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:
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Ms E Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10035 of 2016
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1175
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.