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)
Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Christopher Drury, (Respondent)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/187168 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:
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
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1068
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1068
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.