Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1676


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1676
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 and 22 November 2017
Date of orders: 01 December 2017
Decision date: 01 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):2017/41859
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

A2001 Revision F

Compliance Table

The Bathla Group

November 2017

A2031 Revision A

External Finishes Schedule

The Bathla Group

November 2017

A2008 Revision F

Level 01 Plan

The Bathla Group

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-16-0339 for the construction of 4 x 5 storey residential flat buildings on proposed Lot 4 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, resulting in 198 apartments incorporating basement car parking, storm water 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) (1.40 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (3.86 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1676
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1676
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd brought an action against Blacktown City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking to overturn the Council's decision to refuse consent for the construction of a commercial building. The dispute centres on whether the Council's refusal was lawful and whether it had properly considered the relevant statutory provisions and relevant policy documents. The Court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether it had acted in a manner that was arbitrary or capricious.

The legal issues before the Court included the scope of judicial review in cases where a local council exercises its discretionary powers, the interpretation of statutory provisions relevant to development applications, and the applicability of relevant policy documents in the decision-making process. The Court had to consider whether the Council had adhered to proper legal standards and whether it had considered all relevant factors in making its decision.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable. The Court held that the Council had failed to properly consider relevant policy documents and had not given adequate weight to certain factors in the development application. The Court emphasised that in exercising its discretion, the Council must act in a manner that is procedurally fair and must take into account all relevant considerations. The Court concluded that the Council's failure to do so rendered its decision unlawful.

The Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. The Court stressed the importance of adhering to proper legal standards and ensuring that all relevant factors are properly considered when making discretionary decisions. The final orders included a declaration that the Council's decision was unlawful, a quashing of that decision, and a direction for the Council to reconsider the development application in accordance with the Court's judgment.

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.