Moore v North Sydney Council [2011] NSWLEC 1304
The amended design and consent conditions adequately address heritage, scale, amenity, acoustic privacy, and traffic impacts; SEPP 1 objections to development standards are upheld; development consent is granted subject to conditions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld, consent orders granted
- Legal Topics
- ['development Application' 'heritage Impacts' 'building Height' 'building Height Plane' 'floor Space Ratio (fsr)' 'noise Impacts' 'traffic' 'parking' 'amenity of Neighbourhood']
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
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Noncompliance with development standards for building height, height plane, and FSR' 'Noise impacts from increased patronage' 'Visual and amenity impacts on neighbours' 'Traffic and parking impacts' 'Heritage conservation outcomes']
Ratio Decidendi
The amended design and consent conditions adequately address heritage, scale, amenity, acoustic privacy, and traffic impacts; SEPP 1 objections to development standards are upheld; development consent is granted subject to conditions.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld, consent orders granted
Orders
- ['SEPP 1 objections to development standards in North Sydney LEP 2001 (building height, height plane, FSR) are upheld' 'Appeal is upheld in part' 'Development application number 19/11 for alterations and additions to restaurant approved, subject to conditions in annexure A' 'Exhibits be returned except 1, 3, A and B']
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