Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1586

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1586
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 August, 29 September, 18 October, 21 November 2016
Date of orders: 07 December 2016
Decision date: 07 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environment 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:

Counsel:
M. Astill (Applicant)
- (Respondent)

Solicitors:
E. Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
A. Berry, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00152785
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 to amend Development Application No. 15-2649 and to rely upon the amended plans listed at conditions 3.1.1 and 5.1.3 of consent at Annexure "A".

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed in the sum of $8,500 within 14 days.

  4. Deferred commencement approval for Development Application No. 15-2649, as amended, is granted for the subdivision to create 51 Torrens Title residential lots (proposed Lots 1-51), two residue lots (proposed Lot 52 and Lot 53), 1 lot for a public road (proposed Lot 54), 1 lot for the balance of the E4 zone and E2 zone land (proposed Lot 55) and 1 lot for a drainage basin (proposed Lot 56), construction and dedication of new public roads, and construction of associated site works, landscaping works, tree removal and drainage works (including the construction of a permanent bio-retention drainage basin on proposed Lot 56) on Lots 5, 6 and 7 in DP 1041877 known as 112 Symonds Rd, Colebee, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

Note: Clause 5.3(5) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Schofields Precinct applies to this Development Application.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner

152785.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (224 KB, pdf)

152785.16 - Plans (2.76 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1586
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1586
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of a development application approval granted by the council to the applicant, specifically concerning the permissible uses of a property located in Blacktown. The applicant sought clarification and confirmation of certain entitlements derived from the approval, while the council argued that the approval did not permit the applicant to undertake certain activities on the site.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the approval granted by the council included certain rights or permissions, and if the applicant was entitled to rely on representations made by council officers during the approval process. The applicant argued that the approval allowed for specific uses of the property, and that it was entitled to rely on representations made by council officers. The council, on the other hand, contended that the approval did not encompass those uses and that the applicant could not rely on the representations.

The court considered the terms of the approval, the representations made by the council officers, and the principles of estoppel. It found that the approval did not explicitly permit the applicant to undertake the activities in question. However, the court held that the applicant was entitled to rely on representations made by council officers regarding the permissible uses of the property. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, confirming that certain uses were indeed permitted under the approval.

The court ordered that the council's development approval be interpreted to include the specific uses claimed by the applicant, based on the representations made by council officers during the approval process. The applicant was also awarded costs associated with the proceedings.

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.