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) 2006Category: 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
-
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 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
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.
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.
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)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1492
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1492
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.