Studio 88 Pty Limited v Wollongong City Council [2004] NSWLEC 62

Studio 88 Pty Limited v Wollongong City Council [2004] NSWLEC 62

The proposed sign structure, even with the amended 3.6 m setback and restriction on use of the northern face, was too large and out of scale when assessed against cl 3(1)(a)(i) and schedule 1 of SEPP 64, particularly compatibility with desired future character and appropriateness of scale and proportionality in the streetscape. The appeal therefore could not succeed and development consent was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Under S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Consent / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'advertising and Signage' 'state Environmental Planning Policy 64 Advertising and Signage' 'desired Future Character' 'streetscape Assessment']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'advertising and Signage' 'state Environmental Planning Policy 64 Advertising and Signage' 'desired Future Character' 'streetscape Assessment']

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 Under S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Consent / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed sign structure was too large.' 'Whether the proposed sign structure satisfied cl 3(1)(a)(i) and schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage.' 'Whether the proposal was compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality.' 'Whether the scale, proportion and form of the proposal were appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape.' 'Whether the proposal reduced clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed sign structure, even with the amended 3.6 m setback and restriction on use of the northern face, was too large and out of scale when assessed against cl 3(1)(a)(i) and schedule 1 of SEPP 64, particularly compatibility with desired future character and appropriateness of scale and proportionality in the streetscape. The appeal therefore could not succeed and development consent was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application D1874/03 for the erection of a sign structure at premises at 89 Princes Highway, Fairy Meadow, being Lot B DP396632 is determined by the refusal of development consent.' 'The exhibits, other Exhibit 1, may be returned.']