Adbooth Pty Limited v Ryde City Council [2006] NSWLEC 783

Adbooth Pty Limited v Ryde City Council [2006] NSWLEC 783

The proposed advertising signs were permissible with consent under cl 42(3) because they were part of integrated structures comprising the pay phone and cabinet or booth, and those structures had as their principal purpose the provision of improved safety, amenity and convenience for pedestrians. Although the structures also displayed advertising, that purpose did not displace the principal purpose required by cl 42(3). The Council raised no objection under cl 42(4), the signs were acceptable on the merits, and agreed conditions were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining Appeals From Refusal or Non Approval of Development Applications for Display of Advertising Signs on Telephone Booths
Outcome
Appeals upheld; development consent granted for display of advertising signs on new telephone booths at all three sites, subject to conditions; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'advertising Signs' 'telephone Booths' 'permissibility of Development' 'principal Purpose of Structure' 'statutory Interpretation']
['planning and Environment Law' 'local Government' 'telecommunications'] ['development Consent' 'advertising Signs' 'telephone Booths' 'permissibility of Development' 'principal Purpose of Structure' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Planning Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining Appeals From Refusal or Non Approval of Development Applications for Display of Advertising Signs on Telephone Booths

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed advertising signs on telephone booths were permissible with consent under cl 42 of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.' 'Whether the advertising signs were part of structures whose principal purpose was to provide improved safety, amenity and convenience for pedestrians under cl 42(3) of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.' 'Whether the word "and" in the phrase "safety, amenity and convenience" should be read conjunctively or disjunctively.' 'Whether, if cl 42(2) and (3) were not satisfied, State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards could permit dispensation from compliance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed advertising signs were permissible with consent under cl 42(3) because they were part of integrated structures comprising the pay phone and cabinet or booth, and those structures had as their principal purpose the provision of improved safety, amenity and convenience for pedestrians. Although the structures also displayed advertising, that purpose did not displace the principal purpose required by cl 42(3). The Council raised no objection under cl 42(4), the signs were acceptable on the merits, and agreed conditions were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; development consent granted for display of advertising signs on new telephone booths at all three sites, subject to conditions; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 10715 of 2006: The appeal is upheld.' 'In proceedings 10715 of 2006: Development consent is granted to the development application for the purposes of display of an advertising sign (on a new telephone booth) on the road reserve adjacent to 10 Ethel Street, Eastwood, subject to the conditions in...