Liverpool City Council v Tirnova [2017] NSWLEC 138

Liverpool City Council v Tirnova [2017] NSWLEC 138

The Court found the Respondents breached s 76A(1) of the EPA Act by erecting structures without development consent and, after considering discretionary factors including hardship, delay, fairness, public interest, and the need for orderly enforcement of planning law—particularly in flood-prone areas—ordered the demolition of the extension within twelve months and demolition of the front fence within ninety days, but allowed the sea wall to remain and made no order as to costs.

Parties
Applicant: Liverpool City Council; First Respondent: Mr Eyup Tirnova; Second Respondent: Mrs Gonul Tirnova; Third Respondent: Ms Rabia Tirnova
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration of breach, orders for demolition (extension and fence), no order as to costs, sea wall allowed to remain.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Unauthorised Building Works, Flood Plain Management, Local Environmental Plans, Civil Enforcement
Environmental Law Planning Law Development Consent Unauthorised Building Works Flood Plain Management Local Environmental Plans Civil Enforcement

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liverpool City Council

Applicant

Mr Eyup Tirnova

First Respondent

Mrs Gonul Tirnova

Second Respondent

Ms Rabia Tirnova

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension, sea wall, and front fence were erected without development consent contrary to s 76A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise discretion to grant demolition orders
  3. 3 Whether Liverpool City Council engaged in conduct disentitling it from relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Respondents breached s 76A(1) of the EPA Act by erecting structures without development consent and, after considering discretionary factors including hardship, delay, fairness, public interest, and the need for orderly enforcement of planning law—particularly in flood-prone areas—ordered the demolition of the extension within twelve months and demolition of the front fence within ninety days, but allowed the sea wall to remain and made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Declaration of breach, orders for demolition (extension and fence), no order as to costs, sea wall allowed to remain.

Orders

  • Declaration that the First Respondent carried out development (extension, sea wall, fence) without consent in breach of s 76A EPA Act.
  • Order that the boundary fence be demolished within 90 days, materials removed to lawful waste facility, and receipts provided.