Burwood Council v Alam [2025] NSWLEC 2

Burwood Council v Alam [2025] NSWLEC 2

The Defendant carried out demolition beyond that authorised by the development consent in relation to a heritage-listed property, causing substantial environmental harm, including to the integrity of a group of heritage buildings. The offences were strict liability and carry significant maximum penalties. While the Defendant acted out of concern for structural integrity and subsequently pleaded guilty, provided assistance, and demonstrated remorse, the conduct was objectively serious due to the foreseeability of harm and lack of attention to consent conditions. The sentence was determined by an instinctive synthesis of all factors, with a starting fine of $125,000 per offence, 25%...

Parties
Prosecutor: Burwood Council; Defendant: Radwan Alam
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Judgment on Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Conviction; fines; legal costs; publication order.
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Heritage Conservation, Sentencing for Environmental Offences, Demolition Without Consent, Legal Costs, Publication Orders, Totality Principle
Environmental Law Criminal Law Planning Law Heritage Law Unauthorised Development Heritage Conservation Sentencing for Environmental Offences Demolition Without Consent +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burwood Council

Prosecutor

Radwan Alam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Judgment on Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for breaches of s 4.2(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) involving unauthorised demolition of a heritage item?
  2. 2 How should the objective seriousness and subjective circumstances of the Defendant be weighed in determining penalty?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate approach to fines, costs, and additional orders (including publication) in light of the totality principle and legislative context?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant carried out demolition beyond that authorised by the development consent in relation to a heritage-listed property, causing substantial environmental harm, including to the integrity of a group of heritage buildings. The offences were strict liability and carry significant maximum penalties. While the Defendant acted out of concern for structural integrity and subsequently pleaded guilty, provided assistance, and demonstrated remorse, the conduct was objectively serious due to the foreseeability of harm and lack of attention to consent conditions. The sentence was determined by an instinctive synthesis of all factors, with a starting fine of $125,000 per offence, 25%...

Court Disposition

Conviction; fines; legal costs; publication order.

Orders

  • In proceedings 2024/00216164: Conviction entered; fine of $46,875; Defendant to pay Prosecutor's legal costs of $26,500; publication order as specified.
  • In proceedings 2024/00216165: Conviction entered; fine of $46,875; Defendant to pay Prosecutor's legal costs of $26,500; publication order as specified.