Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1546

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1546

The agreed orders were within the Court's power because the amended development was permissible with consent, the clause 4.6 request for the limited height non-compliance was adequately justified, the relevant planning instruments and statutory matters were satisfied or addressed by conditions, and the parties' agreement was therefore 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.

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 SPP 17 00022 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; clause 4.6 request upheld; development application approved subject to conditions of consent.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Building Development Standard' 'residential Flat Building' 'conditions of Consent']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Building Development Standard' 'residential Flat Building' 'conditions of Consent']

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 SPP 17 00022 / Orders Made 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 clause 4.6 written 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 environmental planning instruments and statutory considerations had been addressed so that development consent could be granted subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The agreed orders were within the Court's power because the amended development was permissible with consent, the clause 4.6 request for the limited height non-compliance was adequately justified, the relevant planning instruments and statutory matters were satisfied or addressed by conditions, and the parties' agreement was therefore 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.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; clause 4.6 request upheld; development application approved subject to conditions of consent.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's written clause 4.6 request dated 7 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...