Letter of Advice for Childcare Center Project

This letter provides ethical guidance for the Col Packard Company on the legal processes and approvals required for their childcare center project. It discusses the violations of the Land Acquisition Act and the Crown Land Management Act, and advises on the necessary steps for legal approval and construction. The letter also highlights the importance of occupational certificates and compliance with regulations.

Letter of Advice

To,
The Col Packard Company
Date: 28th December 2018
Subject: Letter of advice for the Childcare center project
The ethical perspective of this letteris to guide the Col Packard company to go through the legal
processes of the complex approvalof the childcare center project. The company has to be
responsible for the legal applications for the approval levels before the final construction of the
buildingand start using it for the commercial purpose.
Theethical considerations of the section 36B of the Land Acquisition Act (1991) were violated as
the plot selected by the Col Packard company for their latest project of childcare center has
several legal complications.The development application form ethically persists section 47 of the
Land Acquisition Act (1991) which the company has failed to accomplish. Section 39 confirms
the efficiency of the submission of The development application form. Itshould be submitted to
the Land and Planning office through their online portal.
The ethical perspectives of the section 41Aof the Crown Land Management Act (2016) seek the
attachment of the documents such as the floor planning, drawings of the premises and the
building, copy of the insurance papers and a copy of the construction industry training levy
payment form. A legal completion of the levy payment form correctly and attachment of the
application fees ethically integrate section 55ofCrown Land Management Act (2016).
The company requires a legal advisor for professional help regarding them with the procedures
and the drawings. The chances of the legal approval of the form are ethically correct and qualify
the section 19A of the Crown Land Management Act (2016).If the plans are ethically granted in

the preliminary step on the grounds of certain conditions, the company should accept all the legal
changes and move forward with their plans to derive further permissions. Moreover, the
requirement of the further approval ethically justifies section 58 of the Land Acquisition Act
(1991).The further approvals required by the company to move into construction are
development approval, building approval, design approval and so on as found inDesane
properties Pvt.Limitedv State of New South Wales (2018) NSWSC 553.
The legal permission for the construction should be started right after the granting of approval
request. Occupancy of the building after it is constructed requires valid authentication of the
occupational certificate.The legal application for this certificate depends on the ethical
accomplishment of plumbing and their electrical works of the building. Moreover, it also
requires building certifier issues. Any other detailed information onthe designing and the rules
and regulations regarding the developmental form can be obtained from childcare resolution,
2015.
The section 76A of the Land Acquisition Act (1991) affirms the authority of form rejection for
not completing all the legal terms of the form as shown in R vs Malloy (2018).The fees are non-
refundable in case of the form disapproval. The level 3 jurisdiction should be highly prioritised if
the legal value does to integrate the jurisdiction law. Moreover, the register shall notify the
information within 5 days of the application. Apart from that,the registrar should also be liable
toprovide all the legalinformation about the dates on which the amendments to the application
are to be made. If the applicant is not able to make the amendments on the given dates, he might
be allotted an extension.

The legal regulations of section 10 of the Crown Land Management Act (2016) must be
maintained which includes a proper license for the charitable organisations. Thus, the proper
operation of the childcare center should be derived. Special attention should be paid to the
neighbors as the risks of legal objections is associated with it. The situation may demand to
change the consent of the development of the accommodation. Even the common public is at
stake due to the project so it is best advised, that any major decision regarding the project should
be publicly announced.
The ethical concern is also associated with the two-storied building as the building decoration
demands child-centric accommodation. The appealing party can review the law used against the
decision of a commissioner as per section 23 of Crown Land Management Act (2016) In case the
applicant wants to move the case to the Land and Environment Court, the unsuccessful party
shall pay the costs under section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act (1991). In case the party is
representing themselves, they can be ethically advised to consider gathering all the legal
information under the section 47B of the act and any violation of this act is liable to financial
punishment for increasing the rate of the proceeding charges. Although there is a chance that the
court might not pass the verdict that the unsuccessful party will have to pay the costs of the
proceedings if the case has been brought to the court in terms of public interest. The different
costs which the parties appealing to the court need to bear are upfront cost orders, broader cost
orders, limited cost orders, security costs, and expert costs.
The company has to file the case under ethical considerations of Class 4 jurisdiction. Class 4
jurisdiction legally integratesproceedings regarding the planning law or for breaching the validity
of the developmental consent or any other matter regarding the consent as witnessed in the case

Mervyn Christopher McFarland and anchor vs Common Australia Pvt. Ltd (2018). In this
scenario, there is a high rate of success for the Col Packard company as the plot does not have
any public related issues and is open for development. Proceedings under the Class 4 act can be
arguments related to plans of the company and the instrument used by the company to make the
measurements can be challenged easily.
In case the company loses its case in court, they shall have the option to challenge the validity of
the Environment Planning instrument. An EPI can be challenged(R vs Robb (2018) ) based on
the following grounds:
 The EPI shall be challenged within three months of publication of the government
website.
 In case the legal proceedings have started within three months of enactment of the latest
published Environment planning instrument
 If the legal proceedings are against the refusal of certain development forms
 In the case, the legal arguments are relevant to the refused development
applicationswithin three months of the commencement of the new EPI
According to Section 65 of the Crown Land Management Act (2016), the validity of the
environmental planning instrument can be challenged within the three months of the date of
publication on the website. In the Benhayon vs Rocektt (2018) an appeal was initiated against
Mary Rockett in the supreme court of New South Wales which focused on the defamation of
inappropriate use of land after the three months from the three months of the district court
verdict.
Thanking You,
Regards.