Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1483


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 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): 2017/0070962

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-16-03342. 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).

  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

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

  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-16-03342 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)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1483
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1483
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown Council, the plaintiff, Universal Property Group, brought a claim against Blacktown Council, the defendant, concerning the validity of a planning permit granted by the Council. The dispute centred on whether the Council had acted lawfully and within its statutory powers when it granted the permit. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

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.