Mogul Stud Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1113

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mogul Stud Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1113 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 March 2020 Date of orders: 12 March 2020 Decision date: 12 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: See orders at [8] Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2—1997) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mogul Stud Pty Ltd (Applicant) The Hills Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: F Rourke (Solicitor) (Applicant) A Seton (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors: Allens (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/392103 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ('EPA Act'). The appeal is against the deemed refusal of a development application, known as DA 407/2019/JP ('DA'). 2. The DA is for the construction of a mixed use development comprising a major supermarket retailer, a "mini major" retailer, 19 speciality stores and 12 non-retail tenancies, associated storage, lobbies, landscaping and signage and car parking containing 538 spaces on the land at 745 Windsor Road, Box Hill. 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 6 March 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference. 4. At the conciliation conference, the parties indicated 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. 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. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties explained how the prerequisites have been satisfied in respect to the jurisdictional factors, which I consider below.