Bonfoal Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council [1999] NSWLEC 206

Bonfoal Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council [1999] NSWLEC 206

The second environmental impact statement was invalid because the applicant did not substantially comply with cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994: there was no consultation with the Director for the second environmental impact statement, no written particulars of approvals required for integrated development were given, and even if the earlier Director-General's requirements applied, the applicant did not consult with the FAC or Sydney Airport for the second environmental impact statement. Because the development application for designated development had to be accompanied by a valid environmental impact statement, the appeal failed and consent was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Refusal of a Development Application for Designated and Integrated Development / Judgment After Hearing; Appeal Dismissed and Development Consent Refused
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application determined by refusal of consent; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['designated Development' 'concrete Batching Plant' 'validity and Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statement' 'integrated Development' 'noise Impact' 'air Quality Impact' 'strategic Planning Instruments' 'site Contamination']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'environmental Impact Assessment'] ['designated Development' 'concrete Batching Plant' 'validity and Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statement' 'integrated Development' 'noise Impact' 'air Quality Impact' 'strategic Planning Instruments' 'site Contamination']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Refusal of a Development Application for Designated and Integrated Development / Judgment After Hearing; Appeal Dismissed and Development Consent Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second environmental impact statement was valid, including whether there was compliance with cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.' 'Whether the second environmental impact statement was inadequate for failure to address EIS Guidelines.' 'Whether the proposed development would have unacceptable noise impacts and whether the second environmental impact statement adequately addressed noise.' 'Whether the proposed development would have unacceptable air quality impacts and whether the second environmental impact statement adequately addressed air quality.' 'Whether the proposed development was inconsistent with strategic planning issues for the area.' 'Whether site contamination prevented consent being granted or required a remedial action plan.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second environmental impact statement was invalid because the applicant did not substantially comply with cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994: there was no consultation with the Director for the second environmental impact statement, no written particulars of approvals required for integrated development were given, and even if the earlier Director-General's requirements applied, the applicant did not consult with the FAC or Sydney Airport for the second environmental impact statement. Because the development application for designated development had to be accompanied by a valid environmental impact statement, the appeal failed and consent was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application determined by refusal of consent; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application for a concrete batching plant on lot 1 DP 230307 at 296 Coward Street, Mascot is determined by the refusal of consent.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'No order as to costs.']