Baladi v Botany Bay City Council

Case [2007] NSWLEC 18

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Baladi v Botany Bay City Council [2007] NSWLEC 18
PARTIES:

Applicant:
George Baladi

Respondent:
Botany Bay City Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10203 of 2006
CORAM: Roseth SC
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- consent orders
DATES OF HEARING: 15/01/2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 15 January 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Applicant:
Ms S Levy, solicitor of KQ Lawyers

Respondent:
Mr T O'Connor, solicitor of Houston Dearn O'Connor


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Roseth SC

      15 January 2007

      10203 of 2006 George Baladi v Botany Bay City Council

      JUDGMENT

1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Botany Bay City Council (the council) of a development application to demolish the existing buildings and construct a new factory on lot B DP 414617 and lot 3 DP 29697, known as 4 Chalmers Crescent, Mascot.

2 The applicant lodged the original application in September 2004. The council refused it in September 2005. The applicant prepared several amendments and requested the council, on two occasions, to re-consider the matter under s82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. On the second occasion, in November 2006, the council resolved to seek consent orders from the Court. There are no objectors to the latest set of plans. Following perusal of the plans and conditions, the Court agrees to the request for consent orders.

      Orders

1. The appeal is allowed by consent.

2. Development application to demolish the existing buildings and construct a new factory on lot B DP 414617 and lot 3 DP 29697, known as 4 Chalmers Crescent, Mascot is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. Exhibits 1 and A are retained on the Court’s files.


      _________________
      Dr John Roseth
      Senior Commissioner
Details
AGLC
Baladi v Botany Bay City Council [2007] NSWLEC 18
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, George Baladi, appealed against the Botany Bay City Council’s refusal of a development application concerning the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new factory on lots at 4 Chalmers Crescent, Mascot. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales before Senior Commissioner Roseth. The applicant had initially lodged the application in September 2004, which was refused in September 2005. Subsequent amendments and requests for reconsideration were unsuccessful until the council sought consent orders from the Court under s82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Court was asked to approve the application as amended, a request which it granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant consent orders for the development application, considering the council's refusal and the absence of objections to the latest set of plans. The court needed to determine if the application, as amended, complied with relevant planning laws and if there were sufficient grounds to overturn the council's decision. The court reviewed the amended plans and conditions, finding them to be satisfactory and in line with planning requirements. The court also noted the absence of objections, which supported the applicant's case.

After reviewing the plans and conditions, the Senior Commissioner agreed with the council's request for consent orders. The court found that the amended development application met the necessary legal standards and did not contravene any relevant planning laws. The absence of objections further supported the approval of the application. Consequently, the court granted the consent orders, allowing the development as per the amended plans and conditions. The appeal was allowed by consent, and the development application was approved subject to the specified conditions.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal by consent, the granting of the development application, and the approval of the plans and conditions as outlined in Annexure A. The exhibits were retained on the Court’s files. This decision effectively reversed the council’s refusal and permitted the proposed development to proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.