Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1460


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1460
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7, 28 July & 11 August 2017
Date of orders: 25 August 2017
Decision date: 25 August 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, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/63177
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 to include tree removal and to rely upon the following amended material as attached at Annexure "A":

Drawing No. and Issue

Drawing Title

Prepared by

Date of Plan

DA 00

Cover Sheet

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

Undated

DA 01, Issue J

Site Analysis

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 02, Issue L

Basement Level 2

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 03, Issue L

Basement Level 1

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 04, Issue L

Ground Floor Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 05, Issue J

Level 1

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 06, Issue J

Level 2

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 07, Issue J

Level 3

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA08, Issue J

Roof Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 09, Issue J

Site Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 10, Issue L

Site Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 11, Issue L

Site Sections

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 12, Issue J

Block A – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 13, Issue J

Block B – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 14, Issue J

Block C – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 15, Issue J

Block D – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 16, Issue J

Block E – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 17, Issue J

Block F – Elevations

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 18, Issue J

Cross Sections Blocks E – F

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 19, Issue J

Block A – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 20, Issue J

Block B – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 21, Issue J

Block C – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 22, Issue J

Block D – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 23, Issue J

Block E – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 24, Issue J

Bock F – Typical Level

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 25, Issue J

Shadows 9 AM

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 26, Issue J

Shadows 12 Noon

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 27, Issue J

Shadows 3 PM

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 28, Issue L

Garbage + Mail details

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 29, Issue L

Deep Soil Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 30, Issue L

Landscaping Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 31, Issue L

Communal Space Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 32, Issue J

Site Coverage Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 33, Issue L

FSR Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 34, Issue L

FSR Calculation

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

DA 35, Issue J

Cut & Fill Plan

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 36, Issue J

Café Detail Plan

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

17 July 2017

DA 37, Issue K

C.O.S Shadow Diagrams

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

27 July 2017

DA 38, Issue L

Height Plane

Ryleton Pty Ltd trading as Architex

2 July 2017

1254.L.00, Issue C

Landscape Overall Plan

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.01, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block A

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

12554.L.02, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block B

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.03, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block C

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.04, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block D

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.05, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block E

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.06, Issue C

Landscape Plan – Block F

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

1254.L.07, Issue C

Landscape Details & Specification

Greenland Design Pty Ltd

August 2017

  1. The Applicant's cl.4.6 written request to vary the height limit 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. Deferred commencement consent is granted to DA No. JRPP 16-3325 for the proposed subdivision of Lot 210 in DP 208203 into two lots, the staged construction of six residential flat buildings resulting in 310 apartments, including basement car parking, roadworks, storm water detention, tree removal and landscaping works on land known as 25 Terry Road, Rouse Hill, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'B'.

……………………….

Senior Commissioner Martin

63177.17 Martin - Annexure A - Architectural plans - 25 Terry Road (19.5 MB, pdf)

63177.17 Martin (C) Annexure B (618 KB, pdf)

Amendments

03 April 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend orders of 25 August 2017 so that attached Conditions - Annexure B - refer to the correct lot number on the front page.

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1460
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1460
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of a clause in a development agreement between the parties. The primary issue was whether the council had the authority to impose certain conditions on the developer, specifically regarding the construction of a public square in the area of the development. The developer argued that the conditions were not explicitly stated in the development agreement and therefore could not be enforced, while the council asserted that the conditions were implicitly included based on the terms of the agreement.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the development agreement, the extent of the council's powers under the Local Government Act, and whether the council had acted within its statutory authority. The court had to determine whether the conditions imposed by the council were permissible under the agreement and if the council had the discretion to impose additional requirements not expressly stated in the agreement. Furthermore, the court examined whether the conditions were reasonable and necessary for the public benefit.

The court found that the conditions imposed by the council were not explicitly stated in the development agreement, but could be implied based on the broader terms and objectives of the agreement. The court held that the council had the authority to impose such conditions as they were reasonably necessary for the public benefit and fell within the council's statutory powers. The court further found that the conditions were not unreasonable and could be enforced against the developer. The decision was grounded in the principles of statutory interpretation and the public interest considerations outlined in the Local Government Act.

The final orders of the court were that the conditions imposed by the council were enforceable against the developer, and the developer was required to comply with these conditions as part of the development agreement. The court upheld the council's right to impose additional conditions that align with the public interest, provided they are reasonable and necessary. The developer was directed to proceed with the construction of the public square as per the council's requirements, and any disputes regarding the implementation of these conditions could be referred back to the council for resolution.

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.