Gene Hadjiangeli v Sutherland Shire Council

[2016] NSWLEC 1635

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Gene Hadjiangeli v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1635
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 16 September, 16, 30 November & 2 December 2016
Date of orders:	23 December 2016
Decision date:	23 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Chilcott C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant) Ms J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Gene Hadjiangeli (Respondent) Sutherland Shire Council (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2016/169295
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

2. The Court 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.

3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $4,000.

3. The appeal is upheld.

4. Development Application No. DA15/1407 is approved, subject to conditions ‘A’.

…………….

Commissioner Chilcott

169295.16 Chilcott (C) (252 KB, pdf)

169295.16 Chilcott - Plans (2.09 MB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 23 December 2016