Flevaris & Anor v. Hurstville City Council [1998] NSWLEC 146

Flevaris & Anor v. Hurstville City Council [1998] NSWLEC 146

The appeal was dismissed as none of the five grounds involved an error of law. The assessor was entitled to give weight to the DCP as deemed appropriate, was not required to apply cl 9 of the LEP to a DCP, did not hold there could not be inconsistency between the DCP and LEP, gave proper consideration to amenity impacts, and the challenge to condition 40 could not be raised on appeal since it was not put before the assessor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'weight of Planning Instruments' 'assessment of Development Control Plans' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appeals on Questions of Law']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['development Applications' 'weight of Planning Instruments' 'assessment of Development Control Plans' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appeals on Questions of Law']

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 / Judgment on Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the assessor erred in law concerning the weight given to Hurstville Development Control Plan No 8.' 'Whether the assessor failed to give any consideration to cl 9 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.' 'Whether the assessor erred in law regarding inconsistency between the DCP and the LEP.' 'Whether the assessor failed to give proper consideration to the amenity of neighboring dwellings.' 'Whether the assessor erred in law by imposing condition 40 on the consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as none of the five grounds involved an error of law. The assessor was entitled to give weight to the DCP as deemed appropriate, was not required to apply cl 9 of the LEP to a DCP, did not hold there could not be inconsistency between the DCP and LEP, gave proper consideration to amenity impacts, and the challenge to condition 40 could not be raised on appeal since it was not put before the assessor.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Order that the respondent (the appellant in this appeal, Hurstville City Council) pay the applicant's costs of the appeal."]