Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Wollert Holdings P/L v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1654 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 December 2018 Date of orders: 17 December 2018 Decision date: 17 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See [9] below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: Wollert Holdings P/L (Applicant) Cumberland Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant) L Newcombe, Storey & Gough (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/122069 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: Wollert Holdings P/L (the Applicant) has appealed the decision of Cumberland Council (the Respondent) to refuse its development application (DEV-59/2018) for construction of an additional storey upon an approved and existing six storey residential flat building at 39-43 William St, Granville (the Subject Site). 2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction. These proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EPA Act. 3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 17 December 2018, and I have presided over the conciliation conference. 4. At 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 involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the development application, subject to conditions. 5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. 6. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised 7. I am 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. 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 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision. 9. The Court orders: 1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings: Plan Number Prepared By Revision No. Dated Level 06 Plan – A1209 Ghazi AL ALI C 7/11/2018 Roof Plan – A1210 Ghazi AL ALI D 6/12/2018 Communal Open Space/Ground Floor Plan – A1054 Ghazi AL ALI B 7/11/2018 North & West Elevations – A1500 Ghazi AL ALI D 6/12/2018 South & East Elevations – A1501 Ghazi AL ALI D 6/12/2018 Section A-A – A1700 Ghazi AL ALI D 6/12/2018 Section B-B – A1701 Ghazi AL ALI D 6/12/2018 1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amended development application pursuant to s. 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development application DA-59/2018 seeking approval for the Construction of a seventh storey comprising an additional apartment and alterations to the communal open space is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. ………………………. Michael Chilcott Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (225 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: 17 December 2018