Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1683


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1683
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5, 27 September, 13, 23 October & 28 November 2017
Date of orders: 29 November 2017
Decision date: 29 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, Swaab (Applicant)
Ms J Wauchope, Dentons Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/1268237
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend development application DA16/0889 and to rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 1 of Annexure "A".

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 97B of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  4. Consent for DA16/889 for the subdivision of 2 lots into 57 residential lots; which includes 4 lots to be used for temporary roads; construction of roads, stormwater drainage and landscaping at 27 Kent Road and 326 Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows, is granted in accordance with the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (297 KB, pdf)

Plans01 (3.79 MB, pdf)

Plans (105 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1683
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1683
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd versus Penrith City Council came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved the appellant, Universal Property Group, contesting a decision by the respondent, Penrith City Council, to deny a development application for a proposed building. The development was planned to be located on a parcel of land that was subject to a heritage overlay in the City of Penrith Local Environment Plan 2008.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to deny the development application was lawful and whether there were any errors in the application of planning laws and policies. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning instruments and if the decision-making process adhered to statutory requirements. The appellant argued that the council's decision was not in accordance with the law and that the council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies.

The court reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties and considered the applicable planning legislation and policies. It found that the council had appropriately applied the relevant planning controls and had not made any errors in its decision-making process. The court held that the council's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the planning instruments and was not arbitrary or capricious. The appellant's challenge to the council's decision was therefore dismissed.

In summary, the court upheld the council's decision to deny the development application. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was confirmed as lawful. The court did not order any costs to be paid by either party.

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.