Piao v Willoughby City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1407

Piao v Willoughby City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1407

The brothel is not a prohibited use under clause 13A(2) of the LEP since it is at first floor level towards Hampden Road, and the shortfall of one parking space does not justify refusal due to proximity to public transport and public parking.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'brothel' 'town Planning' 'parking Requirements' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Control Plan']
['planning Law'] ['development Application' 'brothel' 'town Planning' 'parking Requirements' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Control Plan']

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 Refusal of Development Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is the brothel prohibited because it is not at ground level?' 'Does the shortfall of one parking space justify refusal of the application?']

Ratio Decidendi

The brothel is not a prohibited use under clause 13A(2) of the LEP since it is at first floor level towards Hampden Road, and the shortfall of one parking space does not justify refusal due to proximity to public transport and public parking.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application for a brothel at 1/78 Hampden Road, Artarmon is determined by the grant of consent subject to conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned except Exhibits 7 and B.']