Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1264


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1264
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 16 November, 22 December 2015 and 2 March, 23 March, 10 May, 18 May 2016
Date of orders: 27 May 2016
Decision date: 27 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Medium Density Development of 67 dwellings, land adjoining designated Road, retaining walls, waste management, setbacks, solar access, safety, stormwater, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: UNIVERSAL PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD (Applicant)
BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Ms E. Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s):155523/2016
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, 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 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to:

  1. rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1, as per the plans attached at Annexure A.

  2. amend the property details to which this DA applies to Lot 1 in DP 1218971 and Lot 110 in DP 1003613, as a result of registration of Deposited Plan 1218971.

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed, under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act NSW 1979.

  2. Development Application 15-824 for the construction of 60 dwellings in a medium density development including driveways, stormwater drainage, driveways, landscape works and tree removal on Lot 1 in DP 1218971 (formally Lot 91 in DP 1000946 & Lot 1 in DP 1000815) and Lot 110 in DP 1003613 on land also known as 110 Francis Road, Rooty Hill, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure B.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

155523.16 Hussey_1970-DA-Drawings (6.92 MB, pdf)

155523.16 Hussey_Francies Rd_Beams Ave__V15_CF_R03 (2) (9.35 MB, pdf)

155523.16 Hussey_Francies Rd_Beams Ave_LANDSCAPE PLAN_R02 (2) (6.20 MB, pdf)

155523.16 Hussey_LOT 110 FRANCES RD - COLOUR SCHEDULE (2.02 MB, pdf)

155523.16 Hussey_LOT 110 FRANCES RD - ELEVATION (2.39 MB, pdf)

155523.16 Hussey_Annexure B (188 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1264
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Universal Property Group Pty Limited, a property developer, brought an action against Blacktown City Council, a local government authority, contesting decisions made by the Council in relation to property developments in the Blacktown Local Government Area. The developer claimed that the Council's decisions to impose certain conditions on development permits were unlawful and beyond the scope of the statutory powers granted to the Council. The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decisions were valid and whether the developer had grounds to challenge them.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relevant planning and development legislation, and the extent of the discretion available to the Council in imposing conditions on development permits. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the Council's decisions were within the statutory framework and whether they were reasonable and lawful. The developer argued that the Council's conditions were arbitrary, not rationally related to the purposes of the legislation, and thus invalid. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its decisions were well within its statutory powers and were necessary to ensure the proper development and management of the area.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the scope of the Council's discretion. It found that the Council's decisions were made within the bounds of the relevant legislation and were not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court held that the Council had the authority to impose conditions on development permits to achieve the objectives of the planning and development legislation. The developer's arguments were rejected as the court found that the Council's decisions were rationally connected to the statutory purposes and did not exceed the statutory powers granted to the Council.

The court dismissed the developer's claims and ruled in favour of the Council. The court found that the Council's decisions were lawful and within the statutory framework. The developer was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. The case serves as a reminder to developers that local councils have broad powers to impose conditions on development permits, and that such conditions must be challenged on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law.

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.