Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chateau Architects & Builders Pty Ltd v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1622 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 November 2018 Date of orders: 30 November 2018 Decision date: 30 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See [9] below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chateau Architects & Builders Pty Ltd (Applicant) Hunter's Hill Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton, (Applicant) Solicitors: Creagh & Creagh (Applicant) A Epstein, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00174272 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Hunters Hill Council of Development Application (DA) 2017/1202, which seeks the construction of a new two storey house with basement, new pool and landscaping works at 3 Barons Crescent Hunters Hill (Lot 2 DP 4275). 2. This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act 1979). The Court is required to make a determination pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act 1979. 3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act 1979) between the parties, which was held on 23 November 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objectors to this appeal. 4. As a result of the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 2017/1202 with conditions. 5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16(1)(a) of the EPA Act 1979 to grant consent to the development application with conditions. 6. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings, pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act 1979, as consistent with the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HHELP 2012). In particular, the parties explained that consistency with floor space ratio requirements as specified in cl 4.4 of the HHLEP 2012, are achieved through consistency with height and landscape requirements, pursuant to cll 4.3 and 6.9, respectively. The amended plans result in improved streetscape in character with the area and no amenity impacts. 7. I am therefore satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979. 8. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision. 9. The Court orders: 1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended drawings dated 9 November 2018 annexed hereto and marked "A". 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2017-1202 for construction of a new two storey house with basement, new pool and landscaping works at No. 3 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked "B". ………………………. Sarah Bish Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (6.42 MB, pdf) Annexure B (402 KB, 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: 04 December 2018