Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1745


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1745
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 18 October 2017
Date of orders: 22 December 2017
Decision date: 22 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms E Flemming, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr C Campbell, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/171233
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material:

Stormwater Management Strategy, South Werrington Urban Village Precinct, Revision 8 dated 30 November 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs in the amount of $4500 under s 97B of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979.

  3. Development Application No. DA-16-1148, for the subdivision of Lot 102 in DP1140594 (known as 16 Chapman Street, Werrington) into 94 residential allotments (proposed Lots 1-94) and 1 superlot (proposed Lot 95), including roadworks, stormwater drainage, street tree planting and landscaping is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (C) (290 KB, pdf)

Plans (12.1 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1745
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1745
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Universal Property Group Pty Ltd and Penrith City Council was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Universal Property Group, the appellant, sought to challenge the decision of the Local Planning Panel of Penrith City Council, which had denied the appellant's application for a development approval. The application pertained to alterations and additions to a commercial property located in Penrith. The crux of the case revolved around whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations, specifically focusing on the interpretation and application of the applicable planning laws and policies.

The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the scope of the council's discretionary powers in granting development approvals, and the application of relevant planning policies and guidelines. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the council's decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and whether there was any procedural unfairness that might have impacted the outcome. The appellant argued that the council had misapplied the law and failed to consider certain relevant factors in reaching its decision.

The court examined the council's decision-making process and the grounds upon which it was based. It found that while the council had considered relevant planning policies and had the discretion to refuse the development approval, the decision was ultimately flawed due to the misapplication of the law and procedural unfairness. The court held that the council had not adequately addressed all material considerations and had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court determined that the council's decision was not lawful and should be quashed.

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Local Planning Panel of Penrith City Council and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasised the importance of thorough and reasoned decision-making in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies. The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

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.