Shellharbour City Council v Cooper

b. is located forward of the 4.5m front building line setback contrary to Section 3.5.3 (2)(iv) of the Shell Cove Development Control Plan .

c. is not visually attractive and does not blend with surrounding development because the external materials are not integrated with the design of the dwelling contrary to Section 3.15 of the Shell Cove Development Control Plan .

d. bulk, height and location obstructs views of the footpath and street in an easterly direction lowering pedestrian and vehicular safety as vehicles leave the western adjoining property

e. is located partially on the footpath reserve. 8 The order stated that the respondents had a right of appeal to this Court within 28 days of the service of the order. The order noted that failure to comply with it was an offence under s 125 of the EPAA. The order set out the maximum penalties for the offence. It also advised that if the order was not complied with, the respondents could be liable for a penalty infringement notice of $1,500. 9 No development consent has ever been obtained by the respondents or anyone else authorising development for the purpose of the storage of a shipping container on the property. 10 It is clear from the applicable legislative instruments that development consent is required for the purpose of storage of the shipping container on the property. So much so is apparent from the definition of "temporary structure" and "building" contained in s 4(1) of the EPAA. Furthermore, because the property falls under the Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000 ("the LEP"), and in particular, is located within Zone 2 (f) (the Mixed Use Residential F Zone under that instrument), subcls 2-5 of cl 24 of that LEP provide the following general controls for development on the land within the zone: (2) Objectives of the zone (a) To allow for mixed use residential neighbourhoods to be developed providing for a range of household preferences and needs.

(b) To enable the development of a regional boat harbour facility and associated commercial and recreational activities. (3) Allowed without development consent Exempt development and development for the purpose of: home-based child care; home businesses; home occupations (excluding an occupation or industry involving the handling or preparation (or both) of food for sale or the carrying out of skin penetration procedures as defined in the Public Health Act 1991 ). (4) Allowed only with development consent Development not included in subclause (3) or (5). (5) Prohibited in the zone Development for the purpose of: advertisements not displaying the purpose for which the land is used; amusements parks; animal boarding, breeding or training establishments; aquaculture; brothels; car repair stations; extractive industries; gas holders that are not ancillary to an allowable use or a use granted consent; generating works; heavy industries; heliports; institutions; intensive horticulture; intensive livestock keeping; junk yards; light industries (other than those associated with and including boat manufacture or repair); liquid fuel depots; mineral sand mines; mines; motor showrooms (other than for caravans, boats or trailers); offensive or hazardous industries; plantation forestry; racecourses; roadside stalls; road transport terminals; rural industries; sawmills; stock and sale yards; timber yards; turf farms; warehouses; waste management facilities or works. 11 It is clear having regard to the terms of the LEP that development for the purpose of the storage of a shipping container is not exempt development. Accordingly, as the council asserts, the respondents have breached s 76A(1) of the EPAA by failing to obtain consent. Conclusion and Orders 12 Having regard to the uncontested evidence contained in the statement in support before me I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought. Accordingly, I make the orders in terms of the consent orders that have been signed by both the council and Mr Paul Cooper and Ms Antonia Cooper. 13 The orders that the Court makes are as follows: 1. Declaration that the respondents have: (a) carried out development on land described as Lot 2051 DP 871363 known as 38 Brindabella Drive, Shell Cove ("Land") for the purpose of storage of a shipping container ("Structure"), being development which may only be carried out with development consent; and

(b) breached section 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("EPAA") by carrying out that development on the Land without first obtaining development consent. 2. Declaration that the respondents have breached the EPAA by failing to comply with an order given to them by the applicant on 3 February 2010 under s 121B of that Act in respect of the Land.

3. Order that the first and second respondents and each of them by themselves, their servants or agents, remove the Structure and its contents from the Land within 28 days of the date of this order.

4. Order that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.