Shenstone & Charles Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2006] NSWLEC 344
Subject to the revised conditions—specifically restricted hours of illumination, mandatory time clocks, and limitation to three 36-watt white fluorescent luminaries—the advertising signs do not unreasonably impact the surrounding area and are acceptable for development consent.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment at Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld by consent subject to conditions
- Legal Topics
- ['development Application' 'advertising Signs' 'impact of Signage' 'light Pollution' 'consent Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment at Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for advertising signs on commercial premises' 'Whether conditions regarding illumination hours and signage form are adequate to address objections']
Ratio Decidendi
Subject to the revised conditions—specifically restricted hours of illumination, mandatory time clocks, and limitation to three 36-watt white fluorescent luminaries—the advertising signs do not unreasonably impact the surrounding area and are acceptable for development consent.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld by consent subject to conditions
Orders
- ['Development consent granted subject to conditions detailed in orders; conditions relate to signage type, illumination hours (8am-10pm), use of automatic time clocks, and specified lighting limitations.']
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