Fulop v Randwick City Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1117

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Fulop v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1117
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 21 – 22 March 2019
Date of orders:	25 March 2019
Decision date:	25 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Chilcott C
Decision:	See [14] below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Annemarie Fulop (First Applicant) Alosha Litvak (Second Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent)   Other: A Fulop (self-represented) (Applicants)
File Number(s):	2018/270311
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Annemarie Fulop and Alosha Litvak (the Applicants) have appealed the decision of Randwick City Council (the Respondent) to grant consent to their development application (DA/303/2018), with conditions, for demolition works, and construction of alterations and additions, and a single carport 72 Gale Street, Maroubra, Granville (the Subject Site).

2. In particular, the Applicants have sought the deletion of Condition 2a within the consent as granted by the Respondent, which limited the dimensions of a proposed carport such that it would accommodate a single vehicle. The Applicants’ development application had sought consent for a double carport without the limitations imposed by Condition 2a.

3. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction.

4. These proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EP&A Act.

5. The Court arranged for the matter to be addressed under the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), and under s 34AA(2), s 34 of the LEC Act applies to the proceedings which requires that the Court must arrange a conciliation conference between the parties and their representatives with or without their consent.

6. The matter commenced in conciliation on 21 December 2018, and concluded on 22 December 2018. I presided over that conciliation conference.

7. 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.

8. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the development application, subject to conditions, which reflected the agreement of the Parties.

9. 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.

10. The Parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EP&A Act to grant consent to the development application, and I am satisfied that the provisions of s 4.16 of the EP&A Act have been fulfilled.

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

12. I am further 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.

13. 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.

14. The Court orders:

1. The Appeal is upheld.

2. The development application DA/303/2018 for the demolition of:

1. the rear portion of the existing dwelling house;

2. the carport; and

3. a section of the front of the dwelling;

and the construction of:

4. alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling; and

5. the construction of a single carport and of an adjoining a hard stand area at the front of the dwelling;

at 72 Gale Street, Maroubra is granted consent, subject to conditions of consent attached herewith at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (277 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 25 March 2019