Concrite Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 191

Concrite Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 191

The concrete batching plant proposal exceeded the height standard; however, the non-complying elements had relatively small building envelopes, well set back from the street, and visual impacts could be mitigated by landscaping and colour treatment. Expert evidence established that dust and noise impacts would be minimal and that public interest favoured approval, especially with environmental controls and closure of the existing plant. The SEPP 1 objection was well founded and conditional consent was justified.

Parties
Applicant: Concrite Pty Ltd; Respondent: Sutherland Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted.
Legal Topics
Designated Development, SEPP 1 Objection, Building Height Standards, Dust Nuisance, Noise Impact, Public Interest, Environmental Impact Assessment
Planning and Environment Designated Development SEPP 1 Objection Building Height Standards Dust Nuisance Noise Impact Public Interest Environmental Impact Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concrite Pty Ltd

Applicant

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the building height development standard was well founded
  2. 2 Whether the proposed concrete batching plant would cause dust nuisance or health risks
  3. 3 Whether noise from the plant would adversely affect neighbours and residential areas

Ratio Decidendi

The concrete batching plant proposal exceeded the height standard; however, the non-complying elements had relatively small building envelopes, well set back from the street, and visual impacts could be mitigated by landscaping and colour treatment. Expert evidence established that dust and noise impacts would be minimal and that public interest favoured approval, especially with environmental controls and closure of the existing plant. The SEPP 1 objection was well founded and conditional consent was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The SEPP 1 Objection to the height development standard in cl 49 of SLEP 2000 is allowed.