Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1275 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 May 2017 Date of orders: 26 May 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPEAL – 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 T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/316901 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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. 16-04175 by adding additional land to the development application and incorporate the design and construction of drainage works, including construction of a Regional Infrastructure Basin MM2 and associated water cycle management and to rely upon the following amended plans listed in condition 3.1.1 and condition 7.1.3 of Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s.97B of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
Deferred commencement approval is granted to Development Application No. 16-04175, subject to the conditions at Annexure A, for the:
Subdivision of Lot 5 DP 235714 and Lot 173 DP 1191299 into 116 Torrens Title Lots, two superlots (Lots 117 and 118), three Residue Lots and one lot for drainage purposes (Lot 119) covering the SP2 zoned land within Lot 5 DP 235714 and Lot 173 DP 1191299 as well as associated works including earthworks, public roads, stormwater drainage, dewatering of dams, and removal of all trees, and landscaping and street tree planting; and
the design and construction of drainage works, including construction of a Regional Infrastructure Basin MM2 and associated water cycle management on Lot 8 DP 235714, Lot 50 DP 1196583, Lot 3 DP 1206540, Lot 4 DP 1206540, Lot 5 DP 235714 and Lot 173 DP 1191299; and
The construction of 40 dwellings as part of a multi-dwelling housing development on lots 117 and 118 created pursuant to the above approved subdivision. The construction of the 40 dwellings shall not commence until the development approved under subclauses (a) and (b) is completed.
……………………….
Joanne Gray
Commissioner of the Court
316901.16 Gray (C) (605 KB, pdf)
316901.16 Gray - Plans (9.39 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1275
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether BCC owed a duty of care to UPG and the individual lot owners in the strata scheme in relation to the maintenance and management of the public areas. Furthermore, the court had to determine if BCC's alleged failure to address the stormwater drainage issue amounted to a breach of its statutory obligations under the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996. The court also needed to assess whether UPG had standing to bring the claim on behalf of the individual lot owners and if BCC's actions or omissions were causally linked to the damages claimed.
In resolving these issues, the court examined the statutory framework and the common law principles concerning duty of care and statutory obligations. The court held that BCC did owe a duty of care to UPG and the individual lot owners concerning the maintenance of public areas. The court found that BCC's failure to adequately address the stormwater drainage issue did indeed breach its statutory duties. The court further ruled that UPG had the requisite standing to bring the claim on behalf of the lot owners, as it was acting as the body corporate responsible for the management of the strata scheme. Consequently, the court found that BCC's negligence was a direct cause of the damages claimed by UPG.
The court ordered BCC to compensate UPG for the damages incurred due to the stormwater drainage issue, including costs associated with repairs and any diminution in property value. Additionally, the court awarded UPG its costs of the proceeding, subject to certain adjustments.
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.