NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Papallo v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1127 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 February and 1 and 8 March 2018 Date of orders: 12 March 2018 Decision date: 12 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See [4] below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Maggie Papallo (Applicant) Cumberland Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Peter Rigg, Peter R Rigg (Applicant) Adam Seton, Marsdens Law Group(Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/277821 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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend development application DA2017/184 by substituting the following plans for the plans that are the subject of DA 2017/184: Plan Name Revision Date Sediment Control Plan, Drawing No. 0004 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Demolition Plan, Drawing No. 0005 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Site Plan, Drawing No. 0007 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Basement Plan, Drawing No. 1001 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No. 1002 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Level 1, Drawing No. 1003 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Level 2, Drawing No. 1004 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 Rood Plan, Drawing No. 1005 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 North/ South Elevation, Drawing No. 2001 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018 East/West Elevation, Drawing No. 2002 L.E.C. / Issues C 16/02/2018
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate