Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1483 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 two 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): 2017/0070962
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-16-03342. The application seeks approval erection of two residential flat buildings containing 147 units on approved lots 16D and 16E 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
16D&E-000, Rev C
Cover Page
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-001, Rev C
Compliance Table
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-002, Rev B
Location Plan
The Bathla Group
31 May 2017
16D&E-003, Rev B
Site Analysis
The Bathla Group
31 May 2017
16D&E-004, Rev B
Site Plan
The Bathla Group
31 May 2017
16D&E-005, Rev E
Plan – Basement 2
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-006, Rev E
Plan – Basement 1
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-007, Rev D
Plan – Ground
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-008, Rev C
Plan – Level 1
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-009, Rev C
Plan – Level 2
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-010, Rev C
Plan – Level 3
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-011, Rev D
Plan - Level 4
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-012, Rev D
Plan – Roof
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-013, Rev C
Sections – AA + BB
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-014, Rev B
Driveway sections
The Bathla Group
31 May 2017
16D&E-015, Rev D
Elevations – North & South
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-016, Rev D
Elevations – East & West
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-017, Rev C
Materials and Finishes
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-018, Rev C
Height Study
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-019, Rev C
Shadow Analysis & C.O.S Analysis
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-020, Rev D
Daylight Compliance & Cross Ventilation
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-021, Rev D
Area Calc. – FSR
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-022, Rev C
Area Calc. – Deep Soil, Landscaped & C.O.S
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-025, Rev C
Path Way to Bin Room
The Bathla Group
13 July 2017
16D&E-027, Rev C
Site Coverage
The Bathla Group
4 August 2017
16D&E-028, Rev A
Shadow Diagram
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 757631M_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-16-03342 for the erection of 2 residential flat buildings containing 147 units on approved lots 16D and 16E in the subdivision of Lot 16 DP 31797 (Pelican Road, Schofields) including stormwater drainage and landscaping is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “C”.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
70962.17 Dickson - Annexure A (16.7 MB, pdf)
70962.17 Dickson - Annexure B (493 KB, pdf)
70962.17 Dickson - Annexure C (536 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1483
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1483
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the Council had followed the correct procedures as outlined in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) when granting the permit. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the permit complied with relevant planning laws and if there was any procedural unfairness or bias in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the permit granted was consistent with the relevant planning scheme and whether there was any material error in the assessment of the application.
The court carefully examined the statutory framework and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Council had indeed followed the correct procedures and that the permit was granted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The court also determined that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias in the decision-making process. The permit was found to be consistent with the relevant planning scheme, and no material error was identified in the assessment of the application. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Council, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The court ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the plaintiff.
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.