Llandilo Property Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council

Parties: Llandilo Property Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
N Eastman SC (Applicant)
N Hammond (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/451895

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER**:** This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. DA2023.53 for alterations and additions to an existing two storey heritage dwelling for use as a centre based child care facility with basement parking and associated landscaping on land known as 54-56 Llandilo Avenue, Strathfield (Lot A in DP 337876) by Strathfield Municipal Council (Council). Amendments were made to the application throughout the proceedings and as amended the application proposes a facility with a capacity of 141 children between the ages of 0 - 5 that would operate between the hours of 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday.

2. The Council’s view in summary is that the proposed development is unacceptable having regard to the scale of the proposed use and its impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item located on site and that ultimately the site is unsuitable for the proposed use.

3. For the reasons set out below, I have determined that the site is not suitable for the proposed childcare centre having regard to the adverse impact that would result on the heritage significance of the heritage item and its setting. I formed this view having regard to the applicable planning controls and the proposed interventions to both the fabric of the existing building and its setting. Accordingly, the application is refused.

The Application

4. The subject development application was originally submitted to Council on 28 April 2023 seeking consent for the demolition of structures and alterations and additions to the existing heritage dwelling, excavation for 2 basement parking levels and change of use for the purposes of a child care centre with capacity for 176 children. The application was refused by Council on 22 November 2024 and on 5 December 2024 the Applicant, Llandilo Property Pty Ltd (Llandilo Property) commenced the subject Class 1 proceedings. The application has been amended on a number of occasions throughout the proceedings including as a result of joint expert conferencing.

5. The amended application, currently before the Court then, comprises the demolition of structures and alterations and additions to the existing heritage dwelling, excavation for 2 basement parking levels and change of use for the purposes of a child care centre with capacity for 141 children between the ages of 0-5 that would operate between the hours of 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. Notably works as identified in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (ASOFAC at p 2 of Ex 1) include:

a) Demolition of - existing structures including part of the existing dwelling, swimming pool, garage, tennis court and outbuilding.

b) 1 two-way basement ramp from Cotswold Road leading to a two-storey basement.

c) Lower basement comprising 25 parking bays, 9 parklifts, and turning bay, waiting bay, fire pumpsets, lift and stairs, plant room, 2 W.C’s, kitchen, laundry, light courts.

d) Upper basement comprising 15 parking bays for drop off and pick up parking, turning bay, program room, staff room, indoor play gym, 5 W.C’s, bin room and wash down area, light courts, and lift and stairs.

e) Ground floor comprising staff room, cot rooms, kitchen, toilets, reception/sign in, indoor play spaces within refurbished portions of the existing dwelling and the new rear extension, outdoor play spaces comprising hard and soft landscape areas as well as a pavilion, perimeter fencing and other noise attenuation fencing and two on-site (below ground) detention (OSD) tanks.

f) Level 1 comprising indoor play areas, supervisor room, toilets, lift and stairs.

6. While the application includes a significant addition to the existing building in the form of a new part one, part two-storey building to the south, and connected to, the existing heritage building, the key issues in this case relate to the impact of the proposal on the existing heritage building and its setting. These issues relate primarily to the proposed new basement, treatment of the garden area and internal changes required to the existing heritage building to accommodate the proposed child care use.

Contentions

7. The Council identifies twenty-five (25) contentions based on which it says the application should be refused (Ex 1). These matters relate to:

8. Lack of clause 4.6 variation request in respect of height

9. Heritage

10. Setbacks, overshadowing, bulk and scale and privacy

11. Local character

12. Acoustic impacts

13. Traffic and parking

14. Tree protection and landscaping

15. Drainage

16. Indoor play spaces and safe supervision

17. Site suitability

18. Groundwater contamination

19. Building Code of Australia

20. Public interest, and

21. Insufficient information.

22. Following joint expert conferencing (which was undertaken in respect of heritage, town planning, childcare, acoustics, landscaping, traffic and parking, BCA/Fire Safety and groundwater contamination) and the submission of amended plans and additional information, the Council agrees that, with the exception of heritage, all contentions have been resolved. Contentions that remain in dispute include Contention 2 – Heritage, Contention 13 – Site Suitability and Contention 14 - Public Interest. Contention 2 - Heritage provides that:

The proposed scale of the use and alterations to the existing dwelling and its setting results in adverse impacts to the fabric of the heritage dwelling and the garden which forms part of the heritage curtilage. In style, the proposed extension seeks to replicate the style of the existing house and in scale the extension overpowers the existing house. The outcome will not protect the environmental heritage attributed to the site.

9. Further Contention 13 – Site Suitability provides that:

Due to the limitations at the site associated with the heritage significance outlined above, the site is not suitable for the scale of the use proposed and the associated built form.

10. The particulars further outline the Council’s concerns in respect of heritage impact and site suitability. Further in its submissions the Council says that the Court should dismiss the appeal because the scale of the proposed use and alterations to the existing dwelling and its setting, including the loss of internal heritage fabric, will have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item including for the following stated reasons:

a. Dunrobbin was built as a large residential home and it has been used for residential purposes ever since, including as a children’s home / orphanage. The proposed alterations and additions to facilitate the change of use to a childcare centre for 141 children are extensive and out of character with the heritage significance of the item;

b. The DA would necessitate major changes to the internal fabric, form and layout of the ground level of the building including demolition of heritage fabric, removing the ability to understand the original form and layout of the house;

c. The extent of change required to accommodate fire safety and compliance with the BCA, including the installation of sprinkler systems, air conditioning, mechanical ventilation and the like, will require further interference with heritage fabric, including works to intricate ceilings in rooms that are agreed to be of high significance.

d. There is insufficient landscaping to the south west frontage to Llandilo Ave, and the necessary shade structures will undermine, and be inconsistent with the landscape setting of the item;

e. The large scale earthworks and excavation to construct two levels of basement parking is inconsistent with the heritage significance of the site.

The site and its context

11. The subject site is land known as 54-56 Llandilo Avenue, Strathfield (Lot A DP 337876) and comprises a corner lot with primary frontage to the north to Llandilo Avenue (41.16m) and secondary frontage to the west to Cotswold Road (66.95m). The site has an area of 2,762m2 and accommodates a grand 2 storey Federation dwelling house and single storey attached garage, tennis court, swimming pool and outbuildings. The house is setback 28.5m from Llandilo Avenue (north) and 15.3m from Cotswold Road (west) resulting in an expansive front garden area. The southern rear setback is 15.8m (to the boundary with 14 Cotswold Road) and currently accommodates a tennis court and outbuilding. The dwelling is further setback 5.5m from the eastern boundary (adjoining 52 Llandilo Avenue) and 0.85m to the attached single storey garage. A sweeping entrance pathway (formerly a driveway) extends from the north western corner of the site to the eastern boundary. A low brick front fence is located along the Llandilo Avenue frontage and northern part of the Cotswold Road frontage with a taller brick fence extending to the south on the Cotswold Road frontage.

Figure 1: Site location (Source: Googlemaps, image capture 2026)

12. The surrounding locality comprises low density residential development with a variety of detached dwelling styles generally on larger lots with established landscaping as is characteristic of the Strathfield locality.

The planning framework

13. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP) which applies to the site. The proposed childcare centre use is permissible with consent in the R2 zone and is consistent with the objectives of the zone including notably “To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents”.

14. The site is identified under SLEP as a local heritage item and therefore cl 5.10 – Heritage Conservation of SLEP applies.

15. The key issue in this case is whether the proposal will result in an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item in accordance with the requirements of cl 5.10 of SLEP. Accordingly, the below summarises the key applicable heritage controls and guidelines. While other controls apply these have been agreed between the parties and accordingly are not key considerations in the proceedings.

16. The objectives of cl 5.10 of SLEP are:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Strathfield,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

17. Clause 5.10 requires development consent for development that alters a heritage item and provides that a heritage assessment may be required. Further under cl 5.10(4) - Effect of proposed development on heritage significance:

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

18. A Heritage Impact Statement (Ex A Tab 10) has been prepared for the proposal by Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning (April 2023).

19. Heritage significance is defined in the dictionary of the SLEP as follows:

heritage significance means historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value.

20. The site is identified as a heritage item of local significance (I172) in Schedule 5 of SLEP comprising “Dunrobbin – Federation House”. The statement of significance for the site is included in the State Heritage Inventory sheet (Number 2450108) (Ex 2, Tab 14) as follows:

“Dunrobbin is a double storied Federation house with terracotta roofing built in 1911 – 1912. The house contains brick detailing surrounding the doors and windows and a strong course below the second storey. The house retains the original lead glass windows along the front façade. The second storey includes a balcony over the front verandah which contains decorative wooden columns. The house is in good condition and is set back from the street behind a well-established garden and fence. The house contains original garden layout that includes a number of mature trees including two-large palms that frame the circular driveway. The garden and the house is significant for its aesthetic and landscape qualities. It is also significant by association having once been owned by Strathfield Mayor (Alexander Melville) and wife Agnes. It represents the type of houses and systems that were built in Strathfield at this time as part of the garden suburb movement. It has significant social and historical values due to its use as a children’s home. Between 1951 and 1980 the site was owned by the United Protestant Association of NSW and it was run as the Adelaide Walker Children’s Home. This housed girls from babies to 5 years of age.”

21. Section 2 of Part P: Heritage of Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 (SDCP) contains key considerations that guide assessment of development applications in respect of heritage items. The general objectives of the section at s 2.1 are:

“A. To ensure that additions to a heritage item and new buildings on the site of a heritage item are of a scale, mass, bulk, orientation, setback and character consistent with the heritage item

B. To ensure that new development respects the contribution of a heritage item to the streetscape and/or townscape, and allows an ongoing application of its heritage significance

C. To retain or reinstate missing original details that contribute to the aesthetic quality and/or significance of a heritage item and to encourage the removal of inappropriate alterations and additions.

D. To ensure that important elements of form or fabric of a heritage item are not obscured or destroyed by alterations and additions

E. To ensure that materials and colours used on both the original heritage item and any alterations and additions are consistent with the significance of the heritage item.

F. To provide an appropriate visual setting for heritage items including landscaping, fencing and car parking.”

22. Key provisions of Part P include ss 2.2 Setting, 2.3 Scale, 2.6 Alterations and additions, 2.7 Doors and windows, 2.8 Car parking, 2.9 Fencing, 2.10 Landscape elements, 2.13 Demolition and 2.16 Adaptive reuse. In particular, relevant provisions include:

“2.2 Setting

(i) Original elements that contribute to the setting of a heritage item such as landscaping, fences and gates, driveways, seawalls etc should not be removed and traditional garden designs should be reinstated where possible.

…

2.6 Alterations and additions

(i) Alteration and additions must not adversely impact the significance of a heritage item.

(ii) Any alterations and additions must be consistent with the scale, form, proportion, details and materials of the heritage item.

…

2.7 Doors and windows

(i) Original windows and door openings in a heritage item should be retained…

…

2.16 Adaptive reuse

(ii) Adaptive reuse of a heritage item is to involve minimal change to the significant fabric of the place

(iii) Adaptive reuse of a heritage item must respect significant associations and meanings of the place.”

23. State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (TI SEPP) also applies to the proposed development and notably at s 3.23 requires that, prior to determining a development application for a centre based child care facility, the consent authority must take into consideration any applicable provisions of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Child Care Planning Guideline (1 October 2021) (Guideline) (Ex 2 Tab 9). Section 3.1 Site selection and location, subs C2 of the Guideline provides that:

“When selecting a site, ensure that…

Where the proposal is to occupy or retrofit an existing premises, the interior and exterior spaces are suitable for the proposed use. Where a proposal relates to any heritage item, the development should retain its historic character and conserve significant fabric, setting or layout of the item…”

24. While not a statutory provision, the Council also refers to the International Council on Monuments and Sites’ (ICOMOS) Burra Charter (2013) (Ex 2 Tab 11) which it says sets an accepted standard of practice for decisions in respect of works to places of cultural significance. Article 3.1 of the Burra Charter provides that “Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.” (p 3). The Applicant disputes that the Burra Charter is a relevant consideration in this matter in so far as it is more stringent that the SDCP and is therefore contrary to s 4.15(3A) of the EPA Act. The Council is of the view that the DCP provisions are consistent with the Burra Charter.

Public submissions

25. The original application was notified between 5 and 26 May 2023 with seventy-eight (78) submissions received in the notification period and a further eighteen (18) received outside of the formal notification period. The amended application (submitted to the Court under a separate appeal since discontinued) was further notified from 23 January 2024 to 7 February 2024 with sixty-seven (67) submissions received. The further amended application, the subject of these proceedings, was notified from 3 to 17 September 2025 with sixty-four (64) submissions received during the notification period. The Court was also addressed by six submitters by way of objection and one person in support at the commencement of the hearing on site.

26. Heritage impact and site suitability were raised in submissions in addition to a myriad of other issues including traffic and parking, overshadowing, privacy, noise, bulk height and scale, groundwater, inappropriate use, overdevelopment of the site, character and amenity, setbacks, construction impact, inadequate information etc.

The expert evidence

27. Llandilo Property relied on the expert evidence of Mr James Phillips (heritage), Mr Jeff Mead (planning), Ms Jane Dumbleton (trees and landscape), Mr Thomas Steal (traffic), Mr Thomas Taylor (acoustics), Ms Lynda Campbell (child care), Mr Ehsan Zare (groundwater contamination), and Mr Nehme Moujalli (fire and BCA).

28. The Council relied on the expert evidence of Mr Brian McDonald (heritage), Mr Joseph Gillies (planning), Mr Glenn Murray (trees and landscape), Mr Andrew Morse (traffic), Mr Glenn Leembruggen (acoustics), Ms Wendy Shepherd (child care), Mr Mark Stuckey (groundwater contamination), and Mr Peter Antcliffe (fire and BCA).

29. The heritage matters were addressed by Mr James Phillips, engaged by Llandilo Property, and Mr Brian McDonald, engaged by the Council, in a joint expert report (Heritage JER, Ex 3) and additional Supplementary Heritage JER (Ex 13).

30. Oral evidence was only given by the heritage experts given that the remaining matters in contention related solely to heritage matters. Notably there was no dispute between the parties in respect of the heritage significance of the item rather the dispute relates to the proposed interventions and impact of the proposed use and works and site suitability. There was also some minor disagreement related to the significance rating of various items of fabric (predominantly walls within the existing building) to be removed.

31. In oral evidence, Mr McDonald agreed that his key concerns regarding the proposal and its impact on the heritage significance of the item relate in summary to:

32. The proposed 2100mm high acoustic fence in the front garden area which he says is out of character and will negatively impact on the setting of the heritage item;

33. The character of the western play area including play equipment, shade and other structures etc. and the inadequate size of proposed replacement trees which he similarly says is out of character and will negatively impact on the setting of the heritage item;

34. The excavation risk resulting from the proposed basement and the extent of excavation in the context of the heritage item which he says is inconsistent with the Burra Charter;

35. The impact of the proposed demolition of part of the western brick boundary wall fronting Cotswold Road at the southern end of the site for the proposed new driveway entry, and;

36. The physical impacts to the building fabric resulting from the proposed adaptive reuse as outlined at para 68 of the Heritage JER (Ex 3) including the removal of walls, doors and sinks predominantly for proposed play spaces 2, 7 and 8 which includes the replacement of doors with glass viewing panels to allow for the childcare use and the creation of wet areas.

37. Mr McDonald also noted that the acoustic report requires, for play spaces 3 and 8, that the windows remain closed when the centre is in operation and therefore questioned the proposed method of ventilation and the potential physical impact of this on the heritage fabric of the item. He further considered that the use is inappropriate given the amount of change to the heritage building required to accommodate the proposed childcare use. It is Mr McDonald’s evidence that ‘the interventions to the physical fabric… cause unacceptable impacts on the significance of the interiors’ and that ‘the constraints posed by the significant existing room configurations make the house not suitable for the proposed child care centre use’ (Ex 3, p 8).

38. Mr Phillips on the other hand considered that:

“The proposed scale of the use and alterations to the existing dwelling and its setting have been carefully designed to minimise impacts to the fabric of the heritage dwelling and the garden which forms part of the heritage curtilage. The proposed extension seeks to be complementary to the style of the existing house and in scale the extension is sympathetic and subservient to the existing house. The outcome will protect the environmental heritage attributed to the site as the form and detail of the significant portions of the dwelling are retained, an important element of the dwelling, being the dome, is to be reinstated and the decoration to the principal rooms is retained and, where appropriate protected.” (Heritage JER, p 4)

34. Mr Phillips’s evidence is that minimal changes are made to the heritage item and its setting such that the ability to interpret the original use and layout will not be affected and that the heritage impact will be acceptable. In respect of the proposed basement excavation Mr Phillips is of the view that excavation is required for the proposed use and acceptable (subject to engineering certification) with the entry carefully designed to be screened (Ex 3, p 15). He provided evidence that the acoustic fencing and western play areas are acceptable from a heritage perspective and that the proposed child care use is consistent with the historic use of the site as a children’s home. In terms of site suitability, he is of the view that “child care is a good and suitable use for the building” (Ex 3, p 9).

35. He further concludes (Ex 3 p 22):

“90 The site and the building on the site have already undergone considerable change as a Children’s Home and latterly as a dwelling. Changes to physical fabric have been largely confined to these areas. The heritage significance of the site lies in it the presentation of the house to the corner of Llandilo Avenue and Cotswold Road. The site is large, allowing good scope the create a high quality child care facility.

91 The heritage characteristics of the site can accommodate the scale of development proposed. The internal and external alterations to the existing dwelling required to accommodate the proposed use would result in very limited removal of significant original fabric, retaining internal principal internal spaces and maintaining the setting and curtilage of the heritage item.

92 The design of the proposed extension to the existing heritage item deals extensively with potential impacts on neighbours, on local character and increased traffic movements and on-street parking. The provision of extensive parking with access to it by ramp covered close to the boundary, minimises impact on the streetscape and to the neighbouring property.”

36. The issue of potential additional impacts to building fabric as a result of air-conditioning and BCA compliance (including fire sprinkling) arose during the course of the hearing. Accordingly, a further joint expert report was prepared by fire and BCA experts (Ex 12) which was then considered by the heritage experts in a Supplementary Heritage JER (Ex 13) in respect of potential heritage impact. In summary, Mr McDonald considers that these interventions are unacceptable and will lead to further impact on the heritage significance of the item while Mr Phillips is of the view that they can be sensitively designed such that they will have an acceptable impact.

Consideration

37. Having regard to the requirements of s 4.15 of the EPA Act and cl 5.10 of SLEP, I am required to consider the effect that the proposed development will have on the heritage significance of the heritage item and then whether that effect is acceptable. I am assisted in this by the Statement of Significance [20] and the provisions of Part P of SDCP [2122]. To a lesser extent, I am also mindful of the provisions of the Burra Charter [24].

38. I note that in accordance with the Statement of Significance the heritage significance of the item is not limited to the heritage fabric of the building but also extends to its setting which is explicitly referred to in the Statement as follows:

“The house is in good condition and is set back from the street behind a well-established garden and fence. The house contains original garden layout that includes a number of mature trees including two-large palms that frame the circular driveway. The garden and the house is significant for its aesthetic and landscape qualities.”

39. The Statement of Significance also refers to the site having significance by association as stated:

“It is also significant by association having once been owned by Strathfield Mayor (Alexander Melville) and wife Agnes. It represents the type of houses and systems that were built in Strathfield at this time as part of the garden suburb movement. It has significant social and historical values due to its use as a children’s home. Between 1951 and 1980 the site was owned by the United Protestant Association of NSW and it was run as the Adelaide Walker Children’s Home. This housed girls from babies to 5 years of age.”

40. The proposal seeks approval for additions to, and the adaptive reuse of, a grand Federation dwelling of heritage significance for the purposes of a 141-place centre based child care facility. While I agree that the proposed new extension to the rear of the dwelling is acceptable in terms of siting, bulk and scale, I accept the evidence of Mr McDonald that the proposed two storey basement excavation, western play area with acoustic fence and internal works including demolition of walls, removal of doors and installation of sinks would result in an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the item. Further works required to ensure BCA and fire safety compliance may also result in further impacts.

41. I consider that the adverse heritage impact results from both the loss of significant fabric (internal works) and in respect of the setting of the item (external works including acoustic fence, western play area and basement excavation). I further consider that the works will adversely affect interpretation of the former use of the house as a dwelling including by the removal of walls between bedrooms and the replacement of doors with viewing panels. I concur with Mr McDonald that the constraints imposed by the existing room configurations make the existing house not suitable for the proposed child care centre use particularly in respect of changes required to facilitate playrooms with adequate supervision. I also consider that the scale of the proposal, in terms of the number of children it seeks to accommodate, is a significant factor driving the required interventions and resulting in adverse impacts.

42. I further consider that the western play area with associated equipment, shade structures etc. and acoustic fencing 2100mm high, will adversely affect the heritage setting of the item by introducing elements that are inconsistent with, and detrimental to, an understanding of the site’s significance. In particular the proposed 2100m acoustic fence is in an element that would appear incongruous to the setting.

43. Combined with the western play area, I also considered that the proposed two storey basement, while not proposed to be located beneath the dwelling itself, also significantly affects the setting of the item. The extensive excavation and structure required to accommodate the necessary facilities to support a child care centre of the scale proposed will result in the loss of deep soil area that will reduce the garden setting which forms an integral part of the significance of the item.

44. Llandilo Property has argued that the proposed child care centre use is consistent with the former use of the site as a children’s home and that it is therefore consistent with the heritage significance of the item in terms of association. In this regard I consider that it may be possible for a child care centre to be considered to be consistent with the heritage significance of the item in respect of association however not as currently proposed.

45. I accept that cl 5.10 of SLEP and the provisions of Part P of SDCP do not preclude any change to a heritage item but consider that the proposed development does not represent acceptable change and that ultimately the extent of change required to accommodate the proposed use is unacceptable in this instance. In particular I consider that the proposal does not satisfy the following key provisions:

“2.6 Alterations and Additions

Objectives

…

B. To support the retention of heritage properties and maintain their heritage significance.

…

Controls

(i) Alterations and additions must not adversely impact the significance of a heritage item.

…

2.16 Adaptive reuse

Objectives

C. To retain original building structure and fabric, and legibility of the original building layout, form and setting, and to reinstate significant missing details.

D. To ensure that the adverse impacts of adaptive reuse on heritage items are minimised.

…

Controls

…

(ii) Adaptive reuse of a heritage item is to involve minimal change to the significant fabric of the place.

(iii) Adaptive reuse of a heritage item must respect significant associations and meaning of the place.”

46. While I note that the proposed reinstatement of the dome and slate roof are positive impacts that are consistent with s 2.16C above, these benefits do not outweigh the adverse impacts on the heritage significance of the site.

47. I also note that s 3.23 of the TI SEPP requires consideration of the Child Care Planning Guideline [23]. Section 3.1 subs C2 requires that “where the proposal is to occupy or retrofit an existing premises, the interior and exterior spaces are suitable for the proposed use” and further “where a proposal relates to any heritage item, the development should retain its historic character and conserve significant fabric, setting or layout of the item….” In this case the interior space is not suitable for the proposed use and hence the proposal includes works to partially remove walls, doors etc. The layout of the item is proposed to be altered. Further significant changes are required to exterior spaces to accommodate the proposed use. I therefore conclude that the proposal does not conserve the significant fabric, setting and layout of the item contrary to the provision and that therefore the proposed use is not suitable for the site as required by the Guideline.

48. I therefore find, having regard to s 4.15 of the EPA Act and s 5.10 of SLEP, that the proposed development is not suitable for the proposed childcare centre use having regard to the adverse impact that would result on the heritage significance of the heritage item and its setting. Accordingly, the application is refused.

Orders

49. The Court orders that:

50. The appeal is dismissed

51. Development application DA2023.53 for alterations and additions to an existing two storey heritage dwelling for use as a Childcare Centre, with basement parking and associated landscaping on land known as 54 - 56 Llandilo Avenue, Strathfield (Lot A in DP 337876) is refused.

52. The Exhibits, other than Exhibit A and 1, are returned.

​​​​​​​H Miller

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********