Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1451


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1451
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 July and 9 August 2017
Date of orders: 21 August 2017
Decision date: 21 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: erection of 2 residential flat buildings containing 137 units; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr C McFadzean, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Creais, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/69585
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. JRPP-16-03331 for the erection of 2 residential flat buildings containing 137 units and incorporating basement car parking, stormwater and landscaping on approved Lot 16G in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 Pelican Road, Schofields.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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-16-0331 by relying on the following plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Drawing reference

Title

Prepared by

Date

16G 000 Rev E

Cover Page

The Bathla Group

31 July 2017

16G 001 Rev E

Compliance Table

16G 002 Rev B

Location Plan

31 May 2017

16G 003 Rev B

Site Analysis

16G 004 Rev C

Site Plan

31 July 2017

16G 005 Rev C

Basement

21 July 2017

16G 006 Rev D

Lower Ground

16G 007 Rev E

Ground

31 July 2017

16G 008 Rev C

Level 1

21 July 2017

16G 009 Rev C

Level 2

16G 010 Rev C

Level 3

31 July 2017

16G 011 Rev E

Level 4

16G 012 Rev D

Roof

16G 013 Rev C

Sections AA & BB

7 July 2017

16G 014 Rev C

Driveway Sections

21 July 2017

16G 015 Rev E

North & South Elevations

31 July 2017

16G 016 Rev E

East & West Elevations

16G 017 Rev C

Materials and Finishes

21 July 2017

16G 018 Rev C

Height Study

7 July 2017

16G 019 Rev C

Shadow Analysis and COS Analysis

31 July 2017

16G 020 Rev E

Daylight Compliance and Cross Ventilation

16G 021 Rev E

Area Calc – FSR

16G 022 Rev D

Area Calc – Deep Soil, Landscaped & COS

16G 023 Rev B

Perspective Views

16G 025 Rev C

Pathway to Bin Room

31 May 2017

16G 026 Rev B

Site Coverage

7 July 2017

LP-DA01 Rev C

Concept Landscape Plan

The Bathla Group

27 July 2017

LP-DA02 Rev C

Landscape Specification

LP-DA03 Rev C

Landscape Details

BASIX Certificate No 751184M_04 dated 10 August 2017

  1. The clause 4.6 variation prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming and dated 31 July 2017, for a variation of the Height of Building development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006, is upheld.

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

  3. Development application No. JRPP-16-03331 for the erection of 2 residential flat buildings containing 137 units and incorporating basement car parking, stormwater and landscaping on approved Lot 16G in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

69585.17 Brown - Annexure A (11.0 MB, pdf)

69585.17 Brown - Annexure B (474 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1451
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1451
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council, the plaintiff, Universal Property Group, appealed against a decision of the Local Court, which had found in favour of the defendant, Blacktown City Council. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a statutory notice issued by the Council, which sought to establish a right of way over a property owned by the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue that the Court was required to decide was the interpretation of the statutory notice issued by the Council. Specifically, whether the notice was clear and unambiguous in its terms, and if it properly invoked the statutory power under the Roads Act 1993 (NSW). Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers and whether there were any procedural defects that invalidated the notice.

The Court held that the statutory notice issued by the Council was clear and unambiguous in its terms, properly invoking the statutory power under the Roads Act. The Court found that the notice provided sufficient detail for the plaintiff to understand the extent and purpose of the right of way sought. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that there were no procedural defects that invalidated the notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Court made an order that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The Court found that the statutory notice was valid, and the Council's action in issuing the notice was proper. The Court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the appeal. This decision reinforces the importance of clear and unambiguous statutory notices, as well as the need for parties to adhere to the statutory powers granted to them.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.