Aria v Holroyd City Council

[2007] NSWLEC 520

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Aria v Holroyd City Council [2007] NSWLEC 520

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mohamed Bashir Aria

RESPONDENT
Holroyd City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11299 of 2006

CORAM:

Bly C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Consent Orders, Storage and sale of automative parts

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 1991

DATES OF HEARING:

06/08/2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

10 August 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr M. Aria, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr Graham, solicitor
of Home Wilkinson Lowry

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

10 August 2007

11299 of 2006 Mohamed Bashir Aria v Holroyd City Council

This decision was given extemporaneously. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1 This appeal relates to Development Application 2006/381, which is for the utilisation of existing warehouse unit 6 at 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield, for the principal purpose of the storage and sale of automotive spare parts. Some dismantling of those parts, which are principally imported into Australia, is involved.

2 The application was refused by the council on 30 November 2005 for reasons which are essentially reflected in the Statement of Issues. Those issues include matters such as failure to comply with the objectives of the 4(A) industrial zone under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 1991, the safety and general conditions of the premises for employees including the storage areas, the unsatisfactory nature of off-street parking and loading facilities, the appearance of the site generally, stormwater drainage and pollution, associated pollution concerns and the absence of landscaping.

3 The hearing began on site when a number of these issues were discussed. During those discussions, which included the need for conditions to alleviate many of the concerns of the council, Mr Aria explained that in the circumstances he had decided that the business would vacate the site and this could be done within a period of six months. This period would enable him to find an alternate site for the business.

4 As a result of these discussions, it was indicated that subject to a number of conditions, including a condition limiting the use to a period of six months, that the parties would enter into consent orders. Conditions have now been agreed and consent orders have been provided to the Court, Exhibit 1. Those orders include the discussed conditions and an associated plan.

5 Having considered this matter at length whilst on site and having now considered the consent orders, I have been persuaded that the consent as sought should be granted and I thus make the orders contained in Exhibit 1.

___________________

T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
DK/ljr