Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1050 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 February 2018 Date of orders: 02 February 2018 Decision date: 02 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/221053 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: 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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material copies of which are behind Annexure “A:
BASIX Certificates: 821125M_02, 821164M_02 and 821242M
-
The appeal 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. DA-17-00852 for the construction of 115 two storey multi-dwellings on proposed Lot 1 (39 dwellings), Lot 2 (39 dwellings) and Lot 3 (37 dwellings) in the subdivision of Lot 6 Section Q in DP712 (known as 124 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone) as approved in DA16-05399, including the construction of internal roads and access ways associated drainage, open space, removal of trees and landscaping, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (17.1 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (405 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1050
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1050
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues addressed by the court involved whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether the applicant had demonstrated a legitimate entitlement to the zoning change. Additionally, the court examined whether the council had appropriately considered relevant planning policies and statutory criteria when making its decision.
The court found that the council's decision was unreasonable as it did not adequately address the applicant's arguments and failed to appropriately weigh the statutory criteria. The court highlighted that the council did not sufficiently consider the potential benefits of the proposed residential development, including the contribution to housing needs and the alignment with broader planning policies. Consequently, the court ordered the council to reconsider the application, with specific directions to properly evaluate the statutory criteria and the applicant's submissions. The council was also directed to provide detailed reasons for any future decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) 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.