Gladesville Property Group v Hunters Hill Council [2016] NSWLEC 1602

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gladesville Property Group v Hunters Hill Council [2016] NSWLEC 1602 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26, 28 September, 24 October 2016 Date of orders: 16 December 2016 Decision date: 16 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: APPEAL: Development consent – residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gladesville Property Group (Applicant) Hunters Hill Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Paul Jayne (Applicant) John Cole (Respondent)

Solicitors: Madison Marcus Law Firm (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00161820 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. 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". 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The final orders to give effect to the parties' agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are: 1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans / documents annexed as Annexure "A": (i) The following architectural plans prepared by Design Cubicle Architectural Solutions: (A) DA 000 Cover Sheet (Issue I) dated 28 October 2016; (B) DA 200 Proposed Site Plan (Issue I) dated 28 October 2016: (C) DA 201 Basement Plan (Issue I) dated 28 October 2016; (D) DA 202 Ground Floor Plan (Issue I) (E) DA 203 First Floor Plan (Issue I) (F) DA 204 Roof Plan (Issue I) (G) DA 205 Landscape Area Calculation (Issue I) (H) DA 206 FSR Calculations (Issue I) (I) DA 300 Elevations 1/3 (Issue I) (J) DA 301 Elevations 2/3 (Issue I) (K) DA 302 Elevations 3/3 (Issue I) (L) DA 303 -304 Sections (Issue I) (M) DA 600 Shadow Diagram at 9am (Issue I) (N) DA 601 Shadow Diagram at 12pm (Issue I) (O) DA 602 Shadow Diagram at 3pm (Issue I) (P) External Materials and Finishes (re plans Issue I) (ii) Landscape Plans L01/2 & L02/2 prepared by RFA Landscape Architects (Issue E) dated 9 November 2016; (iii) Root Mapping Analysis: Redgum Horticultural dated 20 September 2016; and (iv) Stormwater Layout and Sediment Management: Wehbe Consulting (Issue E) dated 20 October 2016. 1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away in respect of the amended plans / documents which are agreed in the sum of $25,000 within 28 days of the date of these Orders. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. The Applicant's Development Application No. 2015/1211 lodged with the Respondent on 27 November 2015 for the demolition of the existing improvements and the construction of a two (2) storey residential flat building with attic comprising of twenty eight (28) units is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this agreement as Annexure "B". ……………. Susan Dixon Commissioner 161820.16 - Annexure B - Conditions of Consent (157 KB, 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: 16 December 2016