Godwin v The Council of the City of Sydney

[2016] NSWLEC 1469

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Godwin v The Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1469
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 26 September 2016
Date of orders:	07 October 2016
Decision date:	07 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dickson C
Decision:	See (5) below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97AA against refusal of amendment 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:	Bjorn Goodwin (Applicant) The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: L M Saw (Applicant) Solicitors: Australian Town Planning Pty Ltd (Agent) (Applicant) Romero, P, The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/176736
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), against the refusal of an application under 96 AB of the Act that sought to review the refusal of a modification application that sought to change the operating hours of a bar located at 21-21A Shepherd St Chippendale.

2. 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”.

3. 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.

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

5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement are:

1. The appeal is upheld

2. The Applicants development application RD/2011/1371/A for extended trading hours at 21-21A Shepherd St Chippendale is approved, subject to the amended consent conditions contained in Annexure A.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner

176736.16 - Annexure A (128 KB, pdf)