Adelaide Hills Council has applauded a sentence handed down in the Environment, Resources and Development Court in relation to the construction of an unapproved shed in the local government area.
The Court was told the defendant in the case had originally sought approval to build the large shed on his Kersbrook property, which was refused in December 2024. Despite this, he proceeded with construction.
The man pleaded guilty to two offences under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016:
- Undertaking development without approval, namely the construction of a large shed after his development application had been refused by the relevant authority (CAP); and
- Failing to comply with an enforcement notice issued by Council requiring that the unauthorised structure be removed.
“It is relatively rare for Council to undertake prosecutions of this type however the offence was deemed serious with Council issuing multiple enforcement notices directing that the unlawful development cease and be removed,” the Council said in a statement.
“The defendant failed to comply with those directions and Council subsequently instigated prosecution.”
The sentence includes a significant penalty, with the Court recording convictions for both offences and making the following orders:
- A total fine of $22,000 (after the 40% discount for a guilty plea);
- Payment of Council’s prosecution costs ($2,111.73);
- Payment of court fees ($399) and a Victims of Crime levy ($556).
The fine and prosecution costs will both be paid to Council.
In sentencing, His Honour, Senior Judge Durrant, observed that breaches of this kind are often difficult and costly to detect and investigate, and that proper planning approval enables safe buildings, the protection of users of those buildings, and protects public amenity.
The offending was described as “brazen” and a “wanton disregard of the planning regime”, undertaken despite clear awareness that approval had been refused.
In recording a conviction, his Honour accepted that the defendant was of otherwise good character but considered the need for both general deterrence (to signal to the broader community that such conduct will not be tolerated) and specific deterrence.
