Huntington & MacGillivray v Hurstville CC & Ors [No 3] [2005] NSWLEC 219 [2005] NSWLEC 219

Huntington & MacGillivray v Hurstville CC & Ors [No 3] [2005] NSWLEC 219 [2005] NSWLEC 219

The existing 3.05 m wide Right of Way, with additional recommended conditions, is sufficient to accommodate the likely future traffic generated by the mixed commercial and residential development, and all planning requirements are satisfied. There are no planning reasons to refuse the development based on the evidence provided; final determination of easement access is reserved for separate proceedings under s 40.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Development Application Dispute / Application for Consent Orders; Matter Adjourned Pending S 40 Proceedings
Outcome
proceedings adjourned for s 40 proceedings; no development consent granted by this judgment
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'right of Way' 'traffic Engineering' 'access Design']
['environmental Law' 'planning and Development'] ['development Consent' 'right of Way' 'traffic Engineering' 'access Design']

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

Development Application Dispute / Application for Consent Orders; Matter Adjourned Pending S 40 Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed access over the existing Right of Way is adequate for the proposed mixed residential and commercial development' 'Whether the development satisfies the requirements of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and relevant development control plans' 'Whether the concerns of objectors, particularly regarding traffic, safety, loss of sunlight, and water run-off, warrant refusal or additional conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The existing 3.05 m wide Right of Way, with additional recommended conditions, is sufficient to accommodate the likely future traffic generated by the mixed commercial and residential development, and all planning requirements are satisfied. There are no planning reasons to refuse the development based on the evidence provided; final determination of easement access is reserved for separate proceedings under s 40.

Court Disposition

proceedings adjourned for s 40 proceedings; no development consent granted by this judgment

Orders

  • ['Proceedings adjourned pending s 40 proceedings regarding granting of an easement.' 'Costs reserved at the request of the applicant and first respondent.']