Sutherland Shire Council v Taylor

Introduction

1. By summons filed on 9 July 2025, Sutherland Shire Council (Council) seeks relief in respect of the failure of the respondent, Scott Taylor, to comply with the terms of an order given by Council on 26 February 2024 pursuant to ss 129 and 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (LGA) (the o****rder). Mr Taylor is the owner and occupier of Lot 1 DP397149, known as 31 Sunbury Street Sutherland NSW 2232 (the premises).

2. The order defined the following issue:

Issue: Accumulation of articles and items that is providing a harborage for vermin and insects, and the premises are in unsafe, unhealthy and unsightly conditions.

3. The order consisted of two orders, being orders no 10 (order no 10) and no 21 (order no 21) in the table in s 124 of the LGA.

4. Order no 10 relevantly provided:

To Do What:

1. Remove the accumulation of articles and items listed in Annexure A and as partially depicted in the photographs in Annexure B from those parts of your premises shown in Annexure C*, namely*:

a) Section A and Section B being the whole front yard of your premises; and

b) Section C being the area between the house and the side boundaries at your premises.

Reasons for Order No. 10:

(i) 1. The accumulation of the above articles and items listed in Annexure A and as partially depicted in the photographs in Annexure B at your premises creates unsightly conditions visible from a public place.

(ii) 2. The unsightly condition of your premises is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding properties and the general neighbourhood.

(iii) 3. Council is empowered to maintain the condition of private properties, particularly in circumstances where those private properties are having a detrimental impact on amenity.

5. The period for compliance with order no 10 for section A was two months from the date of the order, for section B four months from the date of the order, and for section C six months from the date of the order.

6. Order no 21 relevantly provided:

To Do What:

1. Remove the accumulation of articles and items listed in Annexure A and as partially depicted in the photographs in Annexure B from those parts of your premises shown in Annexure C*, namely:*

a) Section A and Section B being the whole front yard of your premises;

b) Section C being the area between the house and the side boundaries at your premises; and

c) Section D and Section E being the whole backyard of your premises.

Reasons for Order no. 21:

1. Your premises are not in a safe and healthy condition for the following reasons.

a) The accumulation of articles and items listed in Annexure A and as partially depicted in the photographs in Annexure B throughout your premises, by way of their nature and density, provides a harbourage for vermin and insects;

b) The accumulation of these articles and items creates a fire hazard;

c) These articles and items are stored in a dangerous manner, i.e. on top of each other and reach a height in some places in excess of one metre above ground level. The articles and items are not secured and as such, could move or shift, causing them to fall and damage persons or property; and

d) These articles and items are stored so densely that this does not permit the free and safe movement of people or emergency services around your premises.

2. The unsafe and unhealthy condition of your premises is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding properties and the general neighbourhood.

3. Council is empowered to maintain the safety and health of private properties, particularly in the circumstances where those private properties are having a detrimental impact on amenity.

7. The period for compliance with order no 21 for section A was two months from the date of the order, for section B four months from the date of the order, for section C six months from the date of the order, for section D eight months from the date of the order, and for section C ten months from the date of the order.

8. The items listed in annexure A to the order were as follows:

a) Empty plastic containers;

b) Plastic containers filled with various items;

c) Ice-cream containers;

d) Styrofoam boxes;

e) Cardboard boxes;

f) Various garbage bins filled with various items;

g) Various pieces of steel and metal products;

h) Various white plumbing pipes;

i) Various flyscreen fittings;

j) Various screen doors;

k) Bikes and bike parts;

l) Various plant pots

m) Various buckets and baskets i.e. laundry baskets, cleaning buckets;

n) Various milk grates;

o) Various container lids;

p) Plastic bags filled with various items;

q) Paint cans;

r) Ladders;

s) Brooms;

t) Glass panels;

u) Various chairs;

v) Vehicle tyres;

w) BBQ's;

x) Body boards and surf boards;

y) Fishing rods and tackle box;

z) Bricks;

aa) Electrical cords;

bb) Gardening tools i.e. rakes and lawnmowers; shovels; watering cans:

cc) Wheelbarrows;

dd) Kitchen appliances. fittings and utensils i.e. sink, pots. bowls,

chopping boards;

ee) Rubber mats;

ff) Various fencing panels;

gg) Various wooden panels;

hh) Chemical containers;

i) Plastic bottles;

jj) Piles of cut tree branches;

kk) Piles of tree branches;

ll) Tennis balls; and

mm) Motor vehicles and parts.

9. The first two photographs in annexure B to the order are reproduced below:

10. Annexure C to the order which shows the sections identified in order no 10 and order no 21, is reproduced below**:**

11. Council seeks a declaration that the respondent has breached orders no 10 and 21 in the table in s 124 of the LGA issued to the respondent on 26 February 2024 in respect of the premises, and that the respondent has breached the LGA as the respondent has failed, within the required periods noted in the order, to comply with the terms of the applicant’s order, “i.e. by removing the accumulation of articles and items listed in Annexure A to the Applicant’s Order”.

12. Council also seeks an order pursuant to s 673(1) of the LGA that the respondent remedy the breach of the order and the LGA by doing the things specified in the applicant’s order within a period of 3 months of the date of these orders (order 2). If the respondent fails to comply with order 2 within 3 months, order 3 provides that Council may exercise its functions under s 678(10) of the LGA to do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the applicant’s order (the w****orks). Orders 4 to 11 relate to the carrying out by Council of the works. Council also seeks its expenses and costs of carrying out the works pursuant to order 3, and its costs of the proceedings.

13. In his response to summons filed on 11 February 2026, Mr Taylor conceded that the condition of his property “does require the removal of excessive materials which have built up over a long period of time”, but that the course of action proposed by Council will leave him “with a high financial burden with associated stress which is already impacting [his] mental wellbeing”. He said that he has been using additional kerbside cleanups and offsite bins at an apartment block to which he has access to remove items. Whilst this process has been slow, Mr Taylor said that his “ultimate goal is to personally complete the cleanup [himself] to give [him] the sense of achievement [he needs] to change [his] long term destructive habit”.

14. The hearing proceeded on 18 May 2026. Ms Berglund appeared for Council. Mr Taylor appeared without legal representation. Mr Taylor frankly acknowledged that he has failed to comply with order no 10 and order no 21, and admitted that he has a “problem”, especially when he gets stressed and depressed.

15. Mr Taylor gave some short evidence at the hearing and made submissions. He did not seek to cross-examine Council’s Environment Health Officer Kristy Phillips. He sought only to respond to a recent complaint sent to Ms Phillips on 8 May 2026 by a neighbour stating that “he comes home every day, without fail, with more things”. The main issue at the hearing was the period within which Mr Taylor ought to be required to remedy the breach of the order. Council contended that a period of 3 months was appropriate. Mr Taylor said that he would need 6 to 9 months to carry out the works, allowing for winter and increased rainfall, and allowing him to continue his activities as a volunteer upon which he depends for his mental health and for his meals and groceries. He also requested that Council assist by providing more than the annual allowance of two cleanups, and said that he would suffer a “financial hit” if required to carry out the clean-up in three months.

Issues for determination

16. Council identified the issues for determination as:

17. Whether order no 10 and order no 21 were validly given to Mr Taylor in accordance with the provisions of the LGA?

18. Whether it is appropriate for the Court to order Mr Taylor carry out the works required by the order in light of the state of the premises and the history of the premises?

19. If Mr Taylor fails to carry out the works within a reasonable period (which Council says is three months from the date of any order of the Court), whether it is appropriate to order Council to carry out the works?

20. If ordered to carry out the works, whether Council should be compensated for its costs and expenses in accordance with s 678(6) of the LGA?

The state of the premises

17. The proceedings relate to residential premises at 31 Sunbury Street, Sutherland. A dwelling house with a separate garage is located on the premises, and there is a nature reserve between the premises and Sunbury Street. The respondent, Mr Taylor, has owned the premises since 1987.

18. Since about 2010, Mr Taylor has been gradually accumulating articles and items at the premises. Since 2013, Council has received numerous complaints regarding the condition of the premises. A chronology included in the Court Book demonstrates that there has been a long history of complaints and of Council involvement in relation to the accumulation of articles and items at the premises.

19. In 2016, Council’s Environment Health Officer Ms Phillips was assigned to investigate the complaints. Ms Phillips has remained the primary contact officer for the premises. Details of Council’s ongoing actions and efforts in relation to the premises are provided in Ms Phillips’ affidavit and the chronology. These actions have been extensive and include significant efforts on the part of Council over several years to work with Mr Taylor to resolve the accumulation of articles and items on Mr Taylor’s premises before commencing these proceedings.

20. Between 2016 and 2023, Ms Phillips:

(a) inspected the premises on several occasions and took photographs; (b) had numerous conversations with Mr Taylor regarding the state of the premises and his representations lodged with Council; (c) liaised with the complainants; (d) liaised with Hopefield, a community-based organisation which provides professional support for people experiencing mental health challenges; (e) liaised with Fire and Rescue NSW seeking assistance: (f) liaised with Council's in-house community team seeking assistance; (g) organised Council’s clean-ups of the premises on behalf of Mr Taylor; and (h) issued notices of intention to give an order and orders requiring Mt Taylor to clean up the premises, as well as the adjoining public land.

21. As a result of the accumulation of articles and items, Council contends and Mr Taylor accepts that the premises are not in a safe and healthy condition because they:

(a) provide an environment for the harbourage of vermin and insect; (b) are a fire hazard; (c) are unsafe due to the unsafe storage of the articles and items; and (d) are blocked by the articles and items not permitting the free and safe movement of people around the premises (including emergency services).

22. The accumulation of articles and items has extended beyond the boundary of the premises onto public land.

23. Council contends and Mr Taylor accepts that the unsafe and unhealthy condition of the premises is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding properties and the general neighbourhood.

No approval for use

24. There is no approval for the use of the premises for the accumulation and storage of articles and items in the manner being undertaken by Mr Taylor.

25. The use of the premises involving the storage of the articles and items which have accumulated is not:

(a) exempt development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP 2015); (b) ancillary to the residential use of the premises: or (c) a permissible land use within the SSLEP 2015.

The Order: order no 10 and order no 21

26. On 14 December 2023, Ms Phillips inspected the premises. She observed that the premises remained in an unsafe and unhealthy condition.

27. On 8 January 2024, Ms Phillips issued a notice of intention to issue orders (Ref: NOT15120).

28. On 22 January 2024, Council received representations from Mr Taylor in response to Council’s notice of intention to issue orders, which representations were considered by Ms Phillips.

29. On 15 February 2024, Ms Phillips attended the premises and observed that there was no noticeable reduction in the articles and items stored on the premises. Ms Phillips discussed the proposed orders with Mr Taylor.

30. On 26 February 2024. Ms Phillips gave the order to Mr Taylor.

31. Council contends and Mr Taylor accepted that since the commencement of these proceedings on 9 July 2025, there has been no improvement, and that the premises remain in an unsafe and unhealthy condition, adversely affecting neighbourhood amenity.

The statutory scheme

32. In Part 2 “Orders” of Chapter 7 “What are the regulatory functions of councils?”, s 124 of the LGA provides that a council may order a person to do or refrain from doing a thing specified in Column 1 of the Table if the circumstances specified in Column 2 of the Table exist and the person comes within the description in Column 3 of the Table. The Table in s 124 relevantly provides:

33. Section 132(1) requires council, before giving an order, to give notice to the person to whom the order is proposed to be given of its intention to give the order, the terms of the proposed order and the period proposed to be specified as the period within which the order is to be complied with. A council must give the person to whom an order is directed the reasons for the order: s 136(1). The reasons may be given in the order or in a separate instrument: s 136(2).

34. In Part 2 “Entry on to land and other powers” of Chapter 8 “What ancillary functions does a council have”, s 191(1) provides a power of entry of a council employee (or other person) authorised by a council to enter any premises for the purpose of enabling a council to exercise its functions. Entry may only be made at any reasonable hour in the daytime or at any hour during which business is in progress or is usually carried on at the premises: s 191(2). The powers of entry and inspection conferred by Part 2 are not exercisable in relation to that part of any premises being used for residential purposes except (a) with the permission of the occupier of that part of the premises, or (b) if entry is necessary for the purpose of inspecting work being carried out under an approval, or (c) under the authority conferred by a search warrant.

35. In accordance with s 673(1), the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive or a council may bring proceedings in the Land and Environment Court or such other court as may be specified in the Act for the purpose of the proceedings for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of the Act.

36. Section 678(1) provides that if a person fails to comply with the terms of an order given to the person under Part 2 of Chapter 7, the council may do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the order, including the carrying out of any work required by the order. Any expenses incurred by the council under s 678 (less the proceeds, if any, of any sale under the section) together with all its associated costs may be recovered by the council in any court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the council by the person concerned: s 678(6). A council may exercise its functions under s 678 irrespective of whether the person concerned has been prosecuted for an offence under s 628. In any proceedings before the Land and Environment Court that are brought by a council against a person as a result of the person’s failure to comply with an order under Part 2 of Chapter 7, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order the council to exercise the council’s functions under s 678; having made such an order, the Court may continue to hear and determine the proceedings or may dismiss the proceedings: s 678(10).

Mr Taylor’s position

37. In his Response to Summons dated 16 January 2026, Mr Taylor said as follows:

- The condition of my property does require the removal of excessive materials which have built up over a long period of time. These items provide me with both a sole source of income & allow me to repair & donate to charity outlets.

- The proposed council action will leave me with a huge financial burden with associated stress which is already impacting my mental wellbeing.

- With the previous assistance of additional kerb side cleanups I have been able to remove several cubic metres of items from the site. Additionally I have access every Tuesday to offsite bins at a apartment block which I utilise.

- Further access to additional kerb side cleanups will allow me to continue the clean up with minimal impact on Councils finances.

- The proposed council lead cleanup being highly labour intensive resulting in the bulk of the resulting costs, I feel my continuing removal of items whilst slow will not leave me with the financial burden & ultimately return the property to a condition acceptable to Council & complainants.

- As previously discussed my volunteer work does take me away from the cleanup but has a positive impact on my mental health, self worth, gives me social contact & most importantly stops me collecting.

- Whilst my progress is slow & frustrating for the council I continue to clean up. My neighbour at 29 has booked a cleanup for February which I can use to assist me.

- My ultimate goal is to personally complete the cleanup myself to give me the sense of achievement I need to change my long term destructive habit.

- With further ongoing support of the Council we can achieve this goal.

38. In his oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Taylor confirmed that he was made redundant in 2019 after 40 years of work at Sydney airport and that that had triggered a “fair bit of stress” because he had expected to continue in employment there until his retirement. Since being made redundant, he has suffered “a lot of stress and depression”.

39. At the age of 67, he is not yet eligible for a pension or his superannuation, and is not eligible for Centrelink. He owns another property at Forster which is unencumbered and which is occupied by his niece and her partner who are also in difficult financial circumstances. He receives no income from that property, although it is treated as an investment property. He currently lives on about $30 to $35 per week, and relies on income he receives from collecting bottles and cans for Return and Earn, from collecting scrap metal which he takes to a scrap metal yard, and from repairing items like bicycles and electrical goods that he has collected and which he donates to “the Salvos”. He says this is “just a way of keeping busy and keeping me sane”, and that he has “a problem with stress”.

40. Mr Taylor engages in volunteer work which he says is important for his mental health and which provides him with food. He volunteers at the Salvation Army at Miranda on Tuesdays and Thursdays from approximately midday to 7pm. He volunteers at a food relief organisation, One Meal, “for a couple of hours” at Miranda on Tuesday, Engadine on Wednesday and Sutherland on Sunday. He is provided with meals and groceries by One Meal. He says that if he is not provided with sufficient time to remove the accumulated items, he will be unable to engage in the volunteer work which he says is important for his mental health and which provides him with food.

41. Mr Taylor expressed appreciation for the assistance which he has received from Council over the past years in arranging contact with Hopefield who set up “some very good structured things” for him to follow up that was of great assistance and in providing additional kerbside cleanups above the normal allocation. Ordinarily, a cleanup removes 3m3 of items, however Council had undertaken cleanups for him involving the removal of 6-7m3 of accumulated items. Mr Taylor also referred to the caretaker of a nearby apartment block who allows him to use their recycling bins to dispose of recyclables.

42. In response to the recent complaint from a neighbour sent to Ms Phillips on 8 May 2026 that “he comes home every day, without fail, with more things”, Mr Taylor said that he had “hardly brought anything back in the last probably two months”, only things he could take away the next day and drop off to the charity toy shop or to the Salvation Army. He was “really trying to be positive and not bring more stuff home”. His aim was “to get rid of stuff, not to bring more stuff home”. He was not out looking every day for items to bring home. He believed that the neighbour might have been mistaken, and was referring to the two bags of food Mr Taylor brings home every week.

43. The “only thing” Mr Taylor asked for was for a longer time frame for the final cleanup, noting that he was “[o]bviously … trying to avoid the massive costs that could come [his] way”.

Council’s position

44. Council submitted that in the circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to make a declaration, and that a period of 3 months to comply with the order pursuant to s 673(1) of the LGA that the respondent remedy the breach of the applicant’s order and the LGA by doing the things specified in the applicant’s order (order 2) was appropriate.

45. In relation to the period of time for Mr Taylor to remove the accumulated articles and items, Ms Berglund submitted:

The council does maintain that it's fair to give Mr Taylor an additional three months. That's why the summons has been formulated that way. The difficulty with the proposal that the matter can be dealt with entirely by roadside, kerbside pickups, additional council pickups, the council can certainly facilitate some additional pickups. There isn't the capacity within the council to do it every day for … three months or every week. My concern with this is Mr Taylor gave some evidence that the last council clean up that was arranged or that he arranged that he anticipated that about 6 to 7 square metres were put out, which is 3 square metres is an ordinary one, that's only about double.

46. Ms Berglund referred to an email from George Damah, the general manager of Rubbish Taxi, a company that deals with the removal of rubbish, dated 30 June 2023. In that email, Mr Damah said:

It is difficult to determine an exact cost as there is a fair bit of rubbish and a lot of it is concealed. I estimate approx.. 4-6 truckloads for what is outside the boundary line and on public property …

Our truckload rate is currently $900 + GST per load, however I’m happy to provide a rate of $800 + GST per load.

47. In a later email dated 10 November 2023, Mr Damah said that the cost of a 5 cubic metre truckload had increased to $1,000 plus GST. Ms Berglund also referred to an undated quotation from Rubbish Taxi based on the description and photos provided by Ms Phillips:

The accumulation of articles and items is throughout all external areas within the property boundaries which is approximately 430m2 and items are stored up to 1.5m above ground level on sections.

48. That quotation estimated the cost of removal to be between $90,000 and $120,000 plus GST. Ms Berglund submitted that Ms Phillips’ correspondence with Rubbish Taxi demonstrates that the volume of items required to be removed by Mr Taylor is a “vast number of 7-cubic-metre clean ups”, and noted that this is “double the council’s usual clean up amount”. Ms Berglund concluded that she had “some concern” with Mr Taylor’s ability to complete the cleanup himself:

I'm still instructed that the council is happy to give - and it's not council's job anymore but doesn't oppose three months to clean up, but any clean up is going to have to involve more than just relying on Mr Taylor's own labour and council pickup services, I suspect. And he would have an opportunity in three months to make those alternative arrangements if necessary. But I haven't heard anything which gives comfort from Mr Taylor's evidence that he would be able to comply even if the Court was minded to give six months without being willing to make some kind of - well, either to enlist some help or to make some other kind of commercial arrangement.

Conclusion

49. In Great Lakes Council v Lani; Great Lakes Council v Lani [1] (Lani) Preston CJ of LEC at [19] to [25] declined as a matter of discretion to make a declaration sought by Council. However, in Georges River Council v Faltas [2] (Faltas) and Greater Hume Shire Council v Pertzel [3] (Pertzel), Robson J (at [42]) and Beasley J (at [34]), whilst taking into account the chief judge’s remarks in Lani, each considered that the facts warranted making the declaration sought by Council.

50. As in Faltas and Pertzel, I consider that the long history of accumulating articles and items on the premises extending beyond the boundary of the premises onto public land, and the significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties and the general neighbourhood, warrant the making of the declaration sought by Council. A declaration would mark the Court’s disapproval of Mr Taylor’s non-compliance with the order, and it is in the public interest to make the declaration sought.

51. I am also satisfied that Council is entitled to relief pursuant to s 678 of the LGA such that it is appropriate to direct Council to carry out the works required by the applicant’s order should Mr Taylor fail to carry out the removal and de-accumulation otherwise ordered. Mr Taylor was courteous and cooperative during the hearing before me on 18 May 2026, and showed a genuine willingness to comply with Council’s order within a longer timeframe. However, whilst I have sympathy for his situation and acknowledge the contribution to the community he makes through his volunteer work, I share the concerns expressed by Council that Mr Taylor will require additional assistance beyond relying on Council kerbside cleanups and his access to the recycling bins at another apartment building in order to carry out the works. I consider that a period of 4 months would be reasonable in order for Mr Taylor to make arrangements and complete the removal works before Council is permitted to carry out the works itself.

Costs of the proceedings

52. In its summons filed on 9 July 2025, Council sought its costs of the proceedings. Neither party addressed me on costs during the hearing on 18 May 2026. Unless one of the parties notifies my chambers within seven days from the date of this decision that they wish to be heard on the question of costs of the proceedings, I will make no order as to costs.

Orders

53. The Court makes the following orders:

54. The Court declares that Scott Taylor, having received an order issued by Sutherland Shire Council (Council) on 26 February 2024 pursuant to section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (the order) in respect of Lot 1 DP397149, known as 31 Sunbury Street Sutherland NSW 2232 (the premises), has breached the Local Government Act 1993 in that Mr Taylor has failed to comply with the terms of the order by removing the articles and items specified in the order within the stipulated periods for compliance.

55. Pursuant to s 673(1) of the Local Government Act, Mr Taylor to remedy the breach of the order and the Local Government Act by completing the removal works specified in the order (the works) within a period of four months of the date of these orders.

56. If Mr Taylor fails to comply with order 2, Council may exercise its functions under s 678(10) of the Local Government Act to do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the order.

57. For the purposes of order 3, Council, its servants and agents, shall be entitled to enter and remain at the premises to carry out the works during weekdays between the hours of 8:00am to 5:00pm.

58. Three days before Council intends to carry out the works, a sealed copy of these orders to be served on Mr Taylor by placing the orders in a sealed clear soft plastic pocket in Mr Taylor’s letterbox located on the premises.

59. Mr Taylor to provide access to the premises by unlocking any doors (excluding doors to the dwelling), gates and fences by 7:30am and keep them unlocked until 5pm on the days the works are proposed.

60. If order 6 is not complied with, Council, its servants and agents, are permitted during the works to unlock and remove any doors (excluding doors to the dwelling), gates and fences on the premises in order to gain access to the premises to enable the works to be undertaken by Council.

61. Mr Taylor may remove from the premises or place within the dwelling house on the premises any object of value which he does not wish to be removed by Council, its servants and agents by 7:30am on the day when the works commence and are ongoing.

62. Mr Taylor, his servants and agents, to abstain from doing any act which might interfere with or impede the entry by Council, its servants and agents onto the premises and then remaining on the premises pursuant to these orders, and which might interfere with and impede Council, its servants and agents in complying with these orders, and Mr Taylor, his servants and agents, to stay a safe distance from any operating machinery and trucks brought by Council to the premises.

63. For the purposes of these orders, the articles and items referred to in order 1, which are located on the premises (apart from anything within the dwelling house) at 8:00am on the day when the works commence, to be considered “waste” within the meaning of section 743 of the Local Government Act.

64. Council, its servants and agents may cut vegetation at the premises if reasonably required to facilitate the works.

65. Any motor vehicle (unregistered) which is parked on the premises may be removed by an appropriate towing company to a recycling facility.

66. Pursuant to s 678(6) of the Local Government Act, if Council carries out the works pursuant to order 3, Mr Taylor to pay in full Council’s expenses and any associated costs of carrying out the works.

**********

Endnotes

(2007) 158 LGERA 1; [2007] NSWLEC 681.

[2025] NSWLEC 85.

[2026] NSWLEC 54.

Amendments

04 June 2026

Typographical error