Cittrus Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1558

Cittrus Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1558

The Court upheld the cl 4.6 written request because compliance with the cl 21(1)(b) height standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and sufficient environmental planning grounds justified the contravention. The proposed signage replaced poor quality existing roof signs, was lower than the existing signage, removed the West Street roof sign, reduced visual clutter, was appropriately scaled and finished in the Parramatta Road transport corridor context, and was compatible with the existing and desired future commercial mixed-use character. The small excess in signage area under the MDCP was justified by the DCP variation mechanism because the relevant objectives were achieved. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['roof Signage' 'digital Advertising Signs' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'development Standard Contravention' 'desired Future Character' 'marrickville Development Control Plan 2011' 'parramatta Road Transport Corridor']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'advertising and Signage'] ['roof Signage' 'digital Advertising Signs' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'development Standard Contravention' 'desired Future Character' 'marrickville Development Control Plan 2011' 'parramatta Road Transport Corridor']

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 Development Application Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's cl 4.6 written request justified variation of the height standard in cl 21(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage." 'Whether the proposed replacement illuminated digital roof signs were consistent with the aims, objectives and assessment criteria of State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage.' 'Whether the proposal was compatible with the existing and desired future character of the Parramatta Road locality and Precinct 35.' 'Whether the proposal was consistent with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011, including signage area controls and objectives concerning visual clutter, streetscape and building compatibility.' 'Whether development consent should be granted subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the cl 4.6 written request because compliance with the cl 21(1)(b) height standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and sufficient environmental planning grounds justified the contravention. The proposed signage replaced poor quality existing roof signs, was lower than the existing signage, removed the West Street roof sign, reduced visual clutter, was appropriately scaled and finished in the Parramatta Road transport corridor context, and was compatible with the existing and desired future commercial mixed-use character. The small excess in signage area under the MDCP was justified by the DCP variation mechanism because the relevant objectives were achieved. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. 2018/00033 is granted subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.']