//
[2025] NSWLEC 1816
General information, not legal advice.
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2025-11-21
Kullen AC
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Pragi Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Pragi Family Trust v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1816
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference held on 25 September 2025
Date of orders: 21 November 2025
Decision date: 21 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Kullen AC
Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No DA-499/2024, as amended, for the amalgamation of six lots and construction of a 96-place centre-based childcare centre, medical centre and ancillary works at 10-12 Carnamah Road and 30-36 Harrismith Crescent, Austral, NSW, 2179, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — centre based child care facility combined with medical centre — orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Sch 1, Div 2, cl 7, ss 7, 8.7, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW),
s 34
Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011, regs 106, 107, 108, 119, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Chs 2, 6, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13
State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021, Appendix 4, ss 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 4.4, 5.10, 6.1
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Chs 2, 3, Divs 10, 12A, 17, Pt 3.3, ss 2.60, 2.77, 2.119, 2.120, 3.22, 3.23, 3.25, 3.26
Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan 2006
Cases Cited: The Hub Austral Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1078
Texts Cited: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Child Care Planning Guideline, Delivering Quality Child Care for NSW (September 2021)
Liverpool Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan 2022
Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008
Liverpool Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan 2021
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Pragi Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Pragi Family Trust (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Sonter (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Garcia (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/127652
Publication restriction: Nil
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the refusal of development application No DA-499/2024 (the DA) for the amalgamation of six lots, construction of a 100-place centre-based child care facility, medical centre, semi-basement carpark and ancillary works on land legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 in DP 1291920 at 30-36 Harrismith Crescent and 10-12 Carnamah Road, Austral NSW 2179 (the site).
The parties advise that on 21 February 2023, DA-558/2022 (the previous DA) for the subdivision of the parent lots was approved by the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of The Hub Austral Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1078 (‘The Hub Austral*’)*. This development consent authorised the removal of trees from the site as part of the proposed subdivision for 23 Torrens title lots.
The DA was lodged by Pragi Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Pragi Family Trust (the Applicant) with Liverpool City Council (the Respondent) on 29 October 2024. On 28 February 2025, the DA was refused by the Respondent.
On 3 April 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, under s 8.7 of the EPA Act against the refusal of the DA by the Respondent.
On 4 April 2025, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion and Affidavit of Isabelle Alder together with Exhibit IA-1 seeking to amend the DA (the Amended DA), for which leave was granted by the Court on 15 April 2025.
The Respondent filed its Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) with the Court on 13 May 2025 based on the amended DA.
On 25 September 2025, the Court arranged a s 34 conciliation conference on site pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act). No submitters indicated a wish to attend the on-site view, which was then vacated at the request of the parties.
After discussions between the parties, the s 34 conciliation conference was adjourned a number of times, to enable the parties to explore reaching a s 34 agreement.
On 30 October 2025, the parties confirmed that they had reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties, based on amended plans (the further amended DA). This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the further amended DA subject to conditions.
The parties advise that the further amended DA includes a number of amendments to the proposed development including:
Reduction in child care places from 100 to 96;
Modifications to first floor child care centre accommodate the 8 metres (m) upper level rear setback to the southern boundary including adjustments to lift and emergency stairs along the northern boundary, outdoor and indoor play areas;
Adjustments to medical centre building footprint and shifted and rationalised parking space and columns to accommodate for a 4.5m front setback;
The upper floor of the child care centre’s outdoor play area readjusted and pushed towards the south to accommodate for the setback;
Removal of tree from carpark and corresponding amendment to the upper floor’s outdoor play area and building profile;
Addition of concrete triangle and ‘left turn only’ sign at the driveway entrance;
Reconfigured carparking arrangements including new pedestrian pathways between western and eastern boundaries, revised accessible spaces and shifted car spaces to ensure all medical spaces together along eastern boundary;
Adjusted bicycle parking facilities to provide four spaces next to the childcare centre entrance and four space next to the medical centre entrance; and
Addition of a two-gate system to provide for additional protective measures.
A signed s 34 agreement with Annexure A and the further amended DA as agreed between the parties were filed with the Court on 30 October 2025. The s 34 agreement is supported by an agreed statement of jurisdictional prerequisites provided by the parties.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the DA.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance have been satisfied in a written submission accompanying the s 34 agreement, and those requirements have been satisfied as follows.
The parties advise the DA was notified in accordance with the Liverpool Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan 2022 between 1 November 2024 and 18 November 2024. Two public submissions were received during the notification period.
The parties submit that the submissions of the objectors have been taken into account by the parties in the design of the further amended DA.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021 (the Precincts SEPP) is the relevant environmental planning instrument that applies to the site; and that the relevant planning controls for the site are contained in Appendix 4 – Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan of the Precincts SEPP. For the purposes of Appendix 4:
Pursuant to s 1.3, the site is within the Austral Precinct;
Pursuant to s 2.2, the site is zoned Low Density Residential;
Pursuant to s 2.3(2), the parties agree that the further amended DA can be approved having regard to the objectives of the zone, being:
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
• To allow people to carry out a reasonable range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the living environment of neighbours.
• To support the well-being of the community by enabling educational, recreational, community, religious and other activities where compatible with the amenity of a low density residential environment.
I am satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.
Pursuant to s 4.3 of Appendix 4 of the Precincts SEPP, the maximum height of buildings (HoB) on the site is 9m. The parties advise that the maximum height of the proposed built form is 8.95m and therefore complies with the HoB development standard.
The parties advise that the site is not subject to a floor space ratio (FSR) control under s 4.4 of Appendix 4 of the Precincts SEPP. However, the site is subject to, and complies with, the FSR controls under s 3.25 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (the Transport SEPP) as discussed at [45(3)] below. Specifically, the proposed development in the further amended DA has a gross floor area of 948.69m2 which results in an FSR of 0.49:1.
Pursuant to s 5.10 of Appendix 4 of the Precincts SEPP, the parties advise that there are no heritage items located on the site nor is it located within a heritage conservation area nor is there any known or likely to be an Aboriginal object.
Section 6.1 of Appendix 4 of the Precincts SEPP relates to the availability of public utility infrastructure. Consent cannot be granted to the proposed development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any public utility infrastructure that is essential for the proposed development is available, and adequate arrangements have been made to make that infrastructure available when required.
The parties advise that a Survey Plan prepared by Survey Worx was provided as part of the DA denoting available utilities. In particular, the parties submit that:
Sydney Water has confirmed as part of the previous DA that the requisite supply of sewage infrastructure will become available within the life of that development consent;
Endeavour Energy has provided a referral response confirming there is an existing electricity distribution network available for future connection;
Appropriate conditions of consent have been included addressing connection to public utility infrastructure (Refer to Conditions of Consent 2 and 132).
The Court notes that the approval for the previous DA by the Court for subdivision of the parent lots into 23 residential lots (see attached Annexure A in The Hub Austral) contained a condition of consent as follows:
“3. Terms of Approval – Sydney Water
The development is to be carried out in accordance with all relevant requirements issued by Sydney Water, shall be complied with prior, during, and at the completion of construction, as required in accordance with the correspondence dated 29 August 2022. A copy of the Terms of Approval is attached to this decision notice.”
The parties advise that the further amended DA does not rely on previous Sydney Water correspondence for the parent lot approval. As part of the parent lot consent, Sydney Water required a water main extension to be constructed to serve the development. This was completed and Sydney Water has issued s73 certificates for all lots. The parties confirm the advice dated 29 August 2022 provided by Sydney Water in relation to the previous DA that public utility infrastructure relating to water servicing and wastewater servicing essential for the proposed development is available.
It is further noted that Commissioner Walsh stated at [15] of The Hub Austral that:
“Relevant to s 6.1(1) [of the Precincts SEPP], I accept the advice of the parties that public utility infrastructure that is essential for the proposed development is available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make that infrastructure available when required.”
Chapter 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) operates to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of NSW and to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of NSW through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. Removal of trees from the site was authorised by the previous DA approval. There are currently no trees on the site and so this provision does not apply to the proposed development.
Chapter 6 of the Biodiversity SEPP applies to the proposed development as the site is located within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment and seeks to manage and promote integrated catchment management policies. The parties advise that in relation to Ch 6 of the Biodiversity SEPP:
Pursuant to s 6.6 water quality and quantity, consideration must be given to a number of matters relating to water quality and quantity prior to the granting of development consent. The DA is accompanied by Amended Stormwater Plans prepared by C&M Consulting Engineers dated 10 July 2025 and an Amended Stormwater Management Plan prepared by C&M Consulting Engineers dated 11 July 2025 which address the water quality and pollution control within the site’s stormwater management system as follows:
(a) The drainage system includes overland flow paths, a pit and pipe network, rainwater tanks and filtration system to collect the majority of concentrated flows from impermeable surfaces; and (b) The Court can be satisfied that the proposal will ensure the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial and the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised.
(a) The proposed development is not considered to pose any material impact or human interference with the condition of the sub-catchment; (b) The site is vacant and the DA does not seek consent for clearing of any vegetation. The DA delivers an appropriate amount of landscaping predominately comprising locally endemic species and where necessary, accent and exotic species to compliment the landscape character of the area and local biodiversity; (c) The overall architectural design and landscaping strategy for the site has been considered by both parties in detail and is anticipated to enhance the scenic quality of the locality; and (d) The site is subject to the previous DA for a 23 lot Torrens title subdivision (see [2] above) which has facilitated the proposal.
Section 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.
The parties advise that the previous DA (refer to [2] above) included site remediation and was supported by a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared by Sydney Environmental Group dated 11 April 2022. The previous DA consent imposed a condition requiring the site to be remediated.
The parties submit that in relation to the satisfaction of requirements under the Resilience SEPP for this DA, the Applicant has prepared and submitted the following documents:
Stage 4 Site Validation Report prepared by Morrizi Civil dated 4 July 2023 which validates the procedures and laboratory results presented in the RAP;
Asbestos Investigation Report prepared by Down to Earth Geotechnical dated 13 September 2023 and Environmental which confirms that the site is suitable for re-occupation; and
Detailed Site Investigation prepared by K2 Consulting Group dated 28 June 2025 which collected 38 primary soil samples from 9 boreholes across the site and confirmed the site’s suitability for the proposed uses of the land and that no further investigations are required.
The parties submit that the recommendations of these reports have been appropriately reflected within the conditions of consent; and that pursuant to s 4.6(1)(a) of the Resilience SEPP, the Court can be satisfied that proper consideration has been given as to whether the site is contaminated, and the Court can be satisfied that the site is capable and suitable for the proposed development
The Court is satisfied for the purposes of s 4.6 of the Resilience SEPP that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
Chapter 2 of the Transport SEPP provides a series of planning controls and mandatory considerations, aimed at facilitating the effective delivery and management of public infrastructure.
Pursuant to s 2.60(1) of the Transport SEPP, development for the purpose of health services facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone. Section 2.59 of the Transport SEPP defines ‘prescribed zone’ to include R2 Low Density Residential, which is the current zoning of the site. Accordingly, development for the purposes of health services facilities is permitted with consent within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.
Pursuant to s 2.77 of the Transport SEPP, the consent authority must consider the potential safety risks or risks to the integrity of the pipeline for development adjacent to land in a pipeline corridor have been identified and take into consideration those risks and any response from the pipeline operator. The parties advise that:
The DA was referred to the relevant authority, Jemena, who have confirmed via the Planning Portal that they do not object to the proposal; and
Accordingly, the Court can be satisfied that the requirements in relation to development adjacent to pipelines in the Transport SEPP have been met.
Pursuant to s 2.119 of the Transport SEPP, the consent authority must be satisfied of the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of a classified road affected by development with frontage to a classified road. The parties advise that s 2.119 of the Transport SEPP is not applicable as:
The site has a northern frontage to Carnamah Road (local road) and a southern frontage to Harrismith Crescent (local Road);
The site is not located adjacent to any classified road; and
The driveway is not proposed connecting to a classified road.
Pursuant to s 2.120 of the Transport SEPP, the consent authority must take into consideration the impact of road noise or vibration on any non-road development. This section applies to development for a specific purpose on land in or adjacent to a designated road corridor as specified in s 2.120(1) of the Transport SEPP which the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration. This includes, at s 2.120(1)(d) of the Transport SEPP, a centre-based childcare facility.
The parties advise that:
The site is not located on land in or adjacent to the road corridor for a freeway, a tollway or a transitway.
The Traffic Volume Map published by TfNSW confirms that the section of Fifteenth Avenue near the site is a classified road carrying more than 20,000 annual average daily traffic. Acknowledging that the site is located within close proximity to the classified road, the Applicant has completed acoustic investigations;
The DA is accompanied by an Acoustic Response in relation to environmental health prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 4 March 2025 and an Amended Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 26 March 2025;
Traffic noise intrusion into the development was assessed using the applicable maximum internal noise criteria. The development will benefit from orientation of the windows, room sound absorption characteristics, aluminium frames and sliding doors, glazed glass fitted with acoustic seals and a ventilation system to ensure noise emotion or intrusions satisfies the noise criteria. The recommendations and requirements of these acoustic reports have been carried through into the amended design; and
Appropriate conditions of consent have been included which address ongoing acoustic requirements.
Chapter 3 of the Transport SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational facilities and early education and care facilities in NSW.
Part 3.3 of the Transport SEPP applies to development for the purposes of a centre-based childcare centre.
Section 3.22 of the Transport SEPP applies to the proposed development if it is not compliant with the indoor and outdoor unencumbered space requirements stipulated by the Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011 (Regulations). The parties advise that s 3.22 of the Transport SEPP does not apply to the further amended DA for the following reasons:
Pursuant to reg 107 of the Regulations, education and care service premises must provide at least 3.25m2 of unencumbered indoor open space per child. The further amended DA is seeking consent for a 96-place childcare centre and is required to provide at least 312m2 of indoor unencumbered open space. The further amended DA proposes 323m2 of unencumbered indoor open space; and
Pursuant to reg 108 of the Regulations, education and care service premises must provide at least 7m2 of unencumbered outdoor open space per child. The further amended DA is required to provide at least 672m2 of outdoor unencumbered open space. The further amended DA proposes 715.36m2 of unencumbered outdoor open space.
Under s 3.23 of the Transport SEPP - Centre-based child care facility - matters for consideration by consent authorities, a consent authority must consider applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline 2021 (the Guideline) (at [49] – [50] below). The parties advise that:
The DA is accompanied by an Amended Child Care Planning Guidelines Compliance Table (the Compliance Table) prepared by Creative Planning Solutions dated March 2025 which finds the proposal to be consistent with the objectives and guidelines of the Guideline; and
The parties agree that the further amended DA can be approved having regard to the assessment of the provisions of the Guideline as provided in the Compliance Table, as any minor changes made to the design after the preparation of this document have only increased compliance of the proposed development with the Guideline.
The parties advise that the further amended DA proposes an FSR of 0.49:1, complying with s 3.25(1) of the Transport SEPP which provides for a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 for a centre-based child care facility in Zone R2 Low Density Residential zone. As stated above at [19], the site is zoned Low Density Residential pursuant to s 2.2 of Appendix 4 of the Precincts SEPP.
Section 3.26 of the Transport SEPP contains non-discretionary development standards for centre-based childcare centres. The parties submit that the proposed development in the further amended DA satisfies the non-discretionary development standards at s 3.26(2) of the Transport SEPP.
The Regulations provide extensive controls and requirements in addition to that of Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans and includes licensing and approvals processes, including documentation requirements; facilities and equipment requirements; staffing requirements; child number requirements; operational requirements; administrative requirements; and probity check requirements.
The parties advise that compliance with the Regulations is achieved in the further amended DA as follows:
In satisfaction of reg 106, an onsite laundry facility is provided on the ground floor which is capable of accommodating washers, a dryer, sinks and storage for soiled items;
In satisfaction of reg 107, at least 3.25m2 of unencumbered indoor space is provided for each child;
In satisfaction of reg 108, at least 7m2 of unencumbered outdoor space is provided for each child;
In satisfaction of reg 109, adequate toilet facilities are provided in the proposed development;
In satisfaction of reg 110, the proposed development is provided with indoor spaces that are adequately ventilated, have access to natural light and are capable of being maintained as a suitable temperature through the provision of multiple windows on every side of the building;
In satisfaction of reg 111, adequate administrative spaces are provided on the lower ground floor near the entry of the building and on the first floor by the staircase on the southern boundary;
In satisfaction of reg 112, a nappy changing facility has been provided in the lower ground floor toilet; and
In satisfaction of in satisfaction of regs 113-115, the proposed development is designed with outdoor spaces are provided that allow children to play and explore with suitable shading and overall facilitates supervision.
The Guideline establishes the assessment framework to deliver consistent planning outcomes and design quality for centre-based child care facilities in NSW. Section 3.23 of the Transport SEPP requires that the consent authority must take into consideration any applicable provisions of the Guideline before determining a development application.
The parties submit that the site has been assessed as appropriate against the following principles contained in the Guideline:
Principle 1 (Context) – there is adequate vehicular access via Harrismith Cresent which is suitable to accommodate the primary access point for the development, the design will integrate into the character of the low-density residential area;
Principle 2 (Built Form) – the proposal achieves well-designed facility that is reflective of the low-density residential character of the area and responds to the site’s natural characteristics and layout of the existing locality by including windows and a high degree of articulation features on all elevations through material choice and building form. The proposal development will positively contribute to the surrounding neighbourhood by providing essential services for the community;
Principle 3 – (Adaptive Learning Spaces) – outdoor play spaces are included that are well designed and achieve a high level of amenity for children and staff. Outdoor areas are protected from the elements through the use of sufficient acoustic and landscaped screening. Multiple windows at all orientations minimise the need for artificial lighting in the day;
Principle 4 – (Sustainability) - building form allows for cross ventilation, as well as acceptable solar access to the play areas. The site is generally of residential uses and not near to any hazardous industry or water cooling and warming systems, thereby providing for a safe and usable space that avoids risk to children, staff and visitors;
Principle 5 – (Landscape) – landscaping has been incorporated in the unencumbered outdoor space and designed for diverse function and use, offering age-appropriate play spaces and amenity. No dangerous plants or vegetation are proposed. The building facades will be screened by landscaped features along the boundaries of the site to create better articulation and enhance the local character of the area whilst also softening the built form of the childcare facility;
Principle 6 – (Amenity) – provides appropriate and efficient indoor and outdoor learning spaces, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, supervision, storage, service areas, and accessible areas; and
Principle 7 – (Safety) – evacuation is explained within the Plan of Management prepared by Creative Planning Solutions dated March 2025.
Having considered the advice of the parties provided above at [15]-[51], I am satisfied that:
The Applicant’s further amended DA can be approved having regard to the matters in s 4.15(1)(b)-(e) of the EPA Act;
The jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act have been satisfied; and
Approval of the proposed development is in the public interest.
Further, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
The Court notes:
That Liverpool City Council, as the consent authority, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), has approved the application for an amendment to Development Application DA-499/2024 made on 30 October 2025 to rely on the documents specified below:
| Drawing No. | Issue | Plan Title | Date | Prepared by | | Amended Architectural Plans | | A.00 | R-05 | Site Plan (Childcare and Medical Centre) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | A.01 | R-10 | Lower Ground Floor Plan (Childcare + Parking) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | A.01.1 | R-02 | Pump Room Plan (Below Parking First Floor Under Medical Centre) Acoustic Fence and Planter Detail (First Floor and Ground Floor_ | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | A.02 | R-07 | Upper Ground Floor Plan (Medical Centre) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | A.03 | R-07 | Upper Ground Floor Plan (Medical Centre & Lower GR Profile) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | A.04 | R-08 | First Floor Plan (Childcare Centre) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | R01 | R-07 | Roof Plan | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | E01 | R-08 | Elevations | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | E02 | R-08 | Elevations | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | S01 | R-07 | Sections AA & BB | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | S02 | R-08 | Sections CC & DD | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | S03 | R-00 | Sections FF | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | V01 | R-04 | View 01 (Childcare Centre Frontage) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | V02 | R-03 | View 02 (Childcare Centre Frontage) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | V03 | R-03 | View 03 (Medical Centre Frontage) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | V04 | R-03 | View 04 (Medical Centre Frontage) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | M01 | R-05 | Material Schedule | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SE01 | R-07 | Streetscape Elevations | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | G.01 | R-01 | Lower Ground Flood Plan (Childcare + Parking) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | G.02 | R-01 | Upper Ground Floor Plan (Medical Centre & Lower GR Profile) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | G.03 | R-01 | First Floor Plan (Childcare Centre) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD01 | R-03 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots with Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD02 | R-03 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots with Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD03 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots with Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD04 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots with Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD05 | R-02 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots without Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD06 | R-02 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots without Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD07 | R-00 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots without Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD08 | R-00 | Shadow Diagram (Impact on Eastern Neighbouring Lots without Proposed Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD09 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Comparison Between Shadow Impacts with Childcare and without Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD10 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Comparison Between Shadow Impacts with Childcare and without Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD11 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Comparison Between Shadow Impacts with Childcare and without Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | SD12 | R-01 | Shadow Diagram (Comparison Between Shadow Impacts with Childcare and without Childcare) | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | EP01 | R-03 | Ground Floor Egress Plan | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | EP02 | R-03 | Medical Centre Floor Egress Plan | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | EP03 | R-03 | First Floor Egress Plan | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | EP04 | R-00 | Pump Room Egress Plan | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | T01 | R-01 | Children’s Toilet – 01 | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | T02 | R-01 | Children’s Toilet – 02 | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | T03 | R-01 | Children’s Toilet – 03 | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | T04 | R-01 | Children’s Toilet – 04 | 17 October 2025 | Archidrome | | Amended Landscape Plans | | G672_LP_00 | E | Cover Sheet | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | G672_LP_01 | E | Landscape Concept Plan – Ground Floor | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | G672_LP_02 | E | Landscape Concept Plan – Upper Floor | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | G672_LP_03 | E | Landscape Character Imagery | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | G672_LP_04 | E | Plating Imagery | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | G672_LP_05 | E | Details, Notes & Preliminary Specification | 16 October 2025 | Creative Planning Solutions | | Amended Stormwater Plans | | 02924_100 | C | Coversheet, General Notes, Legend, Drawing Index & Locality Sketch | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | 02924_201 | F | Stormwater Drainage – Ground Floor Plan | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | 02924_231 | C | Bulk-Earthworks Plan | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | 02924_601 | C | Stormwater Catchment Plan | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | 02924_701 | D | Sediment and Erosion Control –Plan | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | 02924_702 | D | Sediment and Erosion Control – Details | 10 July 2025 | C&M Consulting Engineers | | Reports | | Amended Plan of Management prepared by Creative Planning Solutions dated September 2025 | | Traffic Letter prepared by TEF Consulting dated 7 July 2025 | | Detailed Site Investigation prepared by K2 Consulting Group dated 28 June 2025 | | Amended Stormwater Management Plan prepared by C&M Consulting Engineers dated July 2025 |
The Court orders:
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No DA-499/2024, as amended, for the amalgamation of six lots and construction of a 96-place centre-based childcare centre, medical centre and ancillary works at 10-12 Carnamah Road and 30-36 Harrismith Crescent, Austral, NSW, 2179, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
Annexure A (735 KB, pdf)
**********
Pragi Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Pragi Family Trust
Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1816