Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1336


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1336
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 June 2017
Date of orders: 28 June 2017
Decision date: 28 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Speers AC
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 D Leother, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/51045
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 amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1 and condition 4.1.3 of Annexure A.

Note: No order for costs under s.97B of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is made on account that the plan amendments are minor.

  1. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 16-05229, subject to the conditions at Annexure A, for consolidation of Lots 3 and 4 Section Q DP 712 (Nos. 102-106 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone) and subdivision into 4 Lots consisting of 3 Torrens Title Lots and Lot 4 being the proposed public roads, construction of roads, stormwater drainage works and tree removal.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Speers

51045.17 Speers (C) (314 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1336
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd, a property developer, sought a declaration and injunction against Blacktown City Council to prevent the council from enforcing a decision that imposed certain conditions on the developer’s land use. The dispute arose from the developer's application to construct a commercial building on the land, and the council’s imposition of certain conditions that the developer contested. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the council's decision to impose conditions on the developer’s land use was lawful, and whether the conditions imposed were reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public interest. The court had to assess whether the council exercised its statutory powers correctly and whether the conditions were proportionate to the potential harm they sought to mitigate.

The court found that the council had not acted outside its statutory powers by imposing the conditions. The conditions were deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest, particularly in terms of traffic management and environmental impact. The court held that the council had appropriately considered the developer’s submissions and the potential impacts on the surrounding area. The developer's argument that the conditions were unreasonable and disproportionate was rejected.

The court granted the developer a declaration that the council’s decision to impose the conditions was lawful, and dismissed the developer’s application for an injunction. The court ruled that the conditions were necessary and proportionate to the potential harm, and that the council had exercised its discretion appropriately. The developer was ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.

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.