NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Adbooth Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council [2006] NSWLEC 710
APPLICANT Adbooth Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT Botany Bay City Council
FILE NUMBER(S) : 10594 of 2006
CORAM: Hoffman C
KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- Advertising and signage, visual character, desired future character of the locality, streetscape, zoning, size of signs
Botany Local Environmental Plan 1995 LEGISLATION CITED: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 Commonwealth of Australia Telecommunication Act 1997
CASES CITED: Stockland v Manly [2004] NSW LEC 472; Schaeffer v Hawkesbury [77] LGRA
DATES OF HEARING: 24-25/10/2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 10/25/2006
APPLICANT Mr A Galasso, QC Instructed by: Ms K Gardner, solicitor Of: Gilbert & Tobin LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr T O'Connor, solicitor SOLICITORS Houston Dearn O'Connor
JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Hoffman C
25 October 2006
10594 of 2006 Adbooth Pty Limited v Botany Bay City Council
JUDGMENT 1 This is a class one appeal No. 10594 of 2006 between Adbooth Pty Limited and Botany Bay City Council in regard to the refusal of consent for an advertising sign on each of five telephone booths within the council area. The booths in the applications are identified as 909 Botany Road Rosebery, 206 King Street Mascot, 21 Swinbourne Street Botany, 1629 Botany Road Banksmeadow and 226 Bunnerong Road Hillsdale.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate