Eleftheriades v Randwick City Council

[2018] NSWLEC 1665

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Eleftheriades v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1665
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 6 December 2018
Date of orders:	20 December 2018
Decision date:	20 December 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Horton C
Decision:	See [6] 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:	Maria Eleftheriades (Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: G Green, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/156525
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Development Application No. DA/601/2017 for the relocation of approved pool equipment room and shower room, addition of plant room between shower and external wall, raising of lawn level at lower ground level, and relocation of access stair to internal stair (the proposal) at 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (the site) by Randwick Council (the Council).

2. The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation on 3-4 December 2018, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

3. At or after a conciliation conference, an agreement, under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

4. 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 identified no jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings that would prevent me from being satisfied that the parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to uphold the appeal.

5. The LEC Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

6. The Court orders:

1. The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the plans referred to in condition 1 of annexure “A”;

2. The appeal is upheld;

3. Development application DA/601/2017 for the relocation of the approved pool equipment room, addition of plant room, raising of lawn level at lower ground level and relocation of external access stair to internal stair at 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee is approved subject to the conditions at annexure “A”.

……………………….

T Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

Plans