Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council

[2015] NSWLEC 1453

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1453
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 27 October 2015
Date of orders:	03 November 2015
Decision date:	03 November 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Brown C
Decision:	See (5) below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mackenzie Architects International (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G. Christmas (Applicant) Mr A. Hudson (Respondent) Solicitors: Apex Law (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10113 of 2015
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No DA 0244/14 at 1456-1456A and 1458 Pacific Highway, Turramurra for the demolition of dwellings, construction of a five storey residential flat building with 47 units and basement car parking and adaptive re-use of heritage item (1458 Pacific Highway) to create 3 units, together with associated landscaping and tree removal and the consolidation of three existing allotments into one allotment at 1456-1456A and 1458 Pacific Highway, Turramurra.

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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

10113 of 2015 Brown (s34O) (13.1 KB, pdf)

10113 of 2015 Brown (C) (358 KB, pdf)