Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kobra v Port Stephens Council [2020] NSWLEC 1011 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 November 2019 Date of orders: 08 January 2020 Decision date: 08 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Clay AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The appeal is upheld in part. (2) The time for the Applicants to comply with the Respondent's Development Control Order dated 14 February 2019 is extended to 3 March 2021. Catchwords: ORDER – appeal – 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: Narin Kobra (First Applicant) Ahmet Shevket (Second Applicant) Port Stephens Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T To (Applicants) A Pickup (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Russell C. Byrnes (Applicants) Local Government Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/79153 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against a development control order issued by the Respondent on 14 February 2019 (the Order). 2. The Order required the demolition of an existing large metal shed and concrete slab located on part of the land at Lot 11 Deposited Plan 753194 known as 30 Road 564 Tanilba Bay (the site). 3. On 27 November 2019, I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) and an agreement in principle between the parties was reached as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved extending the time for compliance with the Order. 4. On 11 December 2019, the parties filed a signed agreement giving effect to the agreement in principle reached on 27 November 2019. 5. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. 6. The parties' agreement involves the Court exercising power under s 8.18(4)(b) to modify the Order. 7. 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. 8. The Court orders: 1. The appeal is upheld in part. 2. The time for the Applicants to comply with the Respondent's Development Control Order dated 14 February 2019 is extended to 3 March 2021. …………………………… P Clay Acting Commissioner of the Court ********** 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