Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1048 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 03 February 2017 Date of orders: 07 February 2017 Decision date: 07 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 2) - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitor: Ms E Fleming, Fleming Legal (Applicant) Mr T O'Connor, Houston ,Dearn O'Connor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/175708 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-16-00003 for the construction of 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16 approved in DA-15-02450, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping (Stage 2) on part of the land in Lot 141 DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Rd, Schofields. 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 no. DA-16- 00003 and to rely upon: 1. The amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1 and condition 6.1.3 of Annexure "A" 2. Amended Statement of Environmental Effects dated November 2016 3. Amended Waste Management Plan Jan 2017 4. Updated BASIX Certificate No. 703650M_02 1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's reasonable costs under s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed. 2. Development Application No. DA-16-00003 for stage 2 is approved for the construction of 53 dwellings in a multi dwelling development within Superlot 16 approved in DA-15-02450, 80 residential car parking spaces, 11 visitor car parking spaces, construction of driveways, associated site works including tree removal, stormwater drainage and landscaping on part of the land in Lot 141 DP 1000239, Lots 63 & 64 DP 28833 known as 73-77 Hambledon Rd, Schofields. ………………………. Commissioner Brown 175708.16 Brown Annexure A SR (244 KB, pdf) 175708.16 Brown - Plans (10.0 MB, pdf) Amendments 26 June 2018 - Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the UCPR, the slip rule, Annexure A being the Conditions of Consent to the orders of 7 February 2017 is amended at conditions 3.6.1, by consent of the Parties. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 June 2018