O'Brien v Yass Valley Council

[2018] NSWLEC 1642

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	O’Brien v Yass Valley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1642
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 5 December 2018
Date of orders:	12 December 2018
Decision date:	12 December 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Maston AC
Decision:	See orders at [7] below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT 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:	Daniel O’Brien (Applicant) Yass Valley Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitor: J Palmer, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent) Other: D O’Brien, litigant in person (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2018/158994
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings have been brought to the Court under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). They are in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction and the statutory power or function to be exercised in determining the proceedings is that within s 4.16 of the EPA Act, being the determination of a development application by a consent authority. The development involved is the subdivision of land being the land in Lot 102 DP 1177760 known as 782 Back Creek Road, Yass River.

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 5 December 2018. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. After the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

4. 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. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application subject to conditions.

5. I am 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.

6. 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.

7. The Court orders:

1. The Appeal is upheld;

2. Development Application DA 5.2017.181.1 seeking consent to subdivide Lot 102 DP 1177760, known as 782 Back Creek Road, Yass River, into two lots, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

J Maston

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (48.6 KB, pdf)

Subdivision Plan (532 KB, pdf)