Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2017] NSWLEC 1154 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 12, 20 December, 16, 21 February, 7 March 2017 Date of orders: 27 March 2017 Decision date: 27 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a residential apartment building; 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: CPG Projects Pty Ltd (Applicant) City of Parramatta Council (Respondent) Representation: Ms A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant) Ms J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/270150 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 437/2016 for the retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a pt 3 and pt 4 storey residential apartment building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units with on-grade car parking at 139 Good Street Rosehill. 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. The Appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application No 437/2016 for retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a Part 3/ Part 4 storey residential apartment building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units with on-grade car parking subject to conditions attached as Annexure 'A'. 3. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans attached as Annexure B: 1. Architectural plans prepared by IDRAFT Architects and dated 1 March 2017; 1. Cover Page – Drawing No. A000, Issue C 2. Site Plan – Drawing No. A001, Issue C 3. Demolition Plan - Drawing No. A001A, Issue C 4. Ground Floor Plan – Drawing No. A002, Issue C 5. First Floor Plan – Drawing No. A003, Issue C 6. Second Floor Plan - Drawing No. A004, Issue C 7. Roof Plan - Drawing No. A005, Issue C 8. Materials Schedule and Southern Elevation - Drawing No. A006, Issue C 9. Sections and Elevations Plan - Drawing No. A007, Issue C 1. BASIX Certificate 793328M dated 3 February 2017 2. Landscape Plans 1. Drawing No. 2805 – IC of 6 dated 27 February 2017 2. Drawing No. 2805 – 2C of 6 3. Drawing No. 2805 – 3C of 6 4. Drawing No. 2805 – 4C of 6 1. Schedule of Works (Heritage) by NBRS Architecture dated 3 March 2017 2. Waste Management Plan dated 20 February 2017 1. 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 1979 in the sum of $ 18,000 to be paid within 60 days. ……………. Commissioner Brown Commissioner of the Court 270150.16 Brown Annexure A (C) (337 KB, pdf) 270150.16 Annexure B (Plans) (8.19 MB, pdf) Amendments 27 March 2017 - Plans attached 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: 27 March 2017