Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1547

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1547

The Court was satisfied that the amended proposal was permissible with consent, that the clause 4.6 request adequately justified the minor height non-compliance caused by two lift overruns, that the proposal was consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the R3 medium density residential zone and in the public interest, and that the relevant planning instruments and jurisdictional requirements had been addressed. Because the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court made orders upholding the clause 4.6 request, upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 17 01502 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No. DA-17-01502 approved subject to conditions of consent.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'basix' 'remediation of Land' 'design Quality' 'special Infrastructure Contribution']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'basix' 'remediation of Land' 'design Quality' 'special Infrastructure Contribution']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 17 01502 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the amended proposal was permissible with consent under Appendix 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.' "Whether the Applicant's written clause 4.6 request justified contravention of the height of building development standard in clause 4.3 of Appendix 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006." 'Whether relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and environmental planning controls had been satisfied for grant of consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the amended proposal was permissible with consent, that the clause 4.6 request adequately justified the minor height non-compliance caused by two lift overruns, that the proposal was consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the R3 medium density residential zone and in the public interest, and that the relevant planning instruments and jurisdictional requirements had been addressed. Because the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court made orders upholding the clause 4.6 request, upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No. DA-17-01502 approved subject to conditions of consent.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's written clause 4.6 request dated 4 September 2020 made under Appendix 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 seeking a variation to the development standard for height under clause 4.3, is well founded and upheld." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development...