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 1979Category: 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
-
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
-
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-16-03332 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
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.
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.
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)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1444
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1444
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.