Pghep Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council

[2020] NSWLEC 1246

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	PGHEP Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2020] NSWLEC 1246
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conferences on 30 April 2020, 12 May 2020
Date of orders:	05 June 2020
Decision date:	05 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Clay AC
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) Development consent is granted to development application (LDA 2019/0118) for extension of trading hours for the existing hotel at 9-13 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT– extension of trading hours for an hotel – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	PGHEP Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
Representation:	G Castellan (Solicitor) (Applicant) S Chillari (Solicitor) (Respondent)   Solicitors: Ritchie & Castellan (Applicant) Ryde City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/260138
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal by the Respondent of a development application (LDA 2019/0118) for extension of trading hours for the existing hotel at 9-13 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park (the site).

2. On 8 and 12 May 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

4. An agreement pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act was filed by the parties on 18 May 2020 giving effect to the agreement in principle.

5. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

6. The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. The parties have stated and I agree that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites that are satisfied so this function can be exercised are:

1. The Development Applications were made with the consent in writing of Waterloo Projects Pty Ltd being the owner of the land at 9-13 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park NSW (Lot 4 in DP844951) (Land) to which they relate.

2. The Development Applications relate to an existing approved 'Pub' (as defined in the Dictionary within the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 (RLEP 2014) use on the Land.

3. The Land is within Zone 83 Commercial Core under the provisions of RLEP 2014 wherein, the proposals are permissible but only with consent.

4. The development does not contravene any development standard in RLEP 2014 or any other applicable environmental planning instrument.

5. The works contemplated under LDA2019/0118 are generally to be undertaken within the envelope of the existing building on the Land.

6. In relation to clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, the Land is not known to be contaminated and is not:

1. land that is within an investigation area, or

2. land on which development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines is being, or is known to have been, carried out.

7. 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.

8. The parties have not raised and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

9. The Court orders:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development consent is granted to development application (LDA 2019/0118) for extension of trading hours for the existing hotel at 9-13 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

…………………………

P Clay

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (320928, pdf)

**********