Conway v Blue Mountains City Council [2006] NSWLEC 280
Conditions requiring upgrades to the driveway and layback are not reasonable or required at this stage because the allotments are vacant and no dwellings exist; these requirements can be considered if and when residential development is proposed, so the imposition of the conditions is not justified at the boundary...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Development Consent Conditions / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['development Consent Conditions' 'reasonableness of Conditions' 'boundary Adjustment']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Development Consent Conditions / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether conditions 1 and 2 of development consent requiring vehicular access and widening of driveway entry layback are reasonable and required at this stage for a boundary adjustment']
Ratio Decidendi
Conditions requiring upgrades to the driveway and layback are not reasonable or required at this stage because the allotments are vacant and no dwellings exist; these requirements can be considered if and when residential development is proposed, so the imposition of the conditions is not justified at the boundary adjustment stage.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Conditions 1 and 2 of development consent S05/0036 issued by the Blue Mountains City Council on 14 February 2006 in respect of a boundary adjustment of lots 3 and 4 DP 882986, 241 Great Western Highway, Warrimoo are deleted.' 'The exhibits are returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment