Australia, July 24 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 24:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA-24-00316 seeking consent for the amalgamation of 4 lots into 1 lot, construction of a two storey child care facility to accommodate 125 children and 19 staff, basement car parking for 39 vehicles, associated site works and landscaping (Proposed Development) at 64 - 70 Diamondback Parade, Melonba legally described as Lots 8314, 8315, 8316 and 8317 in DP1273495 (the Site).

2. The Site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts - Central River City) 2021, Appendix 11 Blacktown Growth Centres Precinct Plan (Precincts DCP).

3. Joint Expert Reports filed with the court address the contentions raised by the Respondent in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (ASOFAC) filed 31 January 2025 (Ex 1). At the commencement of the hearing the Applicant sought leave to rely upon documents and made an application to the Court to exercise the function of the Council and agree to that amendment to the Proposed Development. Subject to an order for costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, the Respondent did not object to the application to amend the Propose Development. My orders regarding the amendment and costs appear at the end of the judgment.

4. As a result of the joint expert evidence and amended plans and documents tendered by the Applicant, there has been a sharp narrowing of the issues remaining in the proceedings. The Respondent council presses the town planning Contentions relating to character and streetscape which I will refer to as external impacts and relating to internal impacts limited to the provision of ventilation to the proposed child care facility.

5. What I refer to as the external impacts of the Proposed Development are particularised in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 31 January 2025 (ASOFAC) (Ex 1) as follows:

1) Character and Streetscape (contentions 2);

2) Unacceptable built form (contention 3);

3) Site suitability (contention 10); and

4) Public interest (contention 11)

6. What I refer to as internal impacts of the Proposed Development are particularised in the ASOFAC as unacceptable internal amenity (contention 5) specifically in relation to the provision of natural ventilation.

7. Any remaining outstanding issues where agreement was not reached between the town planning experts are minor and are not pressed by the Respondent as a basis for refusing the Proposed Development.

8. Proposed/Draft Conditions of Consent were agreed between the parties and filed on 11 March 2025 (Ex 9).

9. I now set out my reasons for reaching the conclusion that the impacts of the Proposed Development are acceptable and why the remaining concerns do not warrant the refusal of the Proposed Development.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1978a924afde5a3f38129fec)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.