Design 23 Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 90

Design 23 Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 90

There was no error of law in the Commissioner's assessment or reasoning regarding the application of SEPP No. 1 or SEPP No. 5 development standards, the adequacy of reasons given, or the treatment of the exemption/savings clause covering Sutherland Shire. The appeal thus fails.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 56 a Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Judgment on Appeal Against Commissioner's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'appeal on Questions of Law' 'consent Authority Powers' 'development Standards' 'interpretation of Planning Instruments' 'obligation to Give Reasons']
['administrative Law' 'environmental and Planning Law'] ['development Applications' 'appeal on Questions of Law' 'consent Authority Powers' 'development Standards' 'interpretation of Planning Instruments' 'obligation to Give Reasons']

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

Appeal Under S 56 a Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Judgment on Appeal Against Commissioner's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal tests in considering objections under SEPP No. 1 regarding height, number of storeys, and frontage' 'Proper construction of cl 13A(2)(c) SEPP No. 5 and need for SEPP No. 1 objection' "Adequacy of commissioner's reasons" 'Failure to make findings on adequacy/appropriateness of footpath access' 'Whether savings clause in SEPP No. 5 exempted Sutherland Shire applies']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law in the Commissioner's assessment or reasoning regarding the application of SEPP No. 1 or SEPP No. 5 development standards, the adequacy of reasons given, or the treatment of the exemption/savings clause covering Sutherland Shire. The appeal thus fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant, Sutherland Shire Council, must pay the applicant's costs of the appeal."]