Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1048


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1048
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 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 2) - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
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, Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor, Houston ,Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/175708
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-16-00003 for the construction of 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16 approved in DA-15-02450, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 2) on part of the land in Lot 141 DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Rd, Schofields.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 to amend development application no. DA-16- 00003 and to rely upon:

  1. The amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1 and condition 6.1.3 of Annexure "A"

  2. Amended Statement of Environmental Effects dated November 2016

  3. Amended Waste Management Plan Jan 2017

  4. Updated BASIX Certificate No. 703650M_02

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development Application No. DA-16-00003 for stage 2 is approved for the construction of 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16 approved in DA-15-02450, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping on part of the land in Lot 141 DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Rd, Schofields.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

175708.16 Brown Annexure A SR (244 KB, pdf)

175708.16 Brown - Plans (10.0 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.

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1048
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1048
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown City Council. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) in relation to the allocation of land by the Council. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether the Council was legally justified in allocating a specific parcel of land to a third party, which had previously been reserved for the plaintiff's development project.

The primary legal issue revolved around the Council's authority to allocate the land in question and whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers. The plaintiff argued that the Council had breached its fiduciary duties by allocating the land to a third party without proper consideration of the plaintiff's interests, which had been pre-existing and legally recognised. The Council contended that it had acted within its statutory powers and had not breached any fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff.

In its decision, the court considered the legislative framework governing the allocation of land by local councils and the principles of statutory interpretation. The court held that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and had not breached any fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff. The court emphasised that the Council's decision to allocate the land was based on its assessment of the overall public interest and was not influenced by any improper considerations. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim for relief was not supported by the evidence presented and that the Council's actions were in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed in its entirety and that the plaintiff bear the costs of the proceedings. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the Council's costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the substantial legal work required to resolve the complex issues in the case. This decision underscored the importance of local councils acting within their statutory powers and the limited circumstances under which courts may intervene in such matters.

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.