Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1570


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1570
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 August, 2, 9, 25 November 2016
Date of orders: 25 November 2016
Decision date: 25 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: subdivision, road dedication, drainage, tree planting, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: UNIVERSAL PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 078 297 748) (Applicant)
BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Ms E Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/158917
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 applicant is granted leave to amend development application DA-15-02253 to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 2.1.1 and condition 5.1.3 of Annexure A.

  2. The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Deferred commencement approval for the following works on Lots 4 & 5 DP 1016066 (known as 60 & 62 Hambledon Road, Schofields), Lot 56 DP 28833 (known as 70 Hambledon Road, Schofields), Lot 57 DP 28833 (known as 68 Hambledon Road Schofields) Lot 58 DP 28833 (know as 66 Hambledon Road Schofields) Lot 59 DP 28833 (known as 64 Hambledon Road Schofields) is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A:

Stage 1:

  1. Consolidate 6 lots into 1,

  2. Subdivision of the consolidated lot into 10 Torrens title superlots and 4 residue lots, construction of new public roads, stormwater drainage works and the removal of the dam and trees,

  3. Dedication of the new public roads and land for road widening to Council prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

Stage 2: Subdivision of 10 superlots into 159 Torrens title lots

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

158917.16 Hussey (C) (389 KB, pdf)

158917.16 Hussey - Plans (2.63 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1570
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1570
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Universal Property Group Pty Ltd, brought proceedings against the defendant, Blacktown City Council, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerns the validity of a development approval issued by the Council for a proposed development on property owned by the plaintiff. Universal Property Group alleged that the Council had acted beyond its statutory powers and that the approval process was flawed, leading to a decision that was unreasonable and unjust.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council had the authority to grant the development approval and if the process followed was in accordance with the relevant planning legislation. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether it constituted an unreasonable exercise of its statutory powers. The plaintiff argued that the Council's approval process was procedurally unfair and that the decision to grant approval was not based on proper consideration of all relevant factors.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the approval process and the evidence presented regarding the Council's actions. It found that the Council had indeed acted within its statutory powers, and the approval process followed the necessary legislative requirements. The Court concluded that the decision to grant development approval was reasonable and properly made, as it was based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors and adhered to the applicable planning laws. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the Council.

The final orders of the Court included a declaration that the development approval issued by the defendant was valid and in compliance with the relevant legislation. The Court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

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.