Outdoor Systems Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1338

Outdoor Systems Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1338

The Court held that the original development consent included illumination, because the DA documentation referred to an illuminated advertising roof sign and external flood lights and Condition 4 was properly read as prohibiting only flashing, animated, moving or revolving illumination or lighting. The proposed digital signage, with the west-facing panel removed, lighting controls imposed and compliance with relevant lighting standards, was an alteration without radical transformation and remained substantially the same development. The modification was acceptable on the merits because obtrusive lighting outcomes would improve, residential amenity impacts would be reduced or acceptable,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning Modification Application Under S 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Appeal Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of the Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent modified.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'advertising Signage' 'digital Signage' 'substantially the Same Development' 'amenity Impact' 'character Compatibility']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'advertising Signage' 'digital Signage' 'substantially the Same Development' 'amenity Impact' 'character Compatibility']

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 Appeal Concerning Modification Application Under S 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Appeal Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of the Modification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted under s 4.55(2)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the original development consent included floodlighting or illumination of the advertising sign.' 'Whether the proposed change from printed advertising panels to digital signage would cause unacceptable residential amenity impacts, local character impacts or public interest concerns.' 'Whether the signage was a wall advertisement or wall sign for the purposes of SEPP 64 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1.' 'Whether a time limit should be imposed on the modified consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the original development consent included illumination, because the DA documentation referred to an illuminated advertising roof sign and external flood lights and Condition 4 was properly read as prohibiting only flashing, animated, moving or revolving illumination or lighting. The proposed digital signage, with the west-facing panel removed, lighting controls imposed and compliance with relevant lighting standards, was an alteration without radical transformation and remained substantially the same development. The modification was acceptable on the merits because obtrusive lighting outcomes would improve, residential amenity impacts would be reduced or acceptable,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent modified.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent No. DA 354/95 for an advertising sign at 519 King Georges Road Beverly Hills is modified pursuant to section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as set out in Annexure "A".' 'As a consequence of Order 2, Development Consent No. DA 354/95 as...