Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1145


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1145
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 January 2018, 7 February 2018, 27 February 2018, 28 February 2018, 7 March 2018 and 12 March 2018
Date of orders: 21 March 2018
Decision date: 21 March 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 and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Colin McFadzean, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Ms Laura Raffaele, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/275771
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 amend Development Application No. SPP-17-00019 and to rely upon the following amended plans, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Drawing / Document Number

Drawing/Document Title

Prepared by

Date

DA01 Rev D

Master Plan/Site Plan

The Bathla Group

7 February 2018

DA02 Rev D

Site Analysis

7 February 2018

DA03 Rev D

Lot 1 - Ground Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA04 Rev D

Lot 1 - Ground Floor Plan – Part 2

7 February 2018

DA05 Rev D

Lot 1 - First Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA06 Rev D

Lot 1 – First Floor Plan – Part 2

7 February 2018

DA07 Rev D

Lot 1 Elevations

7 February 2018

DA08 Rev D

Lot 1 Elevations

7 February 2018

DA09 Rev C

Lot 1 Elevations / Sections

16 January 2018

DA10 Rev C

Lot 1 Shadow Analysis

16 January 2018

DA11 Rev D

Lot 2 – Ground Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA12 Rev D

Lot 2 – Ground Floor Plan – Part 2

7 February 2018

DA13 Rev D

Lot 2 – First Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA14 Rev D

Lot 2 – First Floor Plan – Part 2

7 February 2018

DA15 Rev D

Lot 2 Elevations

7 February 2018

DA16 Rev D

Lot 2 Elevations

7 February 2018

DA17 Rev D

Lot 2 Section

7 February 2018

DA18 Rev D

Lot 2 Shadow Analysis

7 February 2018

DA19 Rev D

Lot 3 – Ground Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA20 Rev D

Lot 3 – Ground Floor Plan – Part 2

7 February 2018

DA21 Rev D

Lot 3 – First Floor Plan – Part 1

7 February 2018

DA22 Rev D

Lot 3 – First Floor Plan – Part 2

The Bathla Group

7 February 2018

DA23 Rev B

Lot 3 Elevations

15 December 2017

DA24 Rev D

Lot 3 Elevations

7 February 2018

DA25 Rev D

Lot 3 Sections

7 February 2018

DA26 Rev D

Lot 3 Shadow Analysis

7 February 2018

DA27 Rev D

Lot 3 Shadow Analysis With Fencing

7 February 2018

Issue B

Main Body Colour Schemes

17 January 2018

Issue C

Lot 1 Colour Schedule

7 February 2018

Issue C

Lot 1 Colour Schedule

7 February 2018

Issue B

Lot 2 Colour Schedule

17 January 2018

Issue B

Lot 3 Colour Schedule

17 January 2018

Issue B

Lot 3 Colour Schedule

17 January 2018

LP-ST01 Rev C

Concept Landscape Plan

5 February 2018

LP-ST01 Rev C

Landscape Sections

5 February 2018

000 Rev B

Orion Consulting Engineers

16 January 2018

001 Rev B

General Layout Plan, Notes & Legend

16 January 2018

002 Rev B

Tree Removal Plan

16 January 2018

003 Rev B

Site Regrading Plan

16 January 2018

004 Rev B

Site Regrading Section Plan

16 January 2018

005 Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 01 of 04

16 January 2018

006 Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 02 of 04

16 January 2018

007 Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 03 of 04

16 January 2018

008 Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 04 of 04

16 January 2018

010 Rev B

Sediment & Erosion Control Plan

16 January 2018

011 Rev B

Sediment & Erosion Control Notes & Details

16 January 2018

013 Rev B

Engineering Plan – Sheet 1 of 4

16 January 2018

014 Rev B

Engineering Plan – Sheet 2 of 4

16 January 2018

015 Rev B

Engineering Plan – Sheet 3 of 4

16 January 2018

016 Rev B

Engineering Plan – Sheet 4 of 4

16 January 2018

017 Rev B

Retaining Wall & Finish Floor Level – Sheet 1 of 4

16 January 2018

018 Rev B

Retaining Wall & Finish Floor Level – Sheet 2 of 4

16 January 2018

019 Rev B

Retaining Wall & Finish Floor Level – Sheet 3 of 4

16 January 2018

020 Rev B

Retaining Wall & Finish Floor Level – Sheet 4 of 4

16 January 2018

021 Rev B

Road Long Sections – 1 of 3

16 January 2018

022 Rev B

Road Long Sections – 2 of 3

16 January 2018

023 Rev B

Road Long Sections – 3 of 3

16 January 2018

024 Rev B

Driveways Long Section – Sheet 1 of 2

16 January 2018

025 Rev B

Driveways Long Section – Sheet 2 of 2

16 January 2018

026 Rev B

Road & Driveway Typical Cross Sections

16 January 2018

030 Rev B

Catchment Plan

16 January 2018

031 Rev B

Overall Catchment Plan

16 January 2018

040 Rev B

Basin No. 01, 02 & 03 Layout Plan

16 January 2018

041 Rev B

DCP Sections & Details

16 January 2018

042 Rev B

Bio-Retention Details

16 January 2018

043 Rev B

Bio-Retention Planting Plans

16 January 2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3)of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  3. Development Application No. SPP-17-00019 for the erection of 180 multi dwelling housing dwellings, internal private roads and access ways, stormwater drainage, tree removal and associated landscaping works on Lots 1, 2 and 3 in approved subdivision DA-16-05229 on land identified as Lots 3 & 4 Section Q in DP712, known as 102-106 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone, is approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'B'.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (10.4 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (441 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1145
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1145
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Universal Property Group Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Blacktown City Council. The plaintiff sought a declaration that a certain section of land, owned by the plaintiff, was not subject to a restrictive covenant that had been imposed by the defendant. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the restrictive covenant, which limited the use of the land to residential purposes, was invalid as it was not properly registered against the title of the land. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the covenant was valid and enforceable, and that it should be upheld.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the restrictive covenant imposed by the defendant was valid and enforceable against the plaintiff's land. The court needed to determine whether the covenant had been properly registered against the title of the land and whether it was still in effect. The court also needed to consider whether the covenant was still relevant and necessary to protect the character of the surrounding area. In determining these issues, the court had to examine the relevant legislation and case law relating to restrictive covenants and their enforcement.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the restrictive covenant was valid and enforceable against the plaintiff's land. The court found that the covenant had been properly registered against the title of the land at the time it was imposed, and that it had not been discharged or amended since then. The court also held that the covenant was still relevant and necessary to protect the character of the surrounding area, and that it should be upheld. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the covenant was invalid because it had not been specifically mentioned in a subsequent agreement between the parties.

The court made a declaration that the restrictive covenant imposed by the defendant was valid and enforceable against the plaintiff's land. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. The court did not grant the relief sought by the plaintiff, as it found that the restrictive covenant was still in effect and should be upheld. The decision of the court is an important reminder of the importance of properly registering restrictive covenants against the title of land, and the enforceability of such covenants where they have been properly registered.

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.