Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1163


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1163
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 November, 22 December 2015, 12 February & 20 April 2016
Date of orders: 03 May 2016
Decision date: 03 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Multi dwelling housing, access, impact on Heritage Item, 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: Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)
- (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ms E Fleming, EJ Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr S Simington, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):10805 of 2015
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 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.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

10805 of 2015 3 May 2016 (269 KB, pdf)

10805 of 2015 Morris (C) (263 KB, pdf)

10805 of 2015 Morris_DA_R06- Rooty Hill rd South 116 FInal (9.53 MB, pdf)

10805 of 2015 Morris_E276653 - ROOTY HILL RD, ROOTY HILL - ISSUE B FINAL (3.83 MB, pdf)

10805 of 2015 Morris_Landscape plan_Rooty Hill 116 sheet 2 FINAL (669 KB, pdf)

10805 of 2015 Morris_Landscape R05 Rooty Hill 116.compressed fiNAL (3.29 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1163
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council, the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that the defendant's decision to grant approval for a change of use of land was unlawful and a review of that decision. The dispute centred around a piece of land located at 33-37 Station Street, Blacktown, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had acted irrationally and in breach of statutory requirements by approving a change of use from a business to a residential property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's decision to grant approval for the change of use was irrational or unlawful. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to consider relevant planning policies and the impact of the change of use on the surrounding area. The court needed to assess whether the defendant had acted within its statutory powers and followed the correct decision-making process.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant had indeed acted irrationally in granting approval for the change of use. The court held that the defendant had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and the potential impact of the change of use on the surrounding area. The court also found that the defendant had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was a requirement under the relevant legislation. As a result, the court quashed the defendant's decision and ordered a review of the matter.

The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, and that the defendant refrain from taking any further action in relation to the change of use until the review was completed. The court also noted that the defendant should have considered the potential impact of the change of use on the surrounding area, including the potential for increased traffic and noise, and the impact on the character of the neighbourhood. Overall, the court's decision highlighted the importance of proper consideration of relevant planning policies and the need for adequate reasons for decision-making in local government matters.

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.