Drivas v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2013] NSWLEC 1192
The proposed modifications, after amendments, are substantially the same as the original approval and suitable within their context, addressing all relevant concerns including development standards breaches and potential damage to adjoining properties.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 October 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Refusal of Modification Application (class 1) / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; modification approved, subject to consolidated conditions
- Legal Topics
- ['modification of Development Consent' 'impact on Streetscape and Heritage' 'damage to Adjoining Properties']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Modification Application (class 1) / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proposed modifications are substantially the same as the original approved development' 'Whether the modifications have unacceptable impacts on streetscape, bulk, view corridors, heritage, and adjoining properties']
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed modifications, after amendments, are substantially the same as the original approval and suitable within their context, addressing all relevant concerns including development standards breaches and potential damage to adjoining properties.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; modification approved, subject to consolidated conditions
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Modification application number M/2013/52 to modify development consent number D/2011/425 for demolition of all existing structures and construction and subdivision of three dwellings at 91 Louisa Road, Birchgrove is determined by approving the modifications, subject to the consolidated...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment