Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1568


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1568
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, stage subdivision, road layout, contamination orderly development, 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):2016/159000
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-15-02100 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. Development Application DA-15-02100 for the following works on Lot 52 DP 28833 (known as 78 Hambledon Road Schofields), Lot 53 DP 28833 (known as 76 Hambledon Road Schofields), Lot 54 DP 28833 (known as 74 Hambledon Road Schofields), Lot 5301 in DP 1197883 (known as Megalong Road The Ponds), Lot 5327 DP 1197883 (known as Hambledon Road The Ponds) is approved subject to conditions at Annexure A:

(i) Stage 1:

  1. Consolidate Lot 52, Lot 53, Lot 54 in DP 28833, Lot 5301 in DP 1197883 and Lot 5327 DP 1197883 into 1 Torrens Title Lot.

  2. Subdivision of the consolidated lot into 9 allotments comprising 6 Torrens title residential superlots (proposed superlots 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9), a lot for road widening (proposed Lot 7), a lot for new public roads (proposed Lot 1) and a lot for Public Open Space (proposed Lot 2)), construction of new public roads, stormwater drainage works and the removal of the dam and trees,

  3. Dedication of the new public roads to Council prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.   

(ii) Stage 2: Subdivision of 9 Torrens title residential superlots into 129 Torrens title lots.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

159000.16 Hussey (C) (392 KB, pdf)

159000.16 Hussey - Plans (485 KB, pdf)

Amendments

30 November 2016 - Plans attached

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1568
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1568
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by the Blacktown City Council to refuse an application for a development permit. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Local Government Act 1993 and related planning regulations. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relevant planning legislation and whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on the correct application of the law. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council correctly identified and considered all relevant factors and whether it had acted within its statutory powers.

The court examined the statutory framework and the evidence presented to the council, including submissions from various stakeholders. The judge found that the council had not adequately considered all relevant factors and had made an error in its interpretation of the planning legislation. The court held that the council's decision was not based on a proper application of the law and was therefore unreasonable. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of thorough consideration and accurate legal interpretation in council decision-making processes. It underscored the need for councils to ensure that all relevant factors are considered and that decisions are made in accordance with the law. The court's order mandated that the council review the application afresh, taking into account all relevant considerations and applying the correct legal standards. This decision serves as a reminder to local councils of the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the consequences of failing to do so.

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.