Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Schoonbergen v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1005 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 June, 6, 21, 26 July, 25 August, 22, 26 September, 19 October, 8, 23 November 2016 Date of orders: 10 January 2017 Decision date: 10 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dennis Schoonbergen (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr D. Briggs, DG Briggs and Associates (Applicant) Mr S. Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00158297 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purposes of the development application: Drawing No. Title Prepared by Date DA-01 – Revision E Site Analysis Plan/Site Plan/Roof Plan George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-02 – Revision D Existing 7 Demolition Floor Plan – Dwelling 1 George Carbone Architect 12.07.2016 DA-03 – Revision D Floor Plans – Dwelling 2 George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-04 – Revision D South & East Elevations George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-05 – Revision D North, South & West Elevation George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-06 – Revision A Sections George Carbone Architect 12.07.2016 DA-07 – Revision B Concept Landscaping Plan George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-08 – Revision B Concept Stormwater Plan George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 DA-09 – Revision B Erosion & Sediment Control Plan + Management Plan Construction Site George Carbone Architect 01.08.2016 Drawings H-00 to H-07, Stormwater Plans Buckton Consulting Pty Limited 31 October 2016 Project No. BC1612 1. The Applicant is to pay the costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $4,000.00 within 28 days. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development Application No. DA-2015.172.1 to demolish garage and rear section of the existing semi-detached dwelling house and construction of an attached dual occupancy, alterations to the existing dwelling house, new front fence and gate and carparking in front of the existing dwelling at 150 Alt Street, Haberfield is determined by approving the plans referred to in condition A (1) of Annexure "A" and subject to the conditions of development consent set out in Annexure "A". ……………. Jenny Smithson Commissioner 158297.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (92.1 KB, pdf) 158297.16 - Plans - 1 (5.52 MB, pdf) 158297.16 - Plans - 2 (2.21 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: 10 January 2017