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 1979Cases 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
-
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).
-
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 are:
The appeal is upheld.
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
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.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
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)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1484
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1484
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.