Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pudig & Ors v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1069 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 February 2017 Date of orders: 16 February 2017 Decision date: 16 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: adaptive reuse of existing warehouse, including partial retention of existing warehouse for multi-unit housing development - 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: Grant Pudig (First Applicant) Karyn McLeod (Second Applicant) Jodie Benton (Third Applicant) Benn Bryant (Fourth Applicant) The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Ms Orbell, solicitor - Mills Oakley (Applicant) Ms Bullmore, solicitor - The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/234946 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application D/2015/1752 for the adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse, including partial retention of existing warehouse for multi-unit housing development at 186 Rochford Street, Erskineville. 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The final orders to give effect to the parties' agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are: 1. Leave is granted for the Applicants to rely on the following amended plans: Drawing Number Architect Date 101 Revision E Basement Floor Plan Environa studio 1/12/2016 102 Revision E Level 1 Floor Plan Environa studio 1/12/2016 103 Revision E Level 2 Floor Plan Environa studio 1/12/2016 104 Revision E Level 3 Floor Plan Environa studio 1/12/2016 110 Revision E Roof Plan Environa studio 1/12/2016 120 Revision E Section AA Environa studio 1/12/2016 121 Revision E Section BB Environa studio 1/12/2016 122 Revision E Section CC Environa studio 1/12/2016 123 Revision E Section DD Environa studio 1/12/2016 130 Revision E West Elevation Environa studio 1/12/2016 131 Revision E East Elevation Environa studio 1/12/2016 132 Revision E North Elevation Environa studio 1/12/2016 133 Revision E South Elevatio Environa studio 1/12/2016 1. The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the amount of $ 2,640. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development application no. D/2015/1752 for adaptive reuse of the existing building including partial retention of the existing warehouse facades and demolition, excavation and construction of multi-dwelling housing comprising 6 three-bedroom townhouses and basement car parking for 6 cars at 186 Rochford Street, Erskineville is approved subject to: 1. conditions contained in Annexure "A"; and 2. plans contained in Annexure "B". ……………. Commissioner G Brown 234946.16 Annexure A (C) (178 KB, pdf) 234946.16 Annexure B (Plans) (3.50 MB, pdf) Amendments 17 February 2017 - Changed file type of Annexure A to 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: 17 February 2017