Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1444


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1444
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14, 28 July 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 a residential flat building; 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 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr C McFadzean, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/69602
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal Development application No. JRPP-16-03332 for the erection of a residential flat building containing 123 units and incorporating basement car parking, stormwater works and landscaping works on approved Lot 16F 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-16-03332 by relying on the following plans and documents:

Drawing reference

Title

Prepared by

Date

16F 000 Rev E

Cover Page

The Bathla Group

31 July 2017

16F 001 Rev E

Compliance Table

16F 002 Rev B

Location Plan

31 March 2017

16F 003 Rev B

Site Analysis

16F 004 Rev C

Site Plan

31 July 2017

16F 005 Rev E

Basement

16F 006 Rev F

Lower Ground

16F 007 Rev D

Ground

16F 008 Rev D

Level 1

16F 009 Rev D

Level 2

16F 010 Rev D

Level 3

16F 011 Rev E

Level 4

16F 012 Rev E

Roof

16F 013 Rev D

Sections AA & BB

21 July 2017

16F 014 Rev C

Driveway Sections

16F 015 Rev E

North & South Elevations

31 July 2017

16F 016 Rev E

East & West Elevations

16F 017 Rev C

Materials and Finishes

21 July 2017

16F 018 Rev C

Height Study

7 July 2017

16F 019 Rev C

Shadow Analysis and COS Analysis

31 July 2017

16F 020 Rev E

Daylight Compliance and Cross Ventilation

16F 021 Rev E

Area Calc – FSR

16F 022 Rev D

Area Calc – Deep Soil, Landscaped & COS

16F 023 Rev B

Perspective Views

16F 025 Rev C

Pathway to Bin Room

21 July 2017

16F 026 Rev B

Site Coverage

7 July 2017

16F 027 Rev A

Shadow diagram

4 August 2017

LP-DA01 Rev C

Concept Landscape Plan

27 July 2017

LP-DA02 Rev C

Landscape Specification

LP-DA03 Rev C

Landscape Details

BASIX Certificate No. 751192M_02 dated 10 August 2017

  1. The clause 4.6 exception 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-16-03332 for the erection of a residential flat building containing 123 units and incorporating basement car parking, stormwater works and landscaping works on approved Lot 16F in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

69602.16 Brown (C) (481 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1444
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1444
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown City Council. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group, alleged that the council had breached its obligations under a development agreement by imposing certain conditions that were outside the scope of the agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the council's actions were unlawful, an injunction preventing the council from enforcing the conditions, and damages for any loss suffered as a result of the breach.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had the authority to impose conditions that were not explicitly stated in the development agreement. The court had to determine whether the council's actions fell within the scope of its powers under relevant legislation and whether the conditions imposed were consistent with the terms of the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff had suffered any loss as a result of the council's actions.

The court found that the council did not have the authority to impose conditions that were outside the scope of the development agreement. The judge held that the conditions were inconsistent with the terms of the agreement and were therefore unlawful. The court further found that the plaintiff had suffered no loss as a result of the council's actions. The judge ruled that the council's actions were not justified under the relevant legislation and that the conditions imposed were invalid. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a declaration and an injunction but denied the claim for damages.

The court ordered that the council's conditions were invalid and unenforceable, and the council was restrained from enforcing them. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the proceedings. The court's decision provided clarity on the limitations of the council's powers under the development agreement and reinforced the importance of adhering to the terms of such agreements.

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.