Cessnock City Council v Heslop & Anor [1989] NSWLEC 199

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Cessnock City Council v Heslop & Anor [1989] NSWLEC 199 APPLICANT Cessnock City Council PARTIES : RESPONDENT Heslop & Anor FILE NUMBER(S) : 40246 of 1988 CORAM: Cripps J KEY ISSUES: :- LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act 1919 CASES CITED: Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic 63 LGRA 361; Fatsel Pty Limited & Anor v ACR Trading Pty Limited & Anor [No 3] 64 LGRA 117 DATES OF HEARING: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/1989

APPLICANT Mr Wilson RESPONDENT Mr McEwan LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

JUDGMENT:

His Honour: On 27 October 1988, the Council of the City of Cessnock commenced proceedings in the Class 4 jurisdiction of the Court against Daryl William Heslop and Phillipa Heslop seeking orders that the respondents be restrained from using their land in breach of conditions of a development consent granted by the Council on 23 December 1987. It also sought orders that the respondents be restrained from allowing entry or exit by vehicles from the southern portion of their land on to Ingles Lane, Pokolbin in breach of the consent granted.

On 23 December 1987, the Council granted development consent for extensions and renovations to an existing restaurant ("Hunters Retreat") subject to certain conditions as follows:

Road intersection shall be closed by permanent the lodgment of the relevant building 13. All driveways, access corridors and carparking and in Parking Construction Guidelines, Site Drainage" available from proposed works shall be submitted and approved a 14. All redundant vehicular accesses are to be and the footpath, road shoulders and match existing conditions at no cost to when the new vehicular crossings are 15. The applicant shall construct a heavy duty edge boundary applicants complained in early 1987 that the respondents had illegally constructed a vehicular crossing in breach of s 224 of the Local Government Act in circumstances the Council considered dangerous. Upon being notified of the development consent, the respondents wrote to the Council and admitted that they had constructed the unauthorised exit. They denied it was dangerous and said they would appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the imposition of the condition concerning the exit. There are two means of ingress and egress to th e subject land. The subject litigation concerns the southern exit.)