NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2003) 126 LGERA 181
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Minister for Planning v. Rose Bay Marina Pty. Limited [2003] NSWCA 119 HEARING DATE(S) : 9 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 2; Santow JA at 44 DECISION : 1. Substitute for the declaration made by the primary judge the declaration set out in par.42. 2. Otherwise appeal dismissed. 3. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS : ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - Town planning - Existing use - Description of existing use - Relevance of definition of "large marina" in subsequent planning instrument - Generality of description - Whether use as marina excluded by use as public waterway - Extent of actual and physical use, where large area required for use but less than that area physically occupied at any one time. LEGISLATION CITED : Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 ss.106, 107, 108 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 cl.41 and 42 Ashfield Municipal Council v. Armstrong (2002) LGERA 105 Baulkham Hills Shire Council v. O'Donnell (1990) 69 LGRA 404 Dosan Pty. Ltd. v. Rockdale City Council (2001) 117 LGERA 363 Eaton & Son Pty. Ltd. v. Warringah Shire Council (1972) 129 CLR 270 Foodbarn Pty. Ltd. v. Solicitor-General (1975) 32 LGRA 157 CASES CITED : Lemworth Pty. Ltd. v. Liverpool City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 371 Mulcahy v. Blue Mountains City Council [No.2] (1995) 87 LGERA 422 North Sydney Municipal Council v. Boyts Radio Electrical Pty. Ltd. (1989) 16 NSWLR 50 Royal Agricultural Society of NSW v. Sydney City Council (1987) 61 LGRA 305 Scully v. Leichhardt Council (1994) 85 LGERA 109 Vaughan Taylor v. David Michell-Melcann (1991) 25 NSWLR 580 Woollahra Municipal Council v. Banool Developments Pty. Ltd. (1973) 129 CLR 138 PARTIES : Minister for Planning - appellant Rose Bay Marina Pty. Limited - respondent FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40725/02 COUNSEL : Mr. B. Preston SC with Mr. M. Wright for appellant Mr. M. Craig QC with Mr. J. Robson for respondent SOLICITORS : Department of Planning, Sydney for appellant Hannaford Lawyers, Sydney for respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate