However, this figure could well prove to be substantially higher as it only includes costs for the 2012-13 financial year. 

Findings against Bathurst Regional Council were handed down last Thursday after a lengthy case which centred on the installation of a new, bigger swimming pool and a retaining wall at a residence in Mckell Street.

The crux of the dispute between Bhakti Manning, council and Ms Manning’s neighbour was that council had not advised her of the pending development, the first development application involving the pool and the second DA for the retaining wall.

Ms Manning claimed the development had intruded on the aesthetic value of her outlook over the neighbour’s fence.

And in an added twist to the story, Justice Rachel Pepper used the rarely applied Wednesbury unreasonableness principle in that council’s actions in the matter were so unreasonable that no reasonable council could have acted in that way.

The judgment describes the decisions of council as “irrational, perverse and bizarre”.

As a result, the owners of the property next to Ms Manning have been ordered to pull the retaining wall down within 60 days. However, the pool can stay.

In a written statement regarding the finding, Ms Manning stated it is a most damning finding.

“What is disturbing, is that this finding was made, not just for one decision, by one planning officer, but for a second decision on a second DA,” Ms Manning wrote.

“When I complained to council in regard to the matter, and asked them to rectify it, the Director of Planning wrote to me, defending the decision and assuring me that quote: ‘Council is satisfied that the development consent was determined in accordance with its usual practices and the applicable development controls’.”

Ms Manning states that with no other options, and with council passing a second development application for further works on the property that were just as objectionable and intrusive, she had no option other than taking them to court.

Bathurst Regional Council general manager David Sherley said the cost of the litigation was around $85,000, a figure to be included in its annual report for the 2012-13 financial year.

He confirmed council had received the judgement concerning the Manning matter which related to two development consents.

“We are currently going through the judgment process to assess the basis for the judge’s decision. Basically, the orders mean the pool can stay but the wall has to be demolished,” he said.

“Part of this includes checking the reasoning for the judge’s decision and whether or not we need to alter our processes and procedures accordingly.”