Boensch v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWSC 836

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Boensch v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWSC 836 Hearing dates: 2/07/2012 Decision date: 26 July 2012 Before: Fullerton J Decision: The amended summons is dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - review of Council decision - whether Council had power to install parking restriction signs - no stopping sign - permissive parking sign - procedural fairness - regulate traffic - prescribed traffic control device Legislation Cited: Local Government Act 1993 Roads Act 1993 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 Transport Administration Act 1988 Cases Cited: Bryden v Minister for Lands [2011] NSWSC 945 Davies v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2003] NSWSC 840; 58 NSWLR 535 Lane Cove Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2001] NSWSC 30; 50 NSWLR 714 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Franz Boensch (Plaintiff) Parramatta City Council (Defendant) Representation: MJ Heath (Plaintiff) SJ Free (Defendant) John Byrnes & Associates (Plaintiff) Maddocks Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2012/108193

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: By amended summons dated 26 June 2012 the plaintiff seeks declarations and other relief in respect of the decision by the defendant, Parramatta City Council ("the Council"), to install parking restriction signs (consisting of a number of "No Stopping" signs and time limited permissive parking signs) on Mary's Lane, a cul de sac located at the rear of 251-255 Victoria Road Rydalmere ("the Laneway"). 2The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the property at 255 Victoria Road as trustee for a family trust. He is also a principal of two car repair businesses which operate from that address. The workshops associated with these businesses are accessed via a driveway on the northern side of the Laneway. It was common ground between the parties, and recognised by the Council at the time of making the decision the subject of review, that the plaintiff objected to the installation of the parking restriction signs because of what he claimed to be the need to have continued and unrestricted access to and use of the Laneway for business purposes, in particular to provide parking for vehicles that were left for repair, or after repair and prior to collection. Although the plaintiff's need for unrestricted access to and use of the Laneway was regarded by the Council as not without some merit, the Council gave greater weight to countervailing public interest considerations of various kinds, including the entry and egress of emergency vehicles to the Laneway and the competing needs of other businesses and landowners. In the result, and after determining that there were no legal prohibitions on the installation or placement of the parking restriction signs, the Council resolved that the signs should be installed at various specified places on the Laneway.