L and G Management Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney

L and G Management Pty Ltd brought an application before the Supreme Court of New South Wales to challenge a decision by the Council of the City of Sydney to refuse development consent for a proposed development at 191-195 Botany Road, Waterloo. The proposed development involved the demolition of a portion of an existing building, the construction of a new building, and the subdivision of the site into two new lots. The applicant sought leave to amend its application and to rely upon amended plans. The Council opposed the application and argued that the amended plans did not address the issues that led to the refusal of development consent.

The Court was required to determine whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its application and rely upon amended plans, and whether the appeal against the refusal of development consent should be dismissed. The Court also needed to consider whether the development consent should be granted or refused.

The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the amended plans addressed the issues that led to the refusal of development consent. The Court held that the amended plans did not provide sufficient detail regarding the design of the new building and the proposed landscaping and public realm. The Court also noted that the applicant had not provided a detailed traffic impact assessment or a noise impact assessment. The Court concluded that the applicant had not made out a case for leave to amend the application and rely upon amended plans. The Court further held that the appeal should be dismissed and that development consent should be refused. The Court found that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the character of the area and would not be in accordance with the relevant planning instrument.

The Court ordered that the applicant be granted leave to amend the application and rely upon amended plans marked Exhibit A and B. The appeal was dismissed, and development consent for the proposed development was refused. All exhibits were returned, except for Exhibits C and 1.