Australia, Aug. 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 1:

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 deemed refusal of DA-24/0456 for demolition of existing structures, removal of 21 existing trees and construction of a single storey childcare centre for 98 children with basement parking and associated stormwater and landscape works (DA) at 111-113 Victoria Street, Cambridge Park NSW 2747, legally known as Lot 16 and Lot 17 in Deposited Plan 200569 (site).

2. The proceedings were initially listed for a hearing commencing 25 June 2025. The parties advised the Court that the issues in dispute had been resolved through amendments to the DA and requested a conciliation conference. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties that same day. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. The Court notes that the Respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 to the Applicant amending DA-24/0456 in accordance with the documents listed below:

* Estimated Development Cost Report prepared by M & T Cost Engineering Pty Ltd dated 16 June 2025

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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal for the amended DA and granting development consent subject to conditions of consent under s 4.16 of the EPA Act.

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

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

6. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. I am satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, as set out below.

7. The DA was lodged to the Respondent on 26 September 2024. I am satisfied that owners consent has been provided for the DA as the Applicants are the owners. The Respondent notified the DA from 18 July to August 2024 and the amended DA from 26 May to 10 June 2025. One submission was received to the first notification whilst no submissions were received to the second notification.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

8. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, where the proposed use for a centre-based child care facility is permissible with consent. Pursuant to cl 2.3, I have had regard to the objectives of the zone.

9. Clause 2.7 demolition permits demolition with consent, as sought by the amended DA.

10. Clause 4.3 height of buildings applies and allows a maximum of 8.5m. The architectural plans prepared by Design M Studio with various dates (architectural plans) demonstrate that the amended proposal is below 8.5m.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197bea0f99d3f02ac75d87cb)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.