Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1693


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1693
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:
Ms J Reid (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino (Respondent)

Solicitors:
SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/41861
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 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

A2036 Revision F

A2037 Revision F

External Finishes Schedule

External Finishes Schedule A

The Bathla Group

The Bathla Group

November 2017

November 2017

  1. 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.

  2. Development consent is granted to DA No. JRPP-16-0330 for the construction of 4 x 5 storey residential flat buildings on proposed Lot 2 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 359 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) (770 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (5.33 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1693
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1693
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 dispute centred around the validity of a development approval granted by the defendant, Blacktown City Council, to the plaintiff, Universal Property Group Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought to challenge the approval, claiming it was obtained through improper means and was therefore invalid. The plaintiff also sought an order for the defendant to refrain from enforcing the approval, as well as damages for losses incurred due to the alleged invalidity of the approval.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the approval was obtained by improper means, and if so, whether that rendered the approval invalid. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing the approval, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for losses incurred due to the alleged invalidity of the approval. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the defendant was entitled to a costs order against the plaintiff.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and relevant legislation and case law. The court found that the approval was indeed obtained by improper means, and that this rendered the approval invalid. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing the approval, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for losses incurred due to the invalidity of the approval. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff on all counts, granting an injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing the approval, awarding damages to the plaintiff, and finding the approval invalid due to improper means of obtaining it. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.

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.