Background
Sircel Recycling appealed under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) after Canterbury-Bankstown Council refused DA-1124/2025. The application sought to change the use of an industrial unit at 61A Marple Avenue, Villawood, to permit metals processing of up to 540 tonnes annually, together with an upgrade to the existing substation.
The matter proceeded to a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). Before the conference, the parties agreed that the appeal should be upheld and consent granted subject to agreed conditions. One objection had been received during notification, raising noise concerns.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Young held that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act. The proposed general-industrial use was permissible with consent in the E4 General Industrial zone and consistent with the zone objectives.
The Court accepted that the relevant jurisdictional and planning prerequisites had been met, including consideration of applicable matters under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The agreed conditions addressed noise through implementation of the acoustic report recommendations and compliance with relevant noise criteria before an occupation certificate could issue.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the metals-processing use and substation works, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Commissioner expressly stated that the Court had not undertaken a merits assessment of the discretionary s 4.15(1) matters.
Key Takeaways
- A s 34 conciliation agreement must still be a decision the Court could properly make before it can be adopted.
- The Court granted consent for metals processing up to 540 tonnes per annum at the Villawood industrial site.
- The consent conditions included noise-control requirements tied to the applicant’s acoustic report.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process in a development appeal: once jurisdictional prerequisites are satisfied, the Court must give effect to an agreed outcome that falls within its lawful powers.
It also underscores the distinction between approving an agreed s 34 outcome and independently conducting a full merits assessment of the development application.