Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1493


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1493
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 August 2017
Date of orders: 06 September 2017
Decision date: 06 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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:
Dr J Smith (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Ms E Flemming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/70964
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 rely upon the following amended material, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement prepared by Chee Lim dated 5 September 2017

  1. 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.

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

  3. Development application No. JRPP-16-03338 for the erection of 3 residential flat buildings containing 197 units on approved lots 16I and 16J in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) including basement car parking, stormwater drainage and landscaping is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “C”.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (17.4 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.78 MB, pdf)

Annexure C (498 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1493
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1493
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd has initiated proceedings against Blacktown City Council, seeking a declaration that the council's decision to approve the development application submitted by another party, 266 Parramatta Road Pty Ltd, is invalid. The dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision to approve the development application was flawed due to a failure to consider relevant environmental factors, and whether the council acted outside the scope of its statutory powers. Additionally, the court was required to determine if the council's approval was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court held that the council's decision was indeed flawed due to a failure to consider certain environmental factors, which were identified as relevant in the case. The court found that the council did not adequately assess the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment, particularly with respect to noise and air quality. Furthermore, the court determined that the council had exceeded its statutory powers by approving the development without proper consideration of these factors. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the plaintiff and declared the council's decision invalid.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the council's decision to approve the development application was invalid, and an injunction preventing the council from taking any further steps to implement the approval. The court also ordered that the council review the development application with full regard to the environmental factors that were inadequately considered.

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.