Prestige Locations Pty Ltd v Ku ring gai Council

[2016] NSWLEC 1599

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Prestige Locations Pty Ltd v Ku ring gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1599
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 10 October 2016
Date of orders:	07 December 2016
Decision date:	07 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dickson, C
Decision:	See [5] below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited:	Nil
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Prestige Locations Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku ring gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Conomos Legal (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00204301
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Development Application No. DA0226/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development at 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon (the site).

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 are:

1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure A

2. The applicant is to pay the respondents costs thrown away for the purpose of section 97B of the Environemtnal Planning and Assessment Act 1979 agreed at $4,000.

3. The appeal is upheld

4. Development Application No. DA0226/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development consisting of: 1 x commercial premise; 31 x residential units including basement car parking; and 8 affordable rental units, for Lot 17 DP 249171, 900 Pacific Highway Gordon, NSW Subject to conditions in Annexure A.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

204301.16 Dickson (C) (349 KB, pdf)

204301.16 Dickson - Plans (13.9 MB, pdf)

Amendments

15 December 2016 - Corrected case number