A recent case in the Land and Environment Court has upheld a Council’s refusal to approve a number of security cameras on a heritage listed property in Surry Hills. The case was Szann v Council of the City of Sydney [2012] NSWLEC 1168.
In this case, a condition of consent imposed by the council was that:
Details of the approved cameras, their precise location and field of vision shall be submitted and be approved by Council prior to their installation. The type of camera to be used and their positioning shall be such as to minimise the view of the public domain and adjacent properties. The cameras shall be of a fixed lens type.
Under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the applicant appealed the condition that was imposed on the development consent. The applicant sought to install cameras that can pan from side to side and with zoom functions which went against the condition of consent. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the condition of consent stating that the amenity and privacy of adjoining neighbours outweighed the landowners desire for this type of surveillance camera.
This case illustrates that conditions of consent can be valid even if they are of a significantly prescriptive nature.
MatthewsFolbigg Lawyers, Parramatta, are specialist environmental lawyers who are able to advise in relation to all matters relating to governance, planning and environmental law. Call an expert environmental lawyer today on 1800 300 308.
