Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1675


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1675
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 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: Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/41862
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

AA2001 Revision F

Compliance Table

The Bathla Group

7 November 2017

AA2056 Revision F

Area Calc. – COS.

The Bathla Group

7 November 2017

AA2031 Revision F

External Finishes Schedule

The Bathla Group

7 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-16-0337 for the construction of five x 5 storey residential flat buildings within Proposed Lot 3 in the plan of subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1219130, Lot 500 DP 1195372, Lot 213 DP 1189773 and Lot 214 DP 1189773 as proposed in DA-16-04135, consisting of 214 units with basement car parking, storm water drainage and landscaping works on land known as 27 Boundary Road 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) (1.16 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (5.36 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1675
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1675
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown City Council concerning the construction of a commercial building. The parties were engaged in litigation over the enforcement of a condition attached to a development approval. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division. The central issue for the court was whether the condition imposed by the Council was valid and enforceable against the developer. Specifically, the court had to determine if the condition was a lawful exercise of the Council's statutory powers and whether it was sufficiently clear and precise to be enforceable.

In examining the legal issues, the court considered the statutory framework governing development approvals and the principles of administrative law that apply to the exercise of discretion by local councils. The court needed to decide if the condition imposed by the Council was within the scope of its statutory authority and if it was expressed in a manner that could be properly enforced. The court also looked into whether there was any procedural unfairness in the way the condition was imposed, which could render it unenforceable. The reasoning provided by the court focused on the clarity and enforceability of the condition, and whether it adhered to the legal standards required for such conditions to be valid and binding on the developer.

The court found that the condition imposed by the Council was valid and enforceable. It concluded that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that the condition was sufficiently clear and precise to be enforceable against the developer. The court held that there was no procedural unfairness in the imposition of the condition. Consequently, the developer was required to comply with the condition as a lawful obligation under the development approval. The court's decision reinforced the importance of clear and precise conditions in development approvals to ensure both parties understand their obligations and rights.

The final orders of the court mandated that the developer adhere to the condition imposed by the Council, and that the Council was entitled to enforce the condition against the developer. The court dismissed the developer's claims and ordered the developer to comply with the specified condition within a set timeframe.

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.