Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1367 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22, 26, 28 June, 6, 10 July 2017 Date of orders: 13 July 2017 Decision date: 13 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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 Limited (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitor: Mr C McFadzean, SWAAB Lawyers (Applicant) Mr T O'Connor, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/47369 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: 5. The terms of the decision are as follows: 1. the appeal is upheld; 2. the applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by relying on the following plans: Drawing reference Title Prepared by Date DA 01/02 Rev 8 Site analysis plan The Bathla Group 7 July 2017 DA 02/02 Rev 8 Subdivision plan The Bathla Group 7 July 2017 SY1601160C110 Rev E Channel Plan and Longitudinal & typical Section Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C111 Rev E Detail sheets Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C112 Rev E Basin 2 plan & detail Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C113 Rev E Bio-Basin 1 plan & detail Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C114 Rev E Basin 3 plan & detail Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C115 Rev E Internal Catchments Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C116 Rev E Water quality catchments Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C117 Rev E External catchment Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C118 Rev E Soil & Water management plan Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 SY1601160C119 Rev E Soil & Water management plan details Barker Ryan Stewart 4 July 2017 1. development application No. 16-04667 for the subdivision of Lots 8 and 9 in DP 236422 (Nos. 100-102 Boundary Road, Schofields) into 68 lots comprising 66 residential lots (lot 65 being used as a bio-retention basin), one residue lot (proposed lot 67) and one lot within the SP2 zoned land (proposed lot 68), the construction of roads, tree removal and associated drainage is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A; 2. pursuant to s97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay those costs of the respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, agreed in the sum of $3,000. ………………………. Commissioner Chilcott 47369.17 Chilcott (C) (347 KB, pdf) 47369.17 Chilcott - Plans (366 KB, pdf) 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: 13 July 2017