Harris v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1224
Conditional consent is appropriate since the proposal complies with relevant planning controls and no objective evidence of adverse amenity impact or public interest harm was demonstrated; objections based on subjective apprehension are insufficient for refusal.
- Parties
- Applicant: Scott Harris; Respondent: Hurstville City Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Development Appeal / Final Hearing and Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development consent granted.
- Legal Topics
- Development Application, Mortuary Use, Suitability of Site, Access and Parking, Noise Amenity, Apprehension of Use, Public Interest
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Scott Harris
Applicant
Hurstville City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Final Hearing and Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the site is suitable for mortuary use
- 2 Adequacy of access and parking arrangements
- 3 Potential noise and amenity impacts on adjoining properties
Ratio Decidendi
Conditional consent is appropriate since the proposal complies with relevant planning controls and no objective evidence of adverse amenity impact or public interest harm was demonstrated; objections based on subjective apprehension are insufficient for refusal.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development consent granted.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld.
- Development consent is granted to development application No 11/DA-242 for the use of the premises at 333 Stoney Creek Road Kingsgrove as a funeral home and mortuary subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
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