Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1245 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 May 2016 Date of orders: 17 May 2017 Decision date: 17 May 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: 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): 2017/54033 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 rely upon the amended engineering plans contained at condition 4.1.3 of Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s.97B of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the sum of $1900.00.
Development Application No. 16-04835 is approved for the subdivision of Lot 3 in DP Section P DP 712, part of Lot 11 in DP 522165 and part Lot 12 in DP 522165 (No. 75 and 97 Cranbourne Street and 105 McCulloch Street, Riverstone) into 43 lots, 1 drainage lot, 2 residue lots, 1 lot as public road, construction of road and associated drainage works, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
…………….…….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
54033.17 Chilcott (C) (394 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1245
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to deny the development application was lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and if there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's reasons for denying the application were adequately supported by the evidence and aligned with the statutory objectives of the planning legislation.
The court examined the council's decision-making process and the evidence presented to support the denial of the development application. It found that the council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and that the decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The court also concluded that the council's reasons for denying the application were adequately supported by the evidence and aligned with the statutory objectives of the planning legislation. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision and dismissed the appellant's appeal.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision to deny the development application was upheld. The court found that the council had acted within its legal authority and that its decision was reasonable. No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.
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.