Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hasib v Ku-ring-gai Council [2020] NSWLEC 1124 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 11 February 2020 Date of orders: 17 March 2020 Decision date: 17 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend the application to rely on the amended architectural plans, stormwater management plans and BASIX Certificate set out in condition 1 of Annexure A. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA0200/18 for alterations and additions, including ground floor modifications and first floor extension, to the existing dwelling on Lot 78 in Deposited Plan 6608, known as 22 Kenilworth Road, Lindfield, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Amanda Hasib (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Stauton (Applicant) A Hudson (Solicitor) (Applicant) Solicitors: Jaku Legal Pty Ltd (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/168023 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. DA0200/18 for alterations and additions including ground floor modifications and a first floor extension to the existing dwelling (the proposal) at 22 Kenilworth Road, Lindfield, by Ku-ring-gai Council. 2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 11 February 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference. 3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. 4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. 5. There is a jurisdictional pre-requisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, pursuant to cl 5.10(4) of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 (LEP 2012). The site is listed as a heritage item (Item 40 Schedule 5 and Heritage Map - Sheet HER_014C of LEP 2012) and the site is located within the C27 Blenheim Road Conservation Area. 6. I have considered the effect of the proposal on the heritage significance of the site and dwelling and on the heritage significance of the Blenheim Road Conservation Area and I am satisfied that the proposal is appropriately deferential to the original fabric of the dwelling so as to maintain its heritage significance and that the dwelling will continue to contribute to the collective heritage significance of the conservation area. Orders 1. The orders of the Court are: 1. Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend the application to rely on the amended architectural plans, stormwater management plans and BASIX Certificate set out in condition 1 of Annexure A. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA0200/18 for alterations and additions, including ground floor modifications and first floor extension, to the existing dwelling on Lot 78 in Deposited Plan 6608, known as 22 Kenilworth Road, Lindfield, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A. ________________ Susan O'Neill Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (72.2 KB) ********** 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: 20 March 2020