Healy Capital Pty Ltd ATF Healy Family Super Fund v The Council of the City of Sydney

[2025] NSWLEC 1891

NSW Land and Environment Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Planning and Environment
2. › Development applications
3. › Signage
4. › Electronic variable content advertising sign on heritage building
5. › Whether compatible with desired amenity and visual character of area
6. › State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021 (NSW), Ch 3, ss 3.1, 3.6, 3.11
1. Planning and Environment
2. › Heritage conservation
3. › Signage on heritage items
4. › Impact of digital advertising sign on heritage significance
5. › Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 5.10
1. Planning and Environment
2. › Development applications
3. › Relevance of existing development consent
4. › Whether existing consent is a relevant instrument under s 39(4) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW)
5. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 39(4)

Quick Take

Electronic variable content digital advertising signage on heritage buildings in areas where such signage is not a feature of the existing visual character will not satisfy the compatibility requirement under s 3.1(1)(a) of the Industry & Employment SEPP, even where an existing consent authorises a static illuminated sign in the same location.

Case Details

Citation[2025] NSWLEC 1891

CourtNSWLEC

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on4

2018Abrams v The Council of the City of Sydney (No 2)NSWLEC 85
2006Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire CouncilNSWLEC 133
1997MLC Properties Pty Ltd & Anor v Camden Council & Ors No. 400NSWLEC 130
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in