Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1652

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1652 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 December 2018 Date of orders: 14 December 2018 Decision date: 14 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris AC Decision: See [9] below Catchwords: Modification of consent: 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 Limited (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors: Swaab Attorneys (Applicant) L Raffaele, Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/185973 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (applicant) lodged an application with Blacktown City Council that sought to modify Development Consent No. SPP-17-00018. The council had not determined the application within the prescribed period and the applicant is appealing its deemed refusal under s 4.55(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). 2. That consent authorised construction of 192 x 2 storey multi-dwellings on proposed Lots 6, 7, 8 & 10 in the proposed subdivision of Lot 51 DP 1196583, known as 1086 Richmond Road, Marsden Park, including residential and visitor car spaces and internal private roads, stormwater drainage, vegetation removal and landscaping. 3. The issues in the case are whether the timing of works authorised under the consent should be varied to allow issue of a construction certificate prior to registration of a plan of subdivision. 4. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 14 December 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference. 5. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is to uphold the appeal and modify the development consent to amend the staging of the works approved. 6. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. 7. I have formed this state of satisfaction because the jurisdictional matters have been satisfied and the works will be conducted in an orderly manner. The agreed conditions ensure that appropriate access is available to the site. 8. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision. 9. The Court orders: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Consent SPP-17-00018 is modified in accordance with the modification of conditions as set out in Annexure A. 3. As a consequence of Order 2 above, Development Consent SPP-17-00018 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent set out in Annexure B. ………………………. Sue Morris Acting Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (21.6 KB, pdf) Annexure B (611 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: 17 December 2018