On a steep battle-axe site on the harbour foreshore at 67 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth, construction has commenced of a new two-storey detached dwelling with a double car hardstand parking area and an inclinator. On 20 February 2020, Northern Beaches Council (“the Council”) issued a stop work order to stop building works being carried out at the site (“the order”). The order is a type of development control order and is issued pursuant to s 9.34(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”), which allows a development control order to be given in accordance with the table to Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the EPA Act. It was issued because the Council was concerned that the works being undertaken at the property were not undertaken in accordance with the EPA Act, in that they were not consistent with the development consent 127/06 (“the consent”) for the carrying out of the development and the subsequent construction certificate CC2018/0826 (“the construction certificate”) in respect of the consent. The order was issued to the owner of the land, Zoro Developments Pty Ltd (“Zoro”). Zoro appeals against the order, pursuant to s 8.18 of the EPA Act.
-
The order is issued pursuant to Item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 5, which allows an order to be issued to “stop building work or subdivision work carried out in contravention of this Act”, but only if the building work or subdivision work is carried out “in contravention of this Act” or “in a manner that would affect the support of adjoining premises”. It can be issued to the owner of the land, or any person “apparently engaged in the work”.
-
In the reasons for giving the order, the Council identified the following works that it considered were not consistent with the development consent:
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches 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
- [2020] NSWLEC 1349
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and whether its decision was rationally connected to the evidence presented. Zoro contended that the council had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the development proposal and had erred in its application of the statutory criteria. The court needed to determine if these contentions had merit and whether the council's decision was therefore invalid.
The court examined the statutory framework governing development applications and the principles of administrative law relevant to reviewing the council's decision. It considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and assessed whether the council's decision-making process was procedurally fair and whether the decision itself was reasonable. The court concluded that the council had appropriately applied the statutory criteria and that its decision was supported by the evidence. Therefore, the court dismissed Zoro's application for judicial review and upheld the council's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Refer to orders at [92] 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.