Griffin v Hurstville City Council [2003] NSWLEC 355

Griffin v Hurstville City Council [2003] NSWLEC 355

The terms of development consent 20010742 do not empower the applicant to erect a light-coloured Colorbond roof; the consent requires compliance with the plans (showing a tiled roof) and condition 18 does not permit amendment of material type.

Parties
Applicant: John Griffin; Respondent: Hurstville City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Council Order / Determination of Preliminary Point of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on the legal point; question answered in the negative
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Construction Certificates, Building Materials, Interpretation of Consent Conditions
Planning and Environment Development Consent Construction Certificates Building Materials Interpretation of Consent Conditions

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Griffin

Applicant

Hurstville City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Council Order / Determination of Preliminary Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the terms of development consent 20010742 empower the erection of a light-coloured Colorbond roof

Ratio Decidendi

The terms of development consent 20010742 do not empower the applicant to erect a light-coloured Colorbond roof; the consent requires compliance with the plans (showing a tiled roof) and condition 18 does not permit amendment of material type.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on the legal point; question answered in the negative

Orders

  • The question of costs is reserved.
  • Exhibit A may be returned, exhibit B to remain on the Court's file.