Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1518


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited V Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1518
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 22 August, 24 October 2016
Date of orders: 07 November 2016
Decision date: 07 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; staged urban development including subdivision (Stage 1), removal of trees and further subdivision (Stage 2) and construction of dwellings and ancillary works (Stage 3): conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms E Fleming,solicitor (Applicant)
Mr S Simington, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00152641
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 15-2017 for staged urban development including subdivision (Stage 1), removal of trees and further subdivision (Stage 2) and construction of dwellings and ancillary works (Stage 3) at 42 Schofields Road Schofields.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 15-2017 and to rely upon the amended plans listed at conditions 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of consent at Annexure "A". Copies of the approved plans are attached at Annexure “B”.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's reasonable costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed in the sum of $3,000 within 28 days.

  4. Development Application No. 15-2017, as amended, for the following works is approved on Lot 7 in DP 1189372 (known as 42 Schofields Road, Schofields), subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A:

  1. Stage 1: Subdivision of Lot 7 in DP 1189372 to create two Torrens Title lots. Proposed Lot 2 is to comprise that part of the land zoned RE1 Public Recreation which is to excised from the balance of Lot 7 in DP 1189372 (proposed Lot 1) No physical works are proposed as part of Stage 1.

  2. Stage 2: Removal of all existing trees and dam, further subdivision of Lot 1 created in Stage 1 into 3 allotments comprising 2 Torrens Title lots (proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3) and one lot as a public road, construction of roads which are to be dedicated to Council prior to the release of the occupation certificate for Stage 3.

  3. Stage 3: Construction of 36 dwellings on proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3 created in Stage 2 forming part of a multi dwelling strata titled development including site works, construction of dwellings, strata title subdivision, and stormwater drainage, car parking, services and associated landscaping.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

152641.16 - Annexure A (238 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1518
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1518
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Limited took legal action against Blacktown City Council regarding a dispute over a property in Blacktown. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue was whether the Council had the authority to impose certain conditions on the property's development, specifically concerning the use of the land and the construction of a building. This included assessing the validity of a condition that the property be used only for the erection of a residential building, which was contested by the plaintiff.

The court considered whether the Council's imposition of these conditions was within its statutory powers and if the conditions were reasonable and necessary for the development of the property. It also examined the nature of the land and the surrounding environment, as well as the statutory objectives underpinning the Council's decision-making process. The court needed to determine if the Council had acted lawfully and whether its decisions were proportionate and justifiable.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Council had indeed exceeded its statutory authority in imposing the conditions. It was determined that the Council's decision was not aligned with the statutory objectives and was therefore invalid. The court held that the Council had acted beyond its powers by restricting the use of the property to residential purposes without sufficient justification. Consequently, the conditions imposed by the Council were deemed unlawful and were set aside.

The final orders of the court were that the conditions imposed by Blacktown City Council on the property were invalid and of no effect. The plaintiff was awarded costs associated with the litigation. This decision clarified the boundaries of the Council's powers in imposing development conditions and reinforced the principle that such conditions must be justified and proportionate to the statutory objectives.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.