Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1571 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 August, 14 September & 6 October 2017 Date of orders: 11 October 2017 Decision date: 11 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC 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, Herbert Greer (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/73105 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 rely upon the following amended material, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Acoustic Review of Contention 8(a)h prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 24 August 2017
-
The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request prepared by GLN planning Consulting Strategy for a variation of the Height of Building development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.
-
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
-
Development application No. SPP-16-04465 for the erection of 5 residential flat buildings containing 284 units on approved lots 12A and 13A in the subdivision of Lots 12 and 13 in Deposited Plan 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) including basement carparking and stormwater and landscaping works is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “C”.
……………………….
Senior Commissioner Martin
Annexure A (Pt1) (9.00 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt2) (6.65 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt3) (6.13 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt4) (4.29 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt5) (5.18 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt6) (9.54 MB, pdf)
Annexure A (Pt7) (9.51 MB, pdf)
Annexure B clause 4.6 (2.13 MB, pdf)
Annexure C (580 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1571
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1571
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the scope and limits of the Council's power to revoke a development approval, and the applicability of statutory provisions governing such revocations under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The court needed to determine whether the Council had acted lawfully and within its statutory powers when it attempted to revoke the approval, and whether the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the Council's actions.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Perram concluded that the Council's attempt to revoke the development approval was unlawful. The court found that the Council did not have the statutory authority to revoke the approval once it had been granted, and that the Council's actions were therefore beyond its lawful powers. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had not been prejudiced by the Council's actions as it was able to complete the development within the timeframe specified in the approval. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory processes and respecting the rights of property developers who have been granted lawful approvals.
The final orders of the court included a declaration that the Council's attempt to revoke the development approval was unlawful and beyond its statutory powers, and an injunction preventing the Council from taking any further steps to revoke the approval. Additionally, the court awarded the plaintiff costs associated with the proceedings.
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.