Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1175


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1175
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 11 March, 3 May 2016
Date of orders: 13 May 2016
Decision date: 13 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson AC
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: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Ms E Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s):10035 of 2016

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Acting Commissioner

179381.16 Smithson (s34O)_amended 14.6.16 (50.2 KB, doc)

179381.16 Smithson (C)_amended 14 June 2016 (226 KB, pdf)

10035 of 2016 - BASIX Certificate (140 KB, pdf)

10035 of 2016 - Allawah St 25 R04_2 LANDSCAPE (3.90 MB, pdf)

10035 of 2016 - Allawah St 25 R05 - Colour Schedule Issue C (2.23 MB, pdf)

10035 of 2016 - Allawah St 25 R06 (2.14 MB, pdf)

10035 of 2016 - STORMWATER_ISSUE E (772 KB, pdf)

Amendments

15 June 2016 - Amendment to Annexure B to include condition 2.1.2, i

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1175
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council, the dispute involved a developer, Universal Property Group, and a local council, Blacktown City Council. The developer was seeking approval for a mixed-use development project that included residential, commercial, and retail spaces. The council's planning department had recommended approval, but the council itself refused to grant development approval due to concerns over traffic and environmental impacts. Universal Property Group challenged this decision in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, arguing that the council's refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the statutory framework governing development applications.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the council's decision to refuse development approval was based on proper and relevant considerations, and whether the decision was otherwise unreasonable. The court also had to consider whether the council had adequately taken into account the statutory objectives and whether the refusal was proportionate to the impacts identified. Furthermore, the court needed to examine whether the developer's proposal could be modified to mitigate the identified impacts, thus making the refusal unnecessary.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It concluded that the council's refusal was indeed unreasonable. The court found that while the council was entitled to consider the potential traffic and environmental impacts, it had not adequately addressed how these impacts could be mitigated. The court held that the refusal was not proportionate to the impacts identified and that the developer's proposal could be modified to address these concerns. The court found that the council's decision was based on an incorrect application of the statutory framework and was therefore quashed. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration, with directions to consider the developer's proposal in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court included quashing the council's decision to refuse development approval, remitting the matter back to the council for reconsideration, and directing the council to take into account the possibility of modifications to the developer's proposal to mitigate the identified impacts. The court further ordered that the council consider the statutory objectives and ensure that any new decision was proportionate and based on proper and relevant considerations.

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.