Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Oszywa v Georges River Council [2020] NSWLEC 1007 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 December 2019 Date of orders: 07 January 2020 Decision date: 07 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See orders [10] 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: Gregory Oszywa (Applicant) Georges River Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Oszywa (Litigant in person) (Applicant) S Hill (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/339465 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: Gregory Oszywa (the Applicant) has appealed the approval by Georges River Council (the Respondent) of his development application (2018/0029) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling with swimming pool and front fence (the Proposed Development), at 32 Amy Road, Peakhurst (also identified as Lot 6 in DP 23789) (the Subject Site). 2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction. 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 was held on 20 December 2019, and I 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 EP&A Act to grant consent to the development application. 6. The parties have explained how the Applicant's amended plans have satisfied all relevant jurisdictional matters, including the provision of an updated BASIX certificate for the Proposed Development. 7. The parties have further explained how their contentions in this matter have been resolved by the Applicant's amended plans, and I am satisfied that there are no further jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the functions under s 4.16 of the EP&A Act can be exercised by the Court. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The Court orders: 1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the following amended plans: Description Drawing No. Date Revision Prepared by Site Plan A101 28.11.19 H Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Basement Plan A102 28.11.19 J Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Ground Floor Plan A103 28.11.19 J Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd First Floor Plan A104 28.11.19 F Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Elevations A105 28.11.19 G Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Sections A106 28.11.19 E Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Roof Plan A118 28.11.19 C Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd Stormwater Design SK01 29.11.19 - Andrew Wiersma Job 17AW14 Stormwater Design SK02 29.11.19 - Andrew Wiersma Job 17AW14 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application DA2018/0029 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling, swimming pool and front fence is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A". ……………………… M Chilcott Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (167 KB, pdf) ********** Amendments 09 January 2020 - Pursuant to UCPR r 36.17, the phrase "appealed the refusal" in [1] has been corrected and replaced with "appealed the approval". 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: 09 January 2020