Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1484


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1484
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 July 2017
Date of orders: 31 August 2017
Decision date: 31 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of application for three new residential flat buildings - amended design- agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/0073106
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the deemed refusal of development application number JRPP-16-03341. The application seeks approval erection of three residential flat buildings containing 149 units on approved lots 16C in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road Schofields).

  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 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Drawing reference

Title

Prepared by

Date

16C-000, Rev D

Cover Page

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-001, Rev C

Compliance Table

The Bathla Group

30 June 2017

16C-002, Rev B

Location Plan

The Bathla Group

23 May 2017

16C003, Rev B

Site Analysis

The Bathla Group

23 May 2017

16C-004,Rev B

Site Plan

The Bathla Group

23 May 2017

16C-005, Rev D

Plan – Basement 2

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-006, Rev E

Plan – Basement 1

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-007, Rev D

Plan – Ground

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-008, Rev D

Plan – Level 1

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-009, Rev D

Plan – Level 2

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-010, Rev D

Plan – Level 3

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-011, Rev D

Plan - Level 4

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-012, Rev D

Plan – Level 5

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-013, Rev D

Plan – Roof

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-014, Rev C

Sections – AA + BB

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-015, Rev C

Driveway sections

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-016, Rev D

Elevations – North & South

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-017, Rev D

Elevations – East & West

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-018, Rev C

Materials and Finishes

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-019, Rev C

Height Study

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-020, Rev C

Shadow Analysis & C.O.S Analysis

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-021, Rev C

Daylight Compliance & Cross Ventilation

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-022, Rev C

Area Calc. – FSR

The Bathla Group

30 June 2017

16C-023, Rev B

Area Calc. – Deep Soil, Landscaped & C.O.S

The Bathla Group

23 May 2017

16C-026, Rev C

Path Way to Bin Room

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

16C-027, Rev B

Site Coverage

The Bathla Group

30 June 2017

16C-029, Rev A

Cut and Fill

The Bathla Group

23 May 2017

16C-030, Rev A

Solar Access

The Bathla Group

4 August 2017

LP-DA 01, Rev C

Concept Landscape Plan

The Bathla Group

7 August 2017

LP-DA 02, Rev C

Landscape Specification

The Bathla Group

7 August 2017

LP-DA 03, Rev C

Landscape Details

The Bathla Group

7 August 2017

BASIX Certificate Number 758653M_03

  1. The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request prepared by GLN planning Consulting Strategy for a variation of the Height of Building development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. Development application No. JRPP-16-03341 for the erection of 3 residential flat buildings containing 149 units including stormwater and landscaping works on approved lot 16C in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure ”C”.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court 

73106.17 Dickson - Annexure A (17.3 MB, pdf)

73106.17 Dickson - Annexure B (713 KB, pdf)

73106.17 Dickson - Annexure C (536 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1484
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1484
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Blacktown Council, with the dispute concerning a dispute over a claim for damages for loss of profits and lost opportunities. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group Pty Ltd, sought damages for the alleged failure of the defendant, Blacktown Council, to grant approval for the development of a property. The plaintiff claimed that it had suffered significant losses due to the council's actions, including lost profits and missed opportunities.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had established a causal link between the council's actions and the alleged losses, and whether the losses claimed were too remote to be recoverable. The court also needed to consider whether the council had acted within its powers when it refused to grant approval for the development. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the losses claimed.

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a causal link between the council's actions and the alleged losses. The court held that the plaintiff's losses were too remote and speculative to be recoverable. The court also found that the council had acted within its powers when it refused to grant approval for the development. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages was unsuccessful, and the defendant was entitled to judgment in its favour. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

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.