14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1656

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: 14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1656 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 December 2016 Date of orders: 09 December 2016 Decision date: 09 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent) Representation: Anthony Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant) Joe Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/226296 Publication restriction: No Judgment COMMISSIONER : In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are: The Applicant is granted leave to amend the section 96 modification application by substituting the following amended plans and documents relied on for the purpose of the section 96 application: S96-105 Ground Level Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-106 Level 1 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-107 Level 2- Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-108 Level 3 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-109 Level 4 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-110 Level 5 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-111 Level 6 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-112 Level 7 - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-113 Roof Plan - Arch 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-201 Section 1 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-202 Section 2 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-203 McGill St Balcony Section 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-212 East Elevation 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-209 West Elevation 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-211 South Elevation 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division S96-210 North Elevation 31/10/16 Level 33 Architectural Division The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent ‘thrown away’ as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed. The appeal is upheld. Modification application No DA 201500205.02 for reconfiguration of the approved building layout to provide for an additional studio on ground level and additional units at upper levels, modify materials and finishes, minor window adjustments and relocation of booster assembly to south-east corner of site at 14 McGill Street, Lewisham. is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”. ……………. S Dixon Commissioner 226296.16 Dixon (C) (120 KB, pdf) 226296.16 Plans (15.2 MB, pdf) 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. Decision last updated: 01 February 2017