Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1688 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 and 22 November 2017 Date of orders: 04 December 2017 Decision date: 04 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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 Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J Reid (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino (Respondent)
SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/41860 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 appeal is upheld;
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
A2033 Revision F
External Finishes Schedule
The Bathla Group
7 November 2017
The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming for a variation of the Height of Building development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006 is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA No. JRPP-16-04365 for the construction of 5 storey residential flat building on proposed Lot 1 in the plan of subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1219130, Lot 500 DP 1195372, Lot 213 DP 1189773 and Lot 214 DP 1181773, resulting in 90 apartment units incorporating basement car parking, stormwater detention and landscaping works on land known as 27 Boundary Road, Schofields and 29 - 33 Schofields Road, Schofields, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'. A copy of the architectural, landscape and stormwater plans which are the subject of this development application are behind Annexure "B".
……………………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW
Annexure A (C) (1.22 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (4.80 MB, pdf)
Amendments
04 December 2017 - Annexures attached.
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1688
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1688
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Blacktown City Council had the power to impose the community facilities contribution and, if so, whether the amount imposed was reasonable and justifiable under the relevant legislation. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including relevant provisions and case law.
The court examined the statutory provisions governing community facilities contributions and found that the council did have the authority to impose such a charge. However, the court also determined that the amount imposed by the council was excessive and not reasonably related to the benefits to be derived from the development. The reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented regarding the need for infrastructure improvements and the capacity of the proposed development to contribute to these needs. The court concluded that the council had not adequately justified the amount of the contribution, and therefore, it was unlawful.
As a result, the court ordered that the community facilities contribution imposed by the Blacktown City Council on the property development be deemed null and void. The council was directed to refund the amount already paid by the developer, Universal Property Group, and to refrain from imposing any further contributions without proper justification. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory guidelines and the need for local councils to demonstrate a clear connection between development contributions and the associated infrastructure needs.
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.