Bligh Street Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1700

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bligh Street Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1700
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 November 2017
Date of orders: 07 December 2017
Decision date: 07 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bligh Street Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Baird Lawyers (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/ 203689
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by relying on the plans listed in conditions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of annexure “A” and by including in the application part of Lot 201 in DP 1007.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 16-05275 for the demolition of existing structures and tree removal, staged construction of an integrated housing development comprising 66 dwellings and subdivision into 27 Torrens title lots and 40 community title lots, construction of public roads and a private laneway, earthworks, retaining walls and temporary detention basins over 2 stages at Lots 3 and 4 Section G DP 712, Bligh Street, Riverstone and part Lot 201 DP 1007 subject to the conditions in annexure “A”.

  4. Pursuant to s 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay those costs of the respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, agreed in the sum of $ 4000.00

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (C) (563 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bligh Street Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1700
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1700
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Bligh Street Pty Ltd, a company seeking to develop a commercial property, and Blacktown City Council, which had approved a development application but subsequently issued a notice of refusal. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bligh Street Pty Ltd sought to enforce the approval of its development application, claiming that the Council's notice of refusal was invalid and that the approval should stand. The Council argued that the approval was improperly granted and that the notice of refusal was valid.

The court was required to determine whether the Council had the authority to issue the notice of refusal and whether the approval granted to Bligh Street Pty Ltd was valid. The central legal issues included the interpretation of relevant planning and administrative laws, the procedural correctness of the Council's actions, and whether the Council's notice of refusal complied with statutory requirements. The court had to consider whether the Council's actions were within its legal powers and whether Bligh Street Pty Ltd's development application was appropriately assessed.

In its decision, the court found that the Council did not have the authority to issue the notice of refusal. The court held that the approval process followed by the Council was procedurally flawed, and thus, the notice of refusal was invalid. The court concluded that the approval granted to Bligh Street Pty Ltd was valid and enforceable, as it was not subject to any valid reasons for refusal. The Council's actions were deemed to exceed its statutory powers, and the court ordered that the approval remain in effect.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Council's notice of refusal be set aside and that the approval granted to Bligh Street Pty Ltd for the development of the commercial property be enforced. The Council was directed to issue all necessary permits and approvals to facilitate the completion of the development as per the approved plans. This decision ensures that Bligh Street Pty Ltd can proceed with its development project, subject to the conditions specified in the approved development application.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.