Australia, July 14 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 13:

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 DA-24/1583 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 90 place childcare centre (DA) at 2 Holmhale Street, Bowral, legally known as Lot 1 in DP 610257 (site).

2. The proceedings commenced as a hearing and started on site on 27 May 2025. Following leave being granted for further joint expert conferencing, the parties advised that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested a s 34 conciliation conference. The request was granted and the Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties on 28 May 2025. 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-24/1583 in accordance with the documents listed below:

1) Acoustic Impact Assessment Revision 11 dated 27 May 2025 prepared by Acoustic Logic.

2) Operational Plan of Management Revision 7 dated 27 May 2025 prepared by Urbanesque Planning.

4. Amendments to the DA include:

1) Revised acoustic assessment based on all children engaged in outdoor play.

2) A maximum of four hours of outdoor play per day.

3) Acoustic fence height reduced from 2.7m to 2.1m

5. 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.

6. 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1975c40e81618244ca815f76)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.