Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ash v Shoalhaven City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1279
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 June 2020
Date of orders: 30 June 2020
Decision date: 30 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to section 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development control order issued by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 4 February 2020 is modified in accordance with the development control order at Annexure 'A'.
(3) Each party shall pay its own costs of these proceedings.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Neil Francis Ash (Applicant)
Shoalhaven City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
N Ash (Litigant in Person) (Applicant)
M Winram (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/85868
Publication restriction: No
Judgment
1. COMMISSIONER: Neil Francis Ash (the Applicant) has appealed the decision of Shoalhaven City Council (the Respondent) to issue a Demolish Works Order dated 4 February 2019, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).
2. The Demolish Works Order was works undertaken without development consent at Lot 132 DP 11629 Inglewood Crescent, Tomerong (the Subject Site).
3. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.18 of the EP&A Act, and falls within Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction.
4. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which has been held on 16 June 2020 by teleconference, and I have presided over the conciliation conference.
5. 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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the Applicant's modification application, subject to conditions.
6. 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. The Parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 8.18(4)(b) of the EP&A Act to modify the Demolish Works Order, which is a general order made in accordance with the table in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the EP&A Act.
7. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.
8. I am satisfied that the Parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
9. As the Parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties' decision.
10. The Court orders:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Pursuant to section 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development control order issued by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 4 February 2020 is modified in accordance with the development control order at Annexure 'A'.
3. Each party shall pay its own costs of these proceedings.
……………………………..
M Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (179296, pdf)
**********
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 30 June 2020