Bugeja v Hawkesbury City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1219

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bugeja v Hawkesbury City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1219 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 April 2019 Date of orders: 22 May 2019 Decision date: 22 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: See [17] 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 Hawkesbury LEP 2012 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land Category: Principal judgment Parties: Josephine Bugeja (First Applicant) John Phillip Bugeja (Second Applicant) Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: C Parsons, Bartier Perry (Applicants) J McCullan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/273827 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction, are an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ('EPA Act') against the Respondent's deemed refusal of development application DA0027/18 ('DA'). The DA sought consent for the construction of a new single storey dwelling and conversion of an existing dwelling to tourist and visitor accommodation (serviced apartment) at 1182 Kurmond Road Kurmond, also known as Lot 111 in Deposited Plan 860774.

Conciliation and agreement between the parties 1. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 5 April 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference, which occurred on site. 2. Subsequent to the conciliation conference, and the supply of certain additional information, 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 development consent to the development application subject to conditions. 3. 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. 4. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified certain jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and how they have been or could be satisfied.