Australia, Jan. 11 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Dec. 17:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of Development Application DA2023/0492 for lot amalgamation and construction of a 2 storey 88 place centre-based child care facility with 22 car parking spaces within a basement, associated landscaping and site works at 319-321 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci (Lot 5 & 6 DP 4277) by Georges River Council.

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference, which I presided over, was held on 14 November 2024.

3. The Respondent, as the relevant consent authority has approved, under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation), the Applicant amending DA2023/0492 in accordance with the documents listed at Annexure A (amended DA).

4. As part of the conciliation conference process, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal for the amended DA and granting development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent.

5. I note that as part of the s 34 agreement, the parties have submitted a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters. I have considered the contents of the jurisdictional statement together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, the Notice of Motion documents filed on 15 August 2024, joint expert reports and the documents that are referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.

6. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

7. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

Jurisdictional matters

8. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application, subject to conditions of consent, is a decision that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the following reasons:

1) Pursuant to s 23 of the EPA Regulation owner's consent accompanied the DA and formed part of the Class 1 Application.

2) The development application was notified by Georges River Council between 16 November 2023 and 14 December 2023 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the EPA Act. Two submissions objecting to the application were received. Following amendments to the plans the application was renotified from 2 to 16 September 2024 and two further submissions were received. No objectors provided oral submissions at the commencement of the s 34 conciliation conference.

3) In reaching agreement the parties have considered the concerns raised by objectors.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193bd357b6d3c0898848b84a)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.