Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Link copied
Case Copied 43 min read

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

Shi v ABI-K Pty Ltd (2014) 87 NSWLR 568; [2014] NSWCA 293

Texts Cited:

Building Code of Australia

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Lazarus SC (Applicant)
A Pickles SC (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/78744
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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.

  2. 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”.

  3. In the reasons for giving the order, the Council identified the following works that it considered were not consistent with the development consent:

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2020] NSWLEC 1349
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Zoro Developments Pty Ltd, a property developer, and the Northern Beaches Council. The dispute centred around the council's refusal to grant a particular development application, which Zoro sought to challenge. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Zoro argued that the council's decision was flawed and sought a review of that decision, claiming that the council had acted outside its statutory powers or in a manner that was unreasonable.

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.