Avadev Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2004] NSWLEC 263

Avadev Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2004] NSWLEC 263

The Court found no reason to refuse the s 96 application because the agreed modified conditions provided a safer crossing location, improved footpath and bus access arrangements, a contribution toward a footpath to local shops, and a construction traffic management plan to address construction traffic concerns.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning an Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend an Existing Development Consent / Onsite Hearing; Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 1008/02 modified by consent.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Modification' 'sepp 5 Housing' 'pedestrian Safety' 'access to Services and Facilities' 'construction Traffic Management']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent Modification' 'sepp 5 Housing' 'pedestrian Safety' 'access to Services and Facilities' 'construction Traffic Management']

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

Class 1 Appeal Concerning an Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend an Existing Development Consent / Onsite Hearing; Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Consent No. 1008/02 should be modified by deleting conditions B26, B70(a) and B70(b) and inserting new conditions B26(a), B26(b), D221 and E89.' 'Whether the amended proposal provided reasonable and safe pedestrian access to bus and transport services and facilities for future residents of the SEPP 5 development.' 'Whether construction traffic concerns should be addressed by a traffic management plan approved before works commence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no reason to refuse the s 96 application because the agreed modified conditions provided a safer crossing location, improved footpath and bus access arrangements, a contribution toward a footpath to local shops, and a construction traffic management plan to address construction traffic concerns.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 1008/02 modified by consent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent No. 1008/02 granted by the respondent on 14 July 2003 for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a two storey SEPP 5 residential development comprising 9 units with basement carparking for 14 vehicles with strata subdivision at 678-682 Barrenjoey...