Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1492


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1492
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 August 2017
Date of orders: 06 September 2017
Decision date: 06 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Ms E Flemming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/70963
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 Development Application No. JRPP-16-03333 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Drawing/Document Number

Drawing/Document Title

Prepared by

Date

DA 16H-000, Revision D

Cover Page

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-001, Revision D

Compliance Table

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-002, Revision D

Site Analysis

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-003, Revision D

Plan – Site Plan

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-004, Revision D

Basement 3

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-005, Revision D

Plan – Basement 2

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-006, Revision D

Plan – Lower Ground / Basement 1

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-007, Revision D

Plan – Ground

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-008, Revision D

Plan – Level 1

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-009, Revision D

Plan – Level 2

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-010, Revision D

Plan – Level 3

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-011, Revision D

Plan – Level 4

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-012, Revision D

Plan - Roof

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-013, Revision D

Pre & Post Adaptable Units

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-014, Revision D

Section C & Truck Ramp

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-015, Revision D

Section A & D

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-016, Revision D

South & East Elevations

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-017, Revision D

North & West Elevations

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-018, Revision D

Daylight Compliance

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-019, Revision D

Area COS – Deep Soil – Landscape

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-020, Revision D

Communal Open Space Analysis

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-021, Revision D

Individual Unit Ventilation

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-022, Revision D

Material Schedule

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-023, Revision D

Area Schedule

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-028, Revision D

Notification Plan

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-031, Revision D

Height Limit

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16H-032, Revision D

Site Coverage

The Bathla Group

17 August 2017

DA 16 H&IJ

Shadow Analysis 3D

The Bathla Group

July 2017

DA 16 H&IJ

Shadow Analysis Elevation

The Bathla Group

July 2017

DA 16 H&IJ

Shadow Analysis – H&IJ

The Bathla Group

July 2017

LP-DA 01, Revision C

Concept Landscape Plan

The Bathla Group

21 August 2017

LP-DA 02, Revision C

Landscape Specification

The Bathla Group

21 August 2017

LP-DA 03, Revision C

Landscape Details

The Bathla Group

21 August 2017

755336M_06

BASIX Certificate

Ecoinnovate

26 August 2017

20161078.2/2408A/R0/GW

Driveway Noise Impact

Acoustic Logic

24 August 2017

-

SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement

Chee Lim

21 August 2017

  1. The Applicant's clause 4.6 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.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  3. Development Application No. JRPP-16-03333 for the construction of three residential flat buildings containing 177 units, basement car parking and including stormwater and landscaping works on approved Lot 16H in the subdivision of Lot 16 in deposited plan 31797, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “C”.

……………………….

Commissioner Dickson

​Annexure A (16.0 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (996 KB, pdf)

Annexure C (495 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1492
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1492
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 between the parties centred around the interpretation and application of zoning laws and development approvals in relation to a property located in Blacktown. The applicant, Universal Property Group, sought relief against the decisions of the respondent, Blacktown City Council, regarding certain zoning and development matters.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant zoning laws, the proper application of these laws by the Council, and whether the Council's decisions were lawful and justified. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Council's decisions to grant or refuse development approvals were in accordance with the planning legislation and whether the Council had acted lawfully and rationally in making those decisions.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the Council's decisions were not supported by the relevant legislation and were, therefore, unlawful. The court emphasised that the Council had failed to properly consider certain statutory requirements and had acted without lawful authority. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decisions and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included quashing the Council's decisions, remitting the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, and directing the Council to provide detailed reasons for its decisions in line with the statutory requirements. The court also ordered that the applicant be reimbursed for certain costs incurred in bringing 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.