Pompar Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council [2005] NSWLEC 77

Pompar Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council [2005] NSWLEC 77

The modification related to the same development as approved and, on the court appointed traffic expert's evidence, the proposed partial two way traffic arrangements would cause only negligible incremental traffic change and acceptable pedestrian safety impacts if controlled by conditions and signage. Concerns about the operation of the larger public carpark were outside the scope of this s 96 modification application. The appeal was therefore upheld and the modification allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Council's Deemed Refusal of S 96 Modification / On Site Hearing; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; s 96 modification allowed.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'traffic Movement Within a Carpark' 'pedestrian Safety' 'development Access Conditions']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'traffic Movement Within a Carpark' 'pedestrian Safety' 'development Access 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Council's Deemed Refusal of S 96 Modification / On Site Hearing; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the s 96 modification related to the same development as approved.' 'Whether partial two way traffic access between the development and the central carpark would have acceptable traffic impacts.' 'Whether the modified access arrangements would create unacceptable pedestrian safety impacts.' 'Whether objections about the operation of the larger public carpark were within the scope of the s 96 modification application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The modification related to the same development as approved and, on the court appointed traffic expert's evidence, the proposed partial two way traffic arrangements would cause only negligible incremental traffic change and acceptable pedestrian safety impacts if controlled by conditions and signage. Concerns about the operation of the larger public carpark were outside the scope of this s 96 modification application. The appeal was therefore upheld and the modification allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; s 96 modification allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "The s 96 modification to allow partial two way traffic to the development from the central carpark is allowed in accordance with the conditions in Annexure 'A'."]