Background
Mariani Pty Ltd appealed Blacktown City Council’s refusal of development application DA-24-01073 for a two-storey addition to an existing place of public worship at 3 Tasha Place, Kings Park. The site is zoned E4 General Industrial under the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015, where additions to places of public worship are permissible as innominate uses.
The parties participated in a conciliation conference on 7 May 2026 before Commissioner Porter. During conciliation, the applicant amended the development application to address council concerns. The amendments included suspending the first floor outside the on-site detention system, relocating toilet facilities, and varying car parking arrangements. The council consented to these amendments under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
The Court’s Holding
The court upheld the appeal and granted development consent to the amended application, subject to conditions. The parties had reached agreement on the terms of the decision, and the court confirmed it was a decision the court could lawfully make under its jurisdiction.
Commissioner Porter conducted a jurisdictional check confirming satisfaction of all prerequisites: owner’s consent had been obtained, community notification occurred from 14–28 October 2024 with no submissions received, and the proposal complied with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (Resilience and Hazards 2021; Sustainable Buildings 2022) and the local planning scheme. All essential services requirements were met.
The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of $4,000 within 28 days for costs thrown away by the amendment, and granted development consent subject to conditions specified in Annexure A.
Key Takeaways
- Development appeals can be resolved efficiently through conciliation conferences when parties reach agreement on terms acceptable to both.
- Applicants may amend applications during the appeal process to address council concerns; amendments must be consented to by the relevant consent authority.
- Courts need only verify jurisdictional prerequisites and that the agreed order is one the court could lawfully make—no merit assessment is required when parties agree.
- Extensions to places of public worship in industrial zones may be permissible as innominate uses under local environmental plans.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how conciliation can resolve development disputes without adversarial litigation. When parties negotiate amendments that address planning concerns, courts will facilitate resolution by confirming the agreement complies with jurisdictional requirements. For developers, this shows the value of engaging meaningfully with council feedback during the appeal process.
For local governments and legal practitioners, the case reaffirms that Class 1 development appeals need not proceed to full merit assessment when parties have negotiated acceptable terms, reducing litigation costs and delay while ensuring compliance with environmental planning law.