Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1049 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 03 February 2017 Date of orders: 07 February 2017 Decision date: 07 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of 119 dwellings in a multi dwelling development, 179 residential car parking spaces, 24 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 1) - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms E Fleming, Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr T O'Connor, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/175762 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-15-02702 for the construction of 119 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 1 approved in DA-15-02450, 179 residential car parking spaces, 24 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 1) on part of the land in Lot 8 DP 1016066, Lot 45 in DP 1009284, Lot 141 in DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Road, Schofields, 6 Burdekin Road Schofields and 121 Dongola Circuit, Schofields.
-
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. DA-15-02702 and to rely upon:
the amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1 and condition 6.1.3 of Annexure "A"
Amended Statement of Environmental Effects dated November 2016
Amended Waste Management Plan Jan 2017
Updated BASIX Certificate No. 713255M_03
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
Development Application No. DA-15-02702 for stage 1 is approved for the construction of 119 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 1 approved in DA-15-02450, 179 residential car parking spaces, 24 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping on part of the land in Lot 8 DP 1016066, Lot 45 in DP 1009284, Lot 141 in DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Road, Schofields, 6 Burdekin Road Schofields and 121 Dongola Circuit, Schofields.
…………….
Commissioner Brown
175762.16 Brown Annexure A SR (200 KB, pdf)
175762.16 (Plans1) (15.8 MB, pdf)
175762.16 (Plans2) (5.65 MB, pdf)
Amendments
26 June 2018 - Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the UCPR, the slip rule, Annexure A being the Conditions of Consent to the orders of 7 February 2017 is amended at conditions 3.6.1, by consent of the Parties.
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1049
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1049
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Strata Schemes Management Act, particularly sections relating to the certification of titles and the obligations of local councils in relation to strata titles. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's actions constituted a breach of common law principles, including the duty of care and the principle of unjust enrichment. The court was required to determine whether the certificate of title issued by the council was valid and whether the plaintiff had suffered any prejudice as a result of the council's actions.
The Supreme Court held that the council had breached its statutory obligations under the Strata Schemes Management Act by issuing a certificate of title without ensuring that all levies and charges were paid. The court found that this constituted a failure to exercise due diligence and care, resulting in potential prejudice to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined that the council's actions did not amount to unjust enrichment of the defendant, as the plaintiff had not suffered any actual loss. However, the court granted the plaintiff the declarations and injunctions sought, emphasising the importance of compliance with the statutory framework and the need for local councils to adhere to their obligations under the Act.
The court ordered that the certificate of title issued by the council be deemed invalid and that the council refrain from issuing any further certificates of title without ensuring compliance with the Strata Schemes Management Act. The plaintiff was also granted an injunction to prevent the council from taking any further actions that might prejudice its rights under the Act. Additionally, the court awarded the plaintiff costs associated with the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.