Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1278 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 June 2018 Date of orders: 08 June 2018 Decision date: 08 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
E Fleming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
L Raffaele, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/228859 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material copies of which are behind Annexure 'A':
Drawing reference
Title
Prepared by
Date
DA02/04 Rev 2
Subdivision Plan
The Bathla Group
9 March 2017
DA03/04 Rev 2
Envelope Plan
The Bathla Group
9 March 2017
SY170227 Revision C
Title sheet
Barker Ryan Stewart
SY17227C102 Rev C
Engineering Plan Sheet
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C103 Rev C
Excelsior Road Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C104 Rev C
Road 2 Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C105 Rev C
Road 3 Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C106 Rev C
Road 4 Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C107 Rev C
Road 5 Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C108 Rev C
Vine Street West Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C109 Rev C
Vine Street West Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C110 Rev C
Road 2 Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C111 Rev C
Road 3 Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C112 Rev C
Road 4 Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C113 Rev C
Road 5 Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C114 Rev C
Road 5 Cross Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C115 Rev C
Basin 1 Plans & Sections (1 of 2)
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C116 Rev C
Basin 1 Plans & Sections (2 of 2)
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C117 Rev C
Basin 2 Plans & Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C118 Rev C
Basin 3 Plans & Sections
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C119 Rev C
Catchment Plan
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C120 Rev C
Catchment Plan (Ultimate)
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C121 Rev C
Drainage Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C122 Rev C
Drainage Longitudinal Section
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C123 Rev C
Soil & Water Management Plan
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
SY17227C124 Rev C
Soil & Water Management Details
Barker Ryan Stewart
27 March 2018
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
Development Application No. DA-16-04187, as amended, for the subdivision of four lots into 84 lots and a residue lot including the construction of public roads and associated drainage works at Lots 11 and 12 Section K DP 193074, Lot 10 DP 628301 and Lot 13 DP 734813, known as 24, 32, 40 and 46 Excelsior Avenue, Marsden Park be approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'B'.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A
Annexure B
Amendments
22 October 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, amend orders of 8 June 2018 so that Order (4) now reads as follows:
“Development Application No. DA-16-04187, as amended, for the subdivision of four lots into 84 lots and a residue lot including the construction of public roads and associated drainage works at Lots 11 and 12 Section K DP 193074, Lot 10 DP 628301 and Lot 13 DP 734813, known as 24, 32, 40 and 46 Excelsior Avenue, Marsden Park be approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'B'.”
12 November 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, further amend orders of 8 June 2018 (as amended on 22 October 2018) so that the description of the development at the commencement of Annexure B now reads as follows:
“Development Application No. DA-16-04187 for the subdivision of four lots into 84 lots and a residue lot including the construction of public roads and associated drainage works at Lots 11 and 12 Section K DP 193074, Lot 10 DP 628301 and Lot 13 DP 734813, known as 24, 32, 40 and 46 Excelsior Avenue, Marsden Park.”
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1278
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1278
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the respondent had acted lawfully in refusing to grant the Certificate of Title. Specifically, it had to consider whether the respondent had correctly applied the statutory criteria and relevant policy when making its decision. The court also needed to consider whether the refusal was unreasonable or an abuse of power.
The court found that the respondent had not correctly applied the statutory criteria and relevant policy when making its decision. It held that the respondent had incorrectly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions and policy, which had led to the refusal of the Certificate of Title. The court also found that the refusal was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of power. It held that the respondent had failed to properly consider the applicant's submissions and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court concluded that the refusal was unlawful and ordered the respondent to grant the Certificate of Title to the applicant.
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.