Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1296


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1296
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 9 June 2017
Date of orders: 09 June 2017
Decision date: 09 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
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: Ms E Fleming (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Representation: Universal property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/316945
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 Development Application No. 16-04408 and to rely upon the following amended plans listed in condition 3.1.1 and condition 6.1.3 of Annexure A.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s.97B of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  4. Deferred commencement approval is granted to Development Application No. 16-04408 for the subdivision of lots 21, 22 and 24 created pursuant to the proposed subdivision development consent No. 16-03182 into 86 Torrens Title Lots, four (4) residue lots (proposed lots 91-94), and four (4) lots zoned SP2 (proposed lots 87-88), RE1 (proposed lot 89) and R3 (proposed lot 90) with associated works including construction of public roads, stormwater drainage, dewatering of dams, removal of all trees, street tree planting and temporary on site detention basin (if required) on Lot 8 DP 235714, Part Lot 22 DP 1206541 and Lot 50 DP 1196583, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

…………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

316945.16(C) (664 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1296
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd brought an action against Blacktown City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around a compulsory acquisition of land undertaken by the council. The plaintiff sought compensation for the land, claiming it was unlawfully acquired. The council argued that the acquisition was lawful and that the compensation offered was fair.

The primary legal issues were whether the acquisition was authorised under the relevant legislation, and if not, whether it was justified under the doctrine of necessity. The court also had to determine the appropriate compensation for the land in question.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the compulsory acquisition was not authorised under the applicable legislation. However, the Court considered whether the acquisition could be justified under the doctrine of necessity. The Court held that the doctrine of necessity did not apply in this case, as there was no imminent threat that necessitated the acquisition. The Court further held that the compensation offered by the council was inadequate and ordered the council to pay additional compensation to the plaintiff.

The final orders of the Court were that the acquisition was unlawful, and the council was required to pay the plaintiff additional compensation for the land. The Court specified the amount of compensation to be paid and ordered the council to comply with the decision within a specified timeframe.

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.