Hanna v Wollondilly Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1372

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v Wollondilly Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1372 Hearing dates: 10-11 June 2021 Date of orders: 25 June 2021 Decision date: 25 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: The Court orders are at [100]. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – use of unauthorised works being a retaining wall – visual amenity BUILDING INFORMATION CERTIFICATE – regularise unauthorised works – streetscape character – visual amenity – landscaping Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.4, 1.5, 4.2, 4.15, 4.16, 4.69, 6.25, 8.7, 8.25 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 49 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, cll 2.29 and 2.30 Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011, cl 2.3 Texts Cited: Wollondilly Development Control Plan 2016 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Hanna (Applicant) Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Reid (Applicant) A Menyhart (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors: Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors & Attorneys (Applicant) BAL Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/363134 2021/125038 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: The Development Application (DA) 2019/493/1 appeal (2020/363134) seeks removal of conditions 1.3 and 1.4 in the consent provided by Wollondilly Shire Council (hereafter the Council) for the use of unauthorised works, being a retaining wall, on Lot 43 DP 270375, also known as 14 Lookout Drive, Orangeville (hereafter the site). 2. Also considered by the Court, is the appeal (2021/125038) against the deemed refusal of a Building Information Certificate (BIC) application 111.2019.47.001 by Council, which seeks to certify the unauthorised retaining wall on the western boundary of the site, a fence above this structure and eight (8) rainwater tanks surrounding the existing shed. 3. The two appeals are interrelated in their contentions and consideration of the works not lawfully commenced. Therefore, the appeals are considered together, although separately determined below.