Snowy Monaro Regional Council v Cmunt [2017] NSWLEC 95

Snowy Monaro Regional Council v Cmunt [2017] NSWLEC 95

The Court found that the Prevention Notice, Structures Order and Advertising Sign Order were served on the respondents and remained effective because they were not appealed or declared invalid. The respondents failed to comply with the Prevention Notice by keeping more than two dogs at the property and not taking the required preventative action, which breached the POEO Act. They failed to comply with the Structures Order and Advertising Sign Order, which breached the EPA Act. The identified structures and advertising sign also required development consent and were not exempt development under the applicable planning instruments, so their erection involved breaches of s 76A(1) of the EPA...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application substantially granted; declarations, injunctions, default Council work orders and costs ordered against the respondents.
Legal Topics
['prevention Notice' 'council Orders' 'service of Statutory Notices and Orders' 'failure to Comply With Statutory Notice and Orders' 'unauthorised Development' 'exempt Development' 'civil Enforcement' 'injunctive Relief' 'declarations' 'costs']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'local Government'] ['prevention Notice' 'council Orders' 'service of Statutory Notices and Orders' 'failure to Comply With Statutory Notice and Orders' 'unauthorised Development' 'exempt Development' 'civil Enforcement' 'injunctive Relief' 'declarations' 'costs']

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 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Prevention Notice under s 96 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 was served on the respondents.' 'Whether the Structures Order and Advertising Sign Order under s 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were served on the respondents.' 'Whether the respondents failed to comply with the Prevention Notice by keeping more than two dogs at the property and not taking required preventative action.' 'Whether the respondents failed to comply with the Structures Order by not removing the identified structures.' 'Whether the erection of the identified structures required development consent or was exempt development.' 'Whether the respondents failed to comply with the Advertising Sign Order by not removing the advertisements and advertising structure.' 'Whether the erection and display of the advertising sign required development consent or was exempt development.' 'What declaratory, injunctive and costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Prevention Notice, Structures Order and Advertising Sign Order were served on the respondents and remained effective because they were not appealed or declared invalid. The respondents failed to comply with the Prevention Notice by keeping more than two dogs at the property and not taking the required preventative action, which breached the POEO Act. They failed to comply with the Structures Order and Advertising Sign Order, which breached the EPA Act. The identified structures and advertising sign also required development consent and were not exempt development under the applicable planning instruments, so their erection involved breaches of s 76A(1) of the EPA...

Court Disposition

Application substantially granted; declarations, injunctions, default Council work orders and costs ordered against the respondents.

Orders

  • ['Declared that the respondents failed to comply with the Prevention Notice dated 7 August 2015 under s 96 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 for 12 Kiparra Drive, Berridale.' 'Ordered the respondents, within 60 days, to cease keeping dogs on the premises.' 'Declared that the respondents failed...