Background
JS Architects Pty Ltd lodged DA-25-01479 with Blacktown City Council for a mixed-use proposal at 23 Bungalow Road, Plumpton. The proposal included 26 two-storey seniors-housing independent living units above basement parking, refurbishment and reorientation of an existing soccer field, associated fencing and infrastructure, and Torrens title subdivision.
After the Council did not determine the application, JS Architects appealed against its deemed refusal. The application was amended with the Court’s leave. Following the commencement of the listed hearing, the parties resolved the matters in dispute and the proceeding was reallocated to a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Horton held that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court was therefore required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with that agreement.
The Court upheld the appeal and granted consent to the amended development application, subject to conditions in Annexure A. It found the relevant statutory and planning prerequisites were met, including those under the Housing SEPP for seniors housing, with conditions addressing occupancy, pedestrian access, separation from the adjoining club and its gambling facilities, stormwater, contamination and other matters. The applicant was ordered to pay $12,000 in the Council’s costs thrown away by the amendment.
Key Takeaways
- A s 34 conciliation agreement must be adopted if it is a decision the Court could properly have made.
- Seniors housing was permissible on the RE2 land through the Housing SEPP despite not being permitted by the Blacktown LEP land-use table.
- The consent authorised 26 independent living units, soccer-field works and subdivision, subject to conditions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in giving effect to negotiated planning outcomes after satisfying itself that statutory prerequisites are met. The Court did not undertake a merits assessment of the issues originally disputed between the parties.
It also shows how conditions and site design measures can address seniors-housing requirements where the development is associated with a registered club and recreational land.