Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1554 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 July, 7 September, 7 October, 2 and 9 November 2016 Date of orders: 09 November 2016 Decision date: 09 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: staged subdivision for 3 lots, & construction of a 130 unit multi dwelling housing development, road widths, drainage, building elevations; 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: Ms E Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/155584 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Integrated Development Application No. JRPP 15-2510 and to rely upon the amended plans listed in conditions 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 8.1.3 of Annexure "A".
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's reasonable costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the sum of $5500.
Integrated Development Application for the demolition of the existing structures, removal of all trees, amalgamation of 3 lots, subdivision to create 19 Torrens title lots comprising 1 lot for new public roads (Lot 19), 17 residential lots (Lots 1-17), 1 lot for a multi dwelling development for 79 Units and a private driveway (Lot 18), construction of 79 residential units, driveways and car parking on Lot 18, construction of new roads on Lot 19, part lot 4 and lot 7 DP 1211260, stormwater drainage and associated landscaping, is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
155584.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (507 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1554
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1554
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was legally sound, whether there was procedural unfairness in the decision-making process, and whether the grounds for refusal were supported by the evidence. The Court had to determine whether the Council correctly exercised its discretion under the relevant planning legislation and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations.
In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the Council had exercised its discretion lawfully and in accordance with the planning legislation. The Court held that the decision was based on relevant considerations and that there was no procedural unfairness. The evidence presented supported the grounds for refusal, which included concerns about the impact on the local environment and traffic congestion. The Court concluded that the Council's decision was reasonable and lawful, and dismissed the application for review.
As a result of the Court's decision, the refusal of the development application by the Council was upheld. Universal Property Group's application for judicial review was dismissed, and no orders were made in their favour. The Council's decision remained valid, and the proposed residential project could not proceed without further amendments or approvals.
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.