Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1233


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1233
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 8 May 2017
Date of orders: 08 May 2017
Decision date: 08 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Counsel:
Mr P Clay (Applicant)
Solicitors:
E Fleming, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
T O'Connor, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/204258
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 rely upon the following amended plans:

Drawing Title

Drawing Number

Prepared by

Date

Subdivision Plan

02/02 Issue 9

The Bathla Group

03.05.17

Earthworks sections Sheet 2 of 2

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0006 Issue C

Aurecon

11.04.17

General Arrangement Plan Sheet 1 of 5, sheet 2 of 5, Sheet 3 of 5 and sheet 4 of 5

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0040 to 0043 Issue C

Aurecon

11.04.17

Roadworks, Road 1 cross Sections sheet 4 of 6, sheet 5 of 6

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0063 and 0064 Issue C

Aurecon

13.04.17

Roadworks, Road 2 cross Sections sheet 7 of 12, sheet 8 of 12, sheet 9 of 12

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0072 to 248906-0001-DRG-CC-0074 Issue C

Aurecon

11.4.17

Roadworks Intersection Details Sheet 1 of 25

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0090 Issue C

Aurecon

13.4.17

Roadworks Intersection Details sheet 10 of 25

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0099 Issue C

Aurecon

13.4.17

Roadworks Intersection Details Sheet 12 of 25

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0101 Issue C

Aurecon

13.4.17

Roadworks Intersection Details Sheet 14 of 25

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0103 Issue C

Aurecon

13.4.17

Roadworks Intersection Details Sheet 17 of 25

248906-0001-DRG-CC-0106 Issue C

Aurecon

13.04.17

Note: the changes to the amended plans above are considered to be minor for the proposes of s.97B of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  1. Deferred commencement approval is granted to Development Application No. 16-03182 for the consolidation of 14 allotments (Lot 1 DP 1200165, Lot 8 DP 235714, Lots 50, 51, 52, 53 & 54 DP 1196583, Lots 11 & 12 Sec M DP 193074, Lot 59 & 60 DP 1196729, Lot 10 DP 70287, Lot 20 DP 1196583 and Lot 21 DP 1191512) and subdivision of the consolidated lots to create 20 super lots, 3 SP2 Drainage zoned lots, 3 RE1 Public Recreation zoned lots and 2 residue lots (lots 28 and 27), street tree planting, construction of new roads and stormwater drainage system, de-watering of dams and associated tree removal, subject to the condition at Annexure A.

....................

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

204258.16 Annexure A (C) (249 KB, pdf)

204258.16 Plans (646 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1233
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council involved a dispute between a property group and a local council over the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The property group sought a declaration that certain activities on their property did not constitute a use that was prohibited under the council's local environmental plan. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division. The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, the application of the local environmental plan, and the relevance of any relevant policies or precedents.

The court was required to determine whether the activities undertaken by the property group were exempt from the prohibitions set out in the local environmental plan, and if so, whether they were lawful. This involved an examination of the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the local environmental plan, and any associated policies. The court also considered whether the council had acted beyond its statutory powers or in a manner that was unreasonable or irrational. The primary focus was on the interpretation of statutory language and the application of legal principles to the specific facts of the case.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of a purposive interpretation of the legislation. It held that the statutory language should be construed in a way that gave effect to the overall objectives of the Act, which include the protection of the environment. The court found that the activities in question did not fall within the prohibited uses outlined in the local environmental plan, and thus were not unlawful. The court also determined that the council had not acted beyond its statutory powers and that its decision-making process was reasonable and rational. The declaration sought by the property group was granted.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the activities undertaken by the property group did not constitute a prohibited use under the local environmental plan, and that the council's actions were lawful and within its statutory powers. The court also ordered the costs of the proceedings to be paid by the council. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the role of local environmental plans in regulating land use.

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.