Akiki v Inner West Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1244

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Akiki v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1244
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 24 May 2018
Date of orders:	04 June 2019
Decision date:	04 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Chilcott C
Decision:	The Court orders: (1)   The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended drawings (as referred to in Annexure “A”) for the purpose of the development application. (2)   The appeal is upheld. (3)   Development consent is granted to modified development application DA201800436.01 to provide a first floor attic to the garage at 140 Victoria Street, Dulwich Hill is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “B”. (4)   As a consequence of Order (3), Development Consent No. DA201800436 to demolish part of the premises and carry out ground and first floor alterations and additions to a dwelling house is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “C”. (5)   No Order as to costs.
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:	Jack Akiki (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: J Farrell (Applicant)   Solicitors: Gilbert & Tobin (Applicant) S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/47221
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Jack Akiki (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of his application (DA101800436) for provision of a first floor attic to the garage at the rear 140 Victoria Street, Dulwich Hill (the Subject Site).

2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7(1) 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 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which was held on 24 May 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 EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

6. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The Court orders:

1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended drawings (as referred to in Annexure “A”) for the purpose of the development application.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Development consent is granted to modified development application DA201800436.01 to provide a first floor attic to the garage at 140 Victoria Street, Dulwich Hill is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “B”.

4. As a consequence of Order (3), Development Consent No. DA201800436 to demolish part of the premises and carry out ground and first floor alterations and additions to a dwelling house is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “C”.

5. No Order as to costs.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A - Revised Plans

Annexure B - Modified Conditions of Consent

Annexure C- Consolidated Conditions of Consent

********

Decision last updated: 04 June 2019