Karakatsis Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1036

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Karakatsis Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1036
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 16 December 2016
Date of orders:	01 February 2017
Decision date:	01 February 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Morris 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:	Karakatsis Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) City of Sydney Council(Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr G Green Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Mr A Singh City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	270220/2016
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, 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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure “A”. The Court notes that the parties agree that the amendments are not minor for the purposes of Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to Section 97B as agreed or assessed.

3. The appeal is upheld.

4. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2016/904 for “alterations and additions to existing dwelling and conversion as an attached dual occupancy” at 18 Prospect Street, Erskineville is approved subject to conditions in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

270220.2016 Annex-A-Plans (1.38 MB, pdf)

270220.2016 Morris (C Annexure B) (362 KB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 01 February 2017