Liverpool 888 Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Application pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being a Modification Application to the Court to modify the consent DA929/2022 granted by the Court in Proceedings No 2022/301839, Liverpool 888 Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1208 on 4 May 2023 for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a six-storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor commercial premises, a 112-place childcare facility and at grade parking (the Consent) at 156 Terminus Street, Liverpool, legally described as Lot 31 in DP555028 (the Site). The Modification Application seeks to modify the Consent as follows: 1. Addition of one storey to the approved mixed use building; 2. Increase in the capacity of the child care centre within the approved mixed use building from 112 places to 127 places; and 3. Minor amendments to the internal layouts of the approved mixed use development required to satisfy the Building Code of Australia, including fire safety amendments.
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 has been held on 17 December 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.
3. The parties' experts agree that all contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) have been resolved by the preparation of the: 1. Amended plans and documents listed at [18]; and 2. Agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A.
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 approving the modification to the consent, 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. 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.