Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1534


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1534
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 August, 2 September and 9 November 2016
Date of orders: 14 November 2016
Decision date: 14 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Ms R Fleming
E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr D Loether
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s):152747/2016
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, 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. JRPP 16-02970 and to rely upon the amended plans listed in conditions 2.1.1 and 4.1.3, copies of which are behind Annexure "A".

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

  4. Development Application No. JRPP 16-02790 (as amended) for the subdivision of Lot 3031 in DP1065319 to create 101 Torrens Title lots, construction of public roads (Lot 102), street tree planting and stormwater drainage works on Lot 3031 in DP 1065319 known as 3031 Perfection Avenue, Stanhope Gardens, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “B”.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

152747.2016 Annexure A Plans (2.81 MB, pdf)

152747.2016 Annexure B (C) (364 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1534
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1534
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown City Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group Pty Ltd, sought a declaration that the council's actions in denying its application for a development approval were invalid and an order for the council to approve the application. The case involved a challenge to the council's decision not to grant planning approval for a proposed development on a piece of property owned by the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the council's decision was unreasonable and whether there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff argued that the council failed to consider relevant factors and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on proper consideration of all relevant matters and was not subject to procedural flaws.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles of administrative law and the relevant statutory framework governing planning decisions. The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that there was no breach of natural justice. The court was satisfied that the council had adequately considered the relevant planning criteria and provided sufficient reasons for its decision. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for a declaration and an order for approval was dismissed.

The court ordered that Universal Property Group Pty Ltd pay the costs of the council in relation to the proceedings. The court also clarified that the council's decision was not subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (NSW), as it was a decision made in the exercise of a statutory power.

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.