NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Akula Investment Management Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1805 Hearing dates: 27, 28 November 2024 Date of orders: 13 December 2024 Decision date: 13 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) The development application DA/23/0018 for alterations and additions to a heritage listed building for the purposes of operating a childcare centre with 60 childcare places, carparking, tree removal and associated earthworks, stormwater, landscaping works and acoustic fencing at 174 Glenwood Park Drive, Glenwood (Lot 2009 in DP 831033) is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A. (4) The Exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibit 1, and D. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – centre based childcare centre – adaptive reuse of existing heritage building – contentions addressed by amendments and expert evidence – consideration of concerns of objectors – appeal upheld. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015, Pt 1, Sch 5, cl 5.10, Education and Care Services National Regulations, regs 107, 108 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 3.22, 3.23, 3.26 Cases Cited: BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) 138 LGERA 237; [2004] NSWLEC 399 Texts Cited: Blacktown Development Control Plan 2015 Childcare Planning Guideline 2021 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Akula Investment Management Pty Ltd (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) N Hammond (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate