Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1528


Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2016] NSWLEC 1528

Hearing Date(s): 

Conciliation conference on 14 September, 24 October 2016

Date of Orders:

9 November 2016

Decision Date: 

9 November 2016

Jurisdiction: 

Class 1

Before: 

Brown C

Decision: 

See (5) below

Catchwords: 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; medium density housing development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders

Legislation Cited: 

Environmental 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:
Ms E Fleming, solicitor (Applicant)
Ms J Corradini-Bird, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s): 

2016/00157626

Publication Restriction: 

No

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application no 15/2810 for the construction of a medium density housing development at 54 Schofields Road Schofield.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing Title

Drawing No.

Revision

Prepared by

Dated

Site Information

DA01

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Site Analysis Drawing

DA02

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Site Plan Drawing

DA03

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Ground Floor Plans Part 1 & 2

DA04

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Ground Floor Plan Part 3

DA05

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

First Floor Plans Part 1 & 2

DA06

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

First Floor Plans Part 3

DA07

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Elevations Part 1

DA08

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Elevations Part 2

DA09

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Elevations Part 3

DA10

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Shadow Analysis 1

DA11

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Shadow Analysis 2

DA12

3

The Bathla Group

23/9/2016

Concept Landscape Plan

LP 01/02

R02

The Bathla Group

4/10/2016

Concept Landscape Plan

LP 02/02

R02

The Bathla Group

4/10/2016

Colour Schedule

B

The Bathla Group

6/10/2016

Cover Sheet

CC-0000

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Survey Plan

CC-0001

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

General Notes Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0002

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

General Notes Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0003

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

CC-0004

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Erosion and Sediment Control Details

CC-0005

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Earthworks Volumes Plan and Sections

CC-0006

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Demolition Plan

CC-0007

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

General Arrangement Plan Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0010

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

General Arrangement Plan Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0011

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Typical Road Cross Sections

CC-0012

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Pavement Details

CC-0013

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Road Longitudinal Sections

CC-0020

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Cross Sections Road 1 Sheet 1 of 3

CC-0021

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Cross Sections Road 1 Sheet 2 of 3

CC-0022

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Cross Sections Road 1 Sheet 2 of 3

CC-0023

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Cross Sections Road 2 and Road 3 Sheet

CC-0024

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Intersection Details – Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0032

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Roadworks Intersection Details – Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0033

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Retaining Wall Longitudinal Section and Details

CC-0034

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Layout Plan Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0040

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Layout Plan Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0041

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Catchments Plan

CC-0042

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Longitudinal Section Sheet 1 of 3

CC-0043

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Longitudinal Section Sheet 2 of 3

CC-0044

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Longitudinal Section Sheet 3 of 3

CC-0045

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Details Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0046

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Details Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0047

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Stormwater Drainage Calculations Details

CC-0048

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

OSD/Bio-Filtration Basin Details Sheet 1 of 2

CC-0049

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

OSD/Bio-Filtration Basin Details Sheet 2 of 2

CC-0050

B

Aurecon Group

14/9/16

Document Title

Revision

Prepared by

Dated

BASIX Certificate No. 691964M_02

5 October 2016

Stormwater Management Report

01

Aurecon Group

23 September 2016

(2)The appeal is upheld.

(3)Development Application No. 15/2810 for the construction of a medium density housing development containing 55 two storey dwellings with 87 car parking spaces for residents and 11 car parking spaces for visitors, dedication of public open space to Council, tree removal and landscaping works, subdivision of the site into 4 lots, and construction of new public roads and drainage works on Lot 103 in Deposited Plan 1191633 (known as 54 Schofields Rd, Schofields), is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” hereto.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

157626.16 - Annexure A (250 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1528
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1528
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council, the parties were involved in a legal dispute concerning the payment of land taxes owed by Universal Property Group. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue in this case was whether the Council had the authority to impose a penalty on the company for late payment of land taxes, and if so, whether the penalty was excessive or unlawful.

The court was required to determine the scope of the Council's power to impose penalties under the relevant legislative provisions. The legal issue also involved examining the reasonableness of the penalty amount and whether the Council had acted within its statutory authority. The court needed to consider whether the Council's actions were consistent with the legislative framework governing land taxes and penalties.

The court concluded that the Council did have the authority to impose a penalty for late payment of land taxes. However, the penalty imposed was considered excessive and not in accordance with the statutory guidelines. The court found that the penalty was not only disproportionate but also not justifiable under the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the penalty imposed by the Council was invalid, and the Council was required to reassess the penalty in accordance with the legislative provisions. The court also ordered that Universal Property Group was only liable to pay the original tax amount without the excessive penalty.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.