Anderson v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 61

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Anderson v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 61 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 28 February 2017 Decision date: 28 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The decision by Tweed Shire Council to disclose the information referred to as document 7 and described as "2 February - Advice provided by Mr G Ritchie" is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – access application – whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice third person's interests Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Cases Cited: Salmon v Corrective Services NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 257 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ross Anderson (Applicant) Tweed Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Doyle Edwards Anderson Lawyers (Applicant) P Brack - Agent (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00378377

REASON FOR DECISION 1. The Applicant applied to the Tweed Shire Council ("the Council") under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act") seeking access to: all records pertaining to the submission of DA16/0093. 1. In his access application he also noted: This is a strata Building and I believe it is in everyone's interest and especially Lot owners (rate payers) that all correspondence should be transparent. The governance of a Strata Scheme implies this."

Background to the Access Application 1. The Applicant is the owner of a residential lot in a mixed use strata scheme. Mr Grant Ritchie and Ms Melanie Ritchie ("the Ritchies") are the owners of several retail/commercial premises in the scheme. Those lots are leased and businesses are conducted from those lots. 2. In early 2016 an application for development ("development application") was lodged with the Council in relation to one of the Ritchies' lots. The proposed development was for a barber shop. The Ritchies consented to the making of the development application. 3. The Applicant asserts that the development application related to both lot property and common property. A lot owner, or tenant, or occupier has no authority to carry out any alterations, additions or otherwise do any work to common property, without authority from the owners corporation. The Applicant also asserts that the owner of the common property, the owners corporation, was never requested to provide consent to the works or to the development application and therefore it did not provide consent. 4. The Council issued development consent in April 2016. The Applicant asserts that the owners corporation had no knowledge of the development application or the proposed works until after the development consent had been granted. The Applicant also asserts that the consent required the owners corporation to undertake works to the common property and that this required a special resolution authorising the carrying out of the works.