Ashley Adams v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2006] NSWLEC 213

Ashley Adams v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2006] NSWLEC 213

The applicant satisfies the requirements of s 96(1A); the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, the modified development remains substantially the same as originally approved, and procedural requirements are met. The Council's consent to the orders and costs, following withdrawal of its refusal grounds, makes a costs order fair and reasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of S 96(1 A) Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent modified; costs ordered against respondent.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'environmental Impact' 'consent Conditions' 'costs Orders']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'environmental Impact' 'consent Conditions' 'costs Orders']

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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of S 96(1 A) Modification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the modification to development consent sought is of minimal environmental impact under s 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Whether the development as modified is substantially the same as the originally consented development' 'Whether procedural requirements of s 96(1A) regarding notification and submissions have been met' 'Whether a costs order against the respondent is fair and reasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant satisfies the requirements of s 96(1A); the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, the modified development remains substantially the same as originally approved, and procedural requirements are met. The Council's consent to the orders and costs, following withdrawal of its refusal grounds, makes a costs order fair and reasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent modified; costs ordered against respondent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent number 0965/04 is modified: Condition 52 (landscape establishment bond) is deleted; Condition 53 (tree maintenance bond) is deleted; Condition 59A is amended to require the privacy wall to be 1.2 metres high and plans amended accordingly.' "The respondent shall pay the...