Background
Prestige Town Planning Pty Ltd appealed under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) from Canterbury-Bankstown Council’s refusal of DA-1323/2025. The application sought to change an existing ground-floor commercial tenancy at 194–198 Lakemba Street, Lakemba, into a 24/7 indoor gymnasium, with internal fit-out and business-identification signage.
The Court held a conciliation conference on 16 September 2026. The parties later agreed that the appeal should be upheld and consent granted subject to conditions. The Council had received two objections during notification, raising parking, amenity and privacy 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 1979 (NSW). The proposed indoor recreation facility was permissible with consent in the E1 Local Centre zone and was accepted as consistent with relevant zone objectives.
The Court upheld the appeal and granted consent subject to Annexure A conditions. It accepted that relevant s 4.15 matters had been addressed, including submissions and site impacts; noted dedicated underground parking and no elevated balconies overlooking nearby homes; and referred to noise-control conditions. The applicant was also ordered to pay the Council $2,000 in agreed thrown-away costs arising from additional information supplied for the application.
Key Takeaways
- A conciliation agreement must still satisfy the Court that the agreed decision is one it could properly make under s 34(3).
- The Court granted consent for the 24/7 gym subject to conditions addressing matters including noise and impacts raised in objections.
- The Court did not undertake a separate merits assessment under s 4.15(1) when giving effect to the parties’ agreed decision.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process in a Class 1 development appeal: once the statutory prerequisites are established, the Court must give effect to an agreed planning outcome that is within its lawful powers.
It also shows that an applicant may face a costs order for additional material provided during an appeal, even where the appeal ultimately succeeds by consent.