Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1520


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1520
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 2 November 2015
Date of orders: 15 December 2015
Decision date: 15 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: multi-dwelling housing; 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:

Ms A Spizzo (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Landerer and Company (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):10801 of 2015

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.

________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner

10801 of 2015 s 34 orders (71.7 KB, pdf)

10801 of 2015 Fakes_Annexure A conditions (196 KB, pdf)

10801 of 2015 Annexure B plans (7.81 MB, pdf)

10801 of 2015 colours (2.33 MB, pdf)

10801 of 2015 landscape plans (9.47 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1520
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1520
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Limited sought judicial review of a decision made by Blacktown City Council to deny their application for development approval on a property located in the City of Blacktown. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant contended that the decision was unreasonable and that the Council had failed to properly consider certain aspects of their development application, including the potential economic benefits of the proposed development to the local community.

The primary issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to deny the application was unreasonable and whether the Council had properly considered the relevant factors. The court considered whether the Council had given adequate weight to the applicant's submissions and whether the reasons provided for the decision were rational and based on the relevant statutory criteria. The court also examined whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision to deny the application was not unreasonable and that the Council had properly considered the relevant factors. The court held that the Council had given adequate weight to the applicant's submissions and that the reasons provided for the decision were rational and based on the relevant statutory criteria. The court also found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the Council's decision.

The court's final orders were that the applicant pay the Council's costs of the proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed, and that the application for judicial review be dismissed with costs.

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.