NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v City of Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1120 Hearing dates: 7 November 2016 Date of orders: 10 March 2017 Decision date: 10 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: (1)The appeal is upheld. (2)Condition 6 of Development Consent No. 220/2012 granted by the Court 21 May 2013 in proceedings 10146 of 2013, which has become condition 5 in the conditions contained in Annexure A, is modified by replacing the words "three(3) years" with the words "ten (10) years". (3)The Exhibits are returned, save for Exhibits 1 and A. Catchwords: MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT – brothel – sex services – trial period – prohibited use – deferred commencement condition – consent capable of modification - substantially the same development – the same essence – objectives for development in a zone – merit considerations - weight to be given to DCP Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 79C(1), 79C(3A), 80(3), 80A(1)(d), 95, 96(2), 96AA, 97AA, 102(1)(a) Restricted Premises Act 1943 Canterbury Local Environment Plan 2012 (CLEP) Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP) Cases Cited: Council of Trinity Grammar School v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1086 Fowler and Anor v Canterbury City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1146 Fowler and Anor v Canterbury City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1089 Kendall Street Developments Pty Limited v Byron Shire Council (No.2) [2004] NSWLEC 530; (2004) 138 LGERA 360 Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney C [1999] NSWLEC 280 TL & TL Tradings Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 150 Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8 Wang and Anor v Canterbury City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1098 Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 (2001) 115 LGERA 373 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jenny Wang (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Dr S Berveling (Applicant) Mr P Jackson (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors Russo & Co Solicitors (Applicant) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/212231 Publication restriction: No
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