Background
Tian Siang Holy Tao Association appealed Canterbury-Bankstown Council’s 11 December 2025 refusal of DA-1144/2025. The application sought internal alterations to an existing building at 137 Marion Street, Bankstown, and its change of use to a place of public worship.
At a conciliation conference held on 14 September 2026 under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties reached agreement. Before the agreement was filed, the Council approved amendments to the application, including changes to the internal layout, additional landscaping, and an updated plan of management.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Gray upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended application, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed outcome was one the Court could lawfully make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act. The proposed place of public worship was permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone; the proposal complied with the applicable floor-space-ratio standard and did not breach the height standard. The Commissioner also found the relevant flood, stormwater, essential-services, contamination, biodiversity-catchment and police-consultation requirements had been addressed.
The Court stressed that its orders implemented the parties’ agreement. It did not make an evaluative merits assessment of the matters originally disputed or a discretionary assessment of the proposal under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through a conciliation agreement where the Court is satisfied the agreed decision is within its power.
- The consent followed Council-approved amendments to the development application, including revised layout, landscaping and operational-management material.
- The Court’s s 34(3) role was to confirm that no jurisdictional constraint prevented the agreed consent, rather than independently determine the contested planning merits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process in a development appeal: parties can negotiate a consent outcome, but the Court must still be satisfied that statutory prerequisites permit it.
It also confirms the importance of documenting compliance with planning controls and consultation obligations for a proposed place of public worship, particularly where an application is amended during an appeal.