Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Penrith City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1068


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1068
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 and 24 October, 21 November, 4 and 8 December 2017 and 16 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Dickson 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)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Dr James Smith, (Applicant)
Christopher Drury, (Respondent)

Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/187168
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:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material:

Plan No.

Revision No.

Date

Sheet title

CC-0300

01

30.01.2018

Cover Sheet

CC-0301

01

30.01.2018

General Notes Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0302

01

30.01.2018

General Notes Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0305

01

30.01.2018

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

CC-0306

01

30.01.2018

Erosion and Sediment Control Details

CC-0310

01

30.01.2018

General Arrangement Plan – Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0310A

01

30.01.2018

General Arrangement Plan – Temporary Layout Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0311

01

30.01.2018

General Arrangement Plan – Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0311A

01

30.01.2018

General Arrangement Plan – Temporary Layout Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0315

01

30.01.2018

Basin Sections

CC-0315A

01

30.01.2018

Basin Sections Temporary Layout

CC-0320

01

30.01.2018

Stormwater Drainage Details

Plan

CC-0320A

01

30.01.2018

Stormwater Drainage Details – Temporary Layout

CC-0330

01

30.01.2018

Stormwater Catchment

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Approval is granted under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for stormwater drainage work at Lot 102 DP 1140544, known as 16 Chapman Street, Werrington, as required by condition 31 of DA14/0627, in accordance with the plans listed at paragraph 2(a) and subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (21.1 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (5.56 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1068
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1068
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Penrith City Council involved a dispute between the appellant, Universal Property Group, and the respondent, Penrith City Council. The central issue was whether a particular land parcel was subject to a condition that required the council to approve any subdivision, as stipulated in a subdivision agreement. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which then appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation of the relevant planning and subdivision agreements, as well as the extent of the council's power to impose conditions on land subdivision. The court had to determine whether the condition imposed on the land was valid, enforceable, and whether it had been breached by the appellant's proposed subdivision. The appellant argued that the condition was invalid and unenforceable due to procedural irregularities in its imposition, while the council maintained that the condition was valid and had been breached.

In its judgment, the court found that the condition was validly imposed and was therefore enforceable. The court held that the procedural irregularities did not invalidate the condition, as the council had substantial compliance with the relevant legislative requirements. The court also found that the appellant's proposed subdivision did not comply with the condition, and thus constituted a breach. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the condition was not applicable to the specific land parcel in question.

The court's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the findings of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that the condition was validly imposed, enforceable, and had been breached by the appellant. The Court of Appeal also found that the appellant's arguments regarding the applicability of the condition to the specific land parcel were without merit. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the condition was valid and enforceable, that it had been breached by the appellant, and that the appellant's proposed subdivision did not comply with the condition. The court also ordered the appellant to take certain steps to remedy the breach and to comply with the condition.

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.