Blacktown City Council v Lacan Pty Limited and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 172

Blacktown City Council v Lacan Pty Limited and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 172

The four sheds were structures and therefore buildings; placing them on the land was the erection of buildings and the carrying out of development. The land was in a Residential 2(a) zone where the development required consent, and the sheds were not exempt development because the number and size of the sheds exceeded the relevant criteria. No complying development certificate had been issued, and the development consent granted on 1 March 2007 covered only two sheds and was subject to an unsatisfied deferred commencement condition, so it did not authorise the four sheds. Both Lacan Pty Limited and Jadranka Jambrecina carried out the development and were in breach of s 76A(1), justifying...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings to Remedy and Restrain a Breach of S 76 a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Ex Tempore Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Breach declared; respondents ordered to remove, demolish or dismantle the sheds, with the removal order stayed on terms to allow a development application and any appeal; respondents ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['carrying Out Development Without Consent' 'erection and Use of Sheds' 'exempt Development' 'complying Development Certificate' 'deferred Commencement Development Consent' 'removal Orders and Stay to Permit Development Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings to Remedy and Restrain a Breach of S 76 a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Ex Tempore Judgment and Orders After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether placing and using four sheds on the land involved the carrying out of development within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Whether that development required development consent and was exempt or complying development' 'Whether development consent or a complying development certificate authorised the sheds' 'Whether Lacan Pty Limited and Jadranka Jambrecina were persons who carried out development contrary to s 76A(1)' 'What remedial orders should be made and whether removal should be stayed to allow a development application']

Ratio Decidendi

The four sheds were structures and therefore buildings; placing them on the land was the erection of buildings and the carrying out of development. The land was in a Residential 2(a) zone where the development required consent, and the sheds were not exempt development because the number and size of the sheds exceeded the relevant criteria. No complying development certificate had been issued, and the development consent granted on 1 March 2007 covered only two sheds and was subject to an unsatisfied deferred commencement condition, so it did not authorise the four sheds. Both Lacan Pty Limited and Jadranka Jambrecina carried out the development and were in breach of s 76A(1), justifying...

Court Disposition

Breach declared; respondents ordered to remove, demolish or dismantle the sheds, with the removal order stayed on terms to allow a development application and any appeal; respondents ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['Declares that the existing development on Lot 258 DP 39455, known as 29 Knox Road, Doonside, comprising 4 sheds each approximately 4m long x 3m wide is a breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Orders that each of the Respondents remove the sheds from the property or demolish or dismantle...