Oszywa v Georges River Council

[2020] NSWLEC 1007

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Oszywa v Georges River Council [2020] NSWLEC 1007
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 20 December 2019
Date of orders:	07 January 2020
Decision date:	07 January 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Chilcott C
Decision:	See orders [10] 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:	Gregory Oszywa (Applicant) Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: G Oszywa (Litigant in person) (Applicant) S Hill (Solicitor) (Respondent)   Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/339465
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Gregory Oszywa (the Applicant) has appealed the approval by Georges River Council (the Respondent) of his development application (2018/0029) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling with swimming pool and front fence (the Proposed Development), at 32 Amy Road, Peakhurst (also identified as Lot 6 in DP 23789) (the Subject Site).

2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction.

3. 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 20 December 2019, and I presided over the conciliation conference.

4. At 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 consent to the development application, subject to conditions.

5. 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 EP&A Act to grant consent to the development application.

6. The parties have explained how the Applicant’s amended plans have satisfied all relevant jurisdictional matters, including the provision of an updated BASIX certificate for the Proposed Development.

7. The parties have further explained how their contentions in this matter have been resolved by the Applicant’s amended plans, and I am satisfied that there are no further jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the functions under s 4.16 of the EP&A Act can be exercised by the Court.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. The Court orders:

1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Description	Drawing No.	Date	Revision	Prepared by
Site Plan	A101	28.11.19	H	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Basement Plan	A102	28.11.19	J	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Ground Floor Plan	A103	28.11.19	J	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
First Floor Plan	A104	28.11.19	F	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Elevations	A105	28.11.19	G	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Sections	A106	28.11.19	E	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Roof Plan	A118	28.11.19	C	Gold & Green Consulting Pty Ltd
Stormwater Design	SK01 Job 17AW14	29.11.19	-	Andrew Wiersma
Stormwater Design	SK02 Job 17AW14	29.11.19	-	Andrew Wiersma

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Development Application DA2018/0029 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling, swimming pool and front fence is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

………………………

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (167 KB, pdf)

**********

Amendments

09 January 2020 - Pursuant to UCPR r 36.17, the phrase "appealed the refusal" in [1] has been corrected and replaced with "appealed the approval".

Decision last updated: 09 January 2020