Hrsto v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2011] NSWLEC 1169

Hrsto v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2011] NSWLEC 1169

The proposed modifications to the development consent were found to be substantially the same development, as qualitatively there was little change to the appearance, and quantitatively the changes in population and unit numbers did not result in unacceptable amenity or traffic impacts. The comparison required is both qualitative and quantitative and, in this case, the modifications did not materially alter the nature or essence of the consented development.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Hrsto; Respondent: Ku-Ring-Gai Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Appeal Hearing Following Refusal of Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Modification of Development Consent, Substantially the Same Development, Demolition and Construction of Residential Flat Building
Planning and Environment Law Modification of Development Consent Substantially the Same Development Demolition and Construction of Residential Flat Building

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Hrsto

Applicant

Ku-Ring-Gai Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Appeal Hearing Following Refusal of Modification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed modification is substantially the same development as originally approved under the development consent

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed modifications to the development consent were found to be substantially the same development, as qualitatively there was little change to the appearance, and quantitatively the changes in population and unit numbers did not result in unacceptable amenity or traffic impacts. The comparison required is both qualitative and quantitative and, in this case, the modifications did not materially alter the nature or essence of the consented development.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The application to modify Development Consent DA 1099/04 is approved and subject to the conditions in Annexure A.