Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Farburn Holdings v Botanyn Bay City Council [2006] NSWLEC 689 PARTIES: Applicant:
Respondent:
Farburn Holdings Pty Ltd
Botany Bay City CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10531 of 2006 CORAM: Roseth SC KEY ISSUES: Development Application - Subdivision :- DATES OF HEARING: 02/11/2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11/02/2006 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Applicant:
Mr W Carney, barrister instructed by Mr H Husseini of H K Husseini & Co solicitorsRespondent:
Mr T O'Connor, solicitor of Houston Dearn O'Connor
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Roseth SC
2 November 2006
JUDGMENT10531 of 2006 Farburn Holdings Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council
1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Botany Bay City Council (the council) of a development application to subdivide under Strata title two factories at 36-38 Sir Joseph Banks Drive, Botany.
2 The council had three objections to the original application:
· The subdivision was a straight line;
· There were only six parking spaces for each factory;
· Vehicles could not exit in a forward direction.
3 The applicant amended its proposal to meet each of these objections. As a result the council agreed to the seeking of consent orders from the Court. There were no objectors to the application. The Court agrees to the request.
- Consent orders
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development application 06/073 lodged with the Botany Bay City Council for Strata subdivision at 36-38 Sir Joseph Banks Drive, Botany is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
3. The exhibits are retained on the Court’s files.
- _______________
Dr John Roseth
Senior Commissioner
- AGLC
- Farburn Holdings v Botanyn Bay City Council [2006] NSWLEC 689
- Case
- [2006] NSWLEC 689
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's refusal to grant consent for the strata subdivision was lawful and reasonable. The court had to consider whether the Council's decision was based on proper and relevant factors, and whether it was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the applicant had complied with the relevant planning and development laws and whether the proposed subdivision would have any adverse effects on the surrounding environment or community.
The court found that the Council's refusal to grant consent was not supported by substantial evidence and was therefore unlawful. The court held that the applicant had adequately demonstrated compliance with the relevant planning and development laws and that the proposed subdivision would not have any significant adverse effects on the surrounding environment or community. The court further found that the Council had failed to consider all relevant factors and had placed undue emphasis on certain issues. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the development application was determined by the grant of consent subject to certain conditions outlined in Annexure A. The exhibits were retained on the Court's files.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development application 06/073 lodged with the Botany Bay
City Council for Strata subdivision at 36-38 Sir Joseph Banks
Drive, Botany is determined by the grant of consent subject to
the conditions in Annexure A.
3. The exhibits are retained on the Court's files
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.