Zhou v Marrickville Council

[2005] NSWLEC 564

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Zhou v Marrickville Council [2005] NSWLEC 564

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Jack Zhou

RESPONDENT
Marrickville Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10901 of 2005

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Appeal :- Number of Signage allowed on property.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64

DATES OF HEARING:

28/09/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

09/28/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr R. Creighton, agent

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Christmas, solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

28 September 2005

10901 of 2005 Jack Zhou v Marrickville Council

This decision was given as an extempore decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1 I am familiar with this particular site, which is No. 19 Unwins Bridge Road because there was a previous appeal for extra advertising signs on it earlier this year.

2 This current proposal is for reduced signage. Initially, it was for two signs but after further negotiation between the parties they have decided and agreed that one sign is appropriate to achieve the rationalisation and consolidation of signage on the site, and accordingly they agree to consent orders.

3 Considering the background of the matter, I rely on the details contained within the statement of basic facts that is provided. The description of the proposal is that the advertising structure is to be freestanding, measuring 4.1 m high and 2.25 m wide and comprising three separate panels. The agreed conditions of consent limit the type of advertising to be displayed on those panels with particular emphasis on the site identification on the top panel.

4 The statement of basic facts contains details on the statutory controls. Firstly, the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001 under which the site is zoned light industrial 4(b) and the proposed development is permissible with consent. The matter has been considered in accordance with cll 16 and 41. Also, reference is made to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64. Also, there is the Marrickville code for control and erection of signs and advertising structures and the Marrickville code for industrial development that has apparently been considered. As there are no submissions contrary to this proposal lodged, I accept the parties’ agreement that reasonable compliance with the objectives and controls within these planning controls is achieved.

5 Therefore, the Court orders by consent are that:

1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development consent is granted to DA 2005/00236 lodged with council on 23 May 2005 for an advertising structure (sign 1) at the front of the property at No. 19 Unwins Bridge Road, St Peters, subject to the conditions in annexure A.
3. No order as to costs.

___________________

R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
ljr