Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Shad v Hunters Hill Council [2020] NSWLEC 1076 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 and 14 February 2020 Date of orders: 25 February 2020 Decision date: 25 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: The Court orders: (1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 2 at Annexure "A" to this agreement. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) Development Application no. DA 2019-1010 seeking development consent for alterations and additions including swimming pool and rear deck at Lot 6 DP 29009 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A". 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: David Charles Shad (Applicant) Hunters Hill Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: H El-Hage (Applicant) M Staunton (Respondent) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/188972 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: David Shad (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by Hunters Hill Council (the Respondent) of his development application (DA 2019-1010) which sought consent for an extension to the master bedroom, construction of a swimming pool with a deck area, roofing and screening, and associated landscape works (the Proposed Development), at Lot 6 in DP 29009 in Hunters Hill (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. 3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 13 and 14 February 2020, 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. The parties have explained how the Applicant's amended plans have satisfied relevant jurisdictional matters, including in relation to the zoning of the land and landscaping, along with the compliance of the Applicant's proposed development, as amended, with those standards. 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 EPA 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. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 2 at Annexure "A" to this agreement: 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. Development Application no. DA 2019-1010 seeking development consent for alterations and additions including swimming pool and rear deck at Lot 6 DP 29009 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A". ……………………… M Chilcott Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (82.8 KB) ********** 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: 25 February 2020