Harris v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1224

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Harris

Applicant

Hurstville City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal / Final Hearing and Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the site is suitable for mortuary use
  2. 2 Adequacy of access and parking arrangements
  3. 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.