RDO v Sydney City Council [2007] NSWLEC 805

RDO v Sydney City Council [2007] NSWLEC 805

The council's proposed amendments to remove one vehicular entrance were not practicable and were likely to result in a building functionally inappropriate for the applicant's operations, while the applicant's amended elevation would provide a satisfactory appearance to Buckingham Street and two crossovers in a quiet street did not present danger to pedestrians. Given the traffic experts' agreement that reverse movement was acceptable and the difficulty of including a turntable, it was not reasonable to require all vehicles to leave in a forward direction. Conditions Part A (2) and Part B (25) were therefore deleted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Against Conditions Imposed on a Deferred Commencement Consent / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal to be upheld subject to revised conditions after filing of the amended elevation and conditions; Conditions Part A (2) and Part B (25) deleted.
Legal Topics
['development Application Conditions' 'conservation Area' 'activation of Streetscape' 'vehicular Access and Crossovers' 'forward and Reverse Vehicle Movement']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application Conditions' 'conservation Area' 'activation of Streetscape' 'vehicular Access and Crossovers' 'forward and Reverse Vehicle Movement']

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

Development Application Appeal Against Conditions Imposed on a Deferred Commencement Consent / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two vehicular entrances, one existing and one new, to Buckingham Street were acceptable.' 'Whether it was necessary for vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The council's proposed amendments to remove one vehicular entrance were not practicable and were likely to result in a building functionally inappropriate for the applicant's operations, while the applicant's amended elevation would provide a satisfactory appearance to Buckingham Street and two crossovers in a quiet street did not present danger to pedestrians. Given the traffic experts' agreement that reverse movement was acceptable and the difficulty of including a turntable, it was not reasonable to require all vehicles to leave in a forward direction. Conditions Part A (2) and Part B (25) were therefore deleted.

Court Disposition

Appeal to be upheld subject to revised conditions after filing of the amended elevation and conditions; Conditions Part A (2) and Part B (25) deleted.

Orders

  • ['Condition Part A (2) is deleted.' 'Condition Part B (25) is deleted.' 'The applicant is directed to file and serve an amended elevation to Buckingham Street in accordance with Exhibit E by COB 14 December 2007.' 'The council is directed to prepare a set of conditions that reflects the agreements reached with the...