Murphy v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1431

Murphy v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1431

The proposed amendment to condition 3A does not cause any substantive environmental impact, the development remains substantially the same as previously approved, and nothing in the applicable statutes or development control plans prohibits or is adverse to approval; therefore, the consent orders for modification should be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Application / Judgment on S 96 Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed by consent
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'heritage' 'environmental Impact' 'development Control Plan']

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

Class 1 Application / Judgment on S 96 Modification Application

  1. 1 ['Whether amendment to condition 3A of development consent should be allowed under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Whether the environmental and heritage impacts are acceptable']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment to condition 3A does not cause any substantive environmental impact, the development remains substantially the same as previously approved, and nothing in the applicable statutes or development control plans prohibits or is adverse to approval; therefore, the consent orders for modification should be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by consent

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The conditions of development consent DA 790/2007/1 in respect of the development at 12 Stafford Street Paddington be amended by way of deletion of condition C3(a) and insertion of a new condition C3(a) as specified.' 'The exhibits are returned to all parties except Exhibits A,B and 2.']