Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kourouche v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1367 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 and 31 May 2018; 15 June 2018 Date of orders: 19 July 2018 Decision date: 19 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See [5] below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mohammed Kourouche (1st Applicant) Vladimios Gravaris (2nd Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicants) P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/327909 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Mohammad Kourouche and Vladimios Gravaris against the deemed refusal by Canterbury-Bankstown Council of Development Application No. 589/2017. The application sought the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey boarding house development containing 53 x boarding rooms and One (1) x manager's room at 12 Mackenzie Street, Revesby (Lot C / DP418821) under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are: 1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following architectural plans in the proceedings: 1. Drawing A101 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 2. Drawing A102 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 3. Drawing A103 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 4. Drawing A201 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 5. Drawing A202 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 6. Drawing A301 Revision E dated 03.07.2017 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development application DA 589/2017 lodged on 3 July 2017 seeking approval for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 2 storey boarding house development is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'. 3. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $8,000. ………………………. Commissioner Gray Annexure A (C) Annexure B 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: 19 July 2018