Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1351
Because the agreed amended development was permissible with consent in the relevant R2 and R3 zones, satisfied or validly relied on exceptions to applicable planning controls, addressed tree removal, height, public utility infrastructure, contamination, traffic, BASIX and Hawkesbury-Nepean River planning requirements through the material and agreed conditions, and because the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No DA 19 00123 / Second Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and Final Orders Were Made
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions at Annexure A.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'subdivision and Residential Development' 'deferred Commencement Conditions' 'state Environmental Planning Policies' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No DA 19 00123 / Second Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and Final Orders Were Made
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court should grant leave for the applicant to rely on amended Revision K engineering plans and amend Development Application No DA-19-00123 to include works on adjoining land' "Whether the parties' agreement to grant development consent was a decision 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 proposed subdivision, dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, temporary onsite stormwater detention basins, tree removal, roads and infrastructure satisfied the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the agreed amended development was permissible with consent in the relevant R2 and R3 zones, satisfied or validly relied on exceptions to applicable planning controls, addressed tree removal, height, public utility infrastructure, contamination, traffic, BASIX and Hawkesbury-Nepean River planning requirements through the material and agreed conditions, and because the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions at Annexure A.
Orders
- ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the Revision K engineering plans prepared by Barker Ryan Stewart dated 2 July 2020 listed in the orders.' 'Leave is granted to amend Development Application No. DA-19-00123 to include the construction of the temporary turning head, stormwater drainage works and road...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment