Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1050 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 24 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 44, 51 dwellings in a multi dwelling development with Superlot 57 and 9 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 58, 135 residential car parking spaces, 18 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 3) 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: Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/175699 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-16-03304 for the construction of 24 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 44, 51 dwellings in a multi dwelling development with Superlot 57 and 9 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 58 approved in DA-15-02450, 135 residential car parking spaces, 18 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 3) on part of the land in Lot 8 in DP 1016066, Lot 45 in DP 1009284, Lot 141 in DP 1000239 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-16- 03304 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. 676983M
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-16-03304 for stage 3 is approved for the construction of 24 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 44, 51 dwellings in a multi dwelling development with Superlot 57 and 9 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 58 approved in DA-15-02450, 135 residential car parking spaces, 18 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works, stormwater drainage and landscaping on part of the land in Lot 8 in DP 1016066, Lot 45 in DP 1009284, Lot 141 in DP 1000239 known as 73-77 Hambledon Road, Schofields, 6 Burdekin Road Schofields and 121 Dongola Circuit, Schofields.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
175699.16 Brown Annexure A SR (234 KB, pdf)
175699.16 Brown (Plans 1) (19.2 MB, pdf)
175699.16 Brown (Plans 2) (13.3 MB, pdf)
175699.16 Brown (Plans 3) (2.12 MB, pdf)
175699.16 Brown (Plans 4) (545 KB, 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 1050
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1050
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Council's permit granting decision was lawful. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the decision was based on relevant considerations and whether it adhered to the statutory framework governing planning and development permits in New South Wales. UPG argued that the Council had failed to take into account certain statutory requirements and had improperly favoured the adjacent landowner.
The Court found that the Council's decision was flawed as it failed to consider all relevant factors, particularly those that related to UPG's property. The Council had not adequately addressed the impact of the permit on UPG's property, which was a critical consideration under the relevant legislation. Furthermore, the Court held that the Council had acted irrationally by not providing sufficient reasons for its decision. Consequently, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
In light of the findings, the Court made orders quashing the Council's permit granting decision and directing the Council to reconsider the application, taking into account all relevant factors and providing adequate reasons for its decision. The Court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Council.
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.