Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1367

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1367
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 22, 26, 28 June, 6, 10 July 2017
Date of orders:	13 July 2017
Decision date:	13 July 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Chilcott C
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:	Solicitor: Mr C McFadzean, SWAAB Lawyers (Applicant) Mr T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/47369
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

5. The terms of the decision are as follows:

1. the appeal is upheld;

2. the applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by relying on the following plans:

Drawing reference	Title	Prepared by	Date
DA 01/02 Rev 8	Site analysis plan	The Bathla Group	7 July 2017
DA 02/02 Rev 8	Subdivision plan	The Bathla Group	7 July 2017
SY1601160C110 Rev E	Channel Plan and Longitudinal & typical Section	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C111 Rev E	Detail sheets	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C112 Rev E	Basin 2 plan & detail	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C113 Rev E	Bio-Basin 1 plan & detail	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C114 Rev E	Basin 3 plan & detail	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C115 Rev E	Internal Catchments	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C116 Rev E	Water quality catchments	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C117 Rev E	External catchment	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C118 Rev E	Soil & Water management plan	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017
SY1601160C119 Rev E	Soil & Water management plan details	Barker Ryan Stewart	4 July 2017

3. development application No. 16-04667 for the subdivision of Lots 8 and 9 in DP 236422 (Nos. 100-102 Boundary Road, Schofields) into 68 lots comprising 66 residential lots (lot 65 being used as a bio-retention basin), one residue lot (proposed lot 67) and one lot within the SP2 zoned land (proposed lot 68), the construction of roads, tree removal and associated drainage is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A;

4. pursuant to s97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay those costs of the respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, agreed in the sum of $3,000.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

47369.17 Chilcott (C) (347 KB, pdf)

47369.17 Chilcott - Plans (366 KB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 13 July 2017