Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1731


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1731
Hearing dates:Conciliation conferences on 8, 30 November 2017
Date of orders: 18 December 2017
Decision date: 18 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: dedication and construction of a public road, the construction of a residential flat building and ancillary works; 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: Solicitors:
Mr C McFadzean, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr S Simington, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/195713
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA No. 17-00431 for the consolidation, dedication and construction of a public road, the construction of a residential flat building containing 46 units and two basement car parking levels, tree removal, landscaping works and associated stormwater works at 54-58 Advance Street, Riverstone.

  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 make, 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 the development application by relying on the following amended plans:

Drawing No. and Issue

Title

Prepared by

Date

DA-05 Issue B

DA-06 Issue C

Site Plan

Plan - Basement 1 & 2 Plan

The Bathla Group

2017

09/10/2017

DA-07 Issue C

Plan – Ground & Typical

DA-08 Issue C

Plan - Level 3 and 4

DA-09 Issue C

Plan - Roof

DA-10 Issue C

Section – AA+BB+CC

DA-11 IssueDA No. 17-00431 for the consolidation of Lot 14 DP 244164 and Lots 23 and 24 DP 850117, dedication and construction of a public road, the construction of a residential flat building containing 46 units and two basement car parking levels, tree removal, landscaping works and associated stormwater works on land known as 54-58 Advance Street, Riverstone C

Driveway Sections

DA-12 Issue C

Elevations

DA-13 Issue C

Material and Finishes

L01 Rev R02

Cover Sheet

The Bathla Group

03/05/2017

L02 Rev R02

Concept Landscape Plan

L03 Rev R02

Concept Landscape Plan

L04 Rev R02

Landscape Details

LP ST01 Revision B

Street Tree Planting Plan

The Bathla Group

21/11/2017

-

Cover sheet

Barker Ryan Stewart

21/11/2017

SY16244C02 Rev E

Engineering Plan – External Road Surfaces

SY16244C03 Rev E

Longitudinal Section, Typical Cross Sections and Details

SY16244C04 Rev E

Stormwater Drainage Internal – Site / Ground Floor Plan

SY16244C05 Rev E

Details and Sections

SY16244C06 Rev E

Catchment Plans & Drainage Longitudinal Section

Waste Management Plan

Barker Ryan Stewart

21/11/2017

  1. The Applicant to pay the Council’s costs under s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 arising from paragraph (b) as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development consent is granted to DA No. 17-00431 for the consolidation of Lot 14 DP 244164 and Lots 23 and 24 DP 850117, dedication and construction of a public road, the construction of a residential flat building containing 46 units and two basement car parking levels, tree removal, landscaping works and associated stormwater works on land known as 54-58 Advance Street, Riverstone, subject to the conditions in Annexure "A". A copy of the architectural plans, landscape plans and stormwater plans that are the subject of this development application (as amended) are attached at Annexure "B".

……………………….

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (473 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (Plans) (10.3 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1731
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1731
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group, sought relief from the defendant, Blacktown City Council, due to alleged breaches of a development approval. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and application of conditions attached to the approval, with the plaintiff arguing that the council had failed to adhere to these conditions.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the council had breached the terms of the development approval and, if so, what the appropriate remedy might be. This required the court to carefully examine the language of the approval, the evidence presented by both parties, and relevant planning and administrative law principles. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the claim and whether the alleged breaches were sufficiently serious to warrant the relief sought.

The court found that the council had indeed breached the conditions of the development approval. In reaching this conclusion, the court highlighted several instances where the council had not followed the stipulated processes and had permitted actions that were contrary to the approved plans. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to planning conditions to ensure that developments align with public interest and planning objectives. Consequently, the court ordered the council to take specific steps to remedy the breaches and directed that certain works be halted until the conditions were met. The relief granted was tailored to address the specific nature of the breaches and aimed to restore compliance with the approved development plan.

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.