Land and Environment Court: Benmill v North Sydney Council
Case Overview
The applicant, Benmill Pty Ltd, sought declaratory relief regarding the approved use of three illuminated roof signs prominently displayed near the top of a 17-storey commercial office building at 275 Alfred Street in North Sydney. Benmill argued that the signs were used for advertising, which should classify them as a “roof or sky advertisement” under State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage (‘SEPP 64’). However, North Sydney Council contended that the signs were “building identification signs” as defined in SEPP 64, disputing Benmill’s claim based on issue estoppel and/or abuse of process.
Council’s Position and Previous Rulings
North Sydney Council also submitted that the construction of the use permitted by the 2007 Consent and the 2016 Consent had already been resolved by a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court in 2018, following a contested hearing. The council maintained that Benmill was not entitled to seek the relief it did.
Court Proceedings
Benmill engaged the team at Hones Lawyers, and the matter was heard by Judge Robson of the Land and Environment Court on Monday, 12 August 2019. The case was complex, involving previous consents and appeals between the parties and centered on the office building’s three illuminated roof-top signs, which displayed “BAYER” lettering and logos on the north, south, and west elevations.
Judgment and Outcome
After reviewing extensive background documentary material, Judge Robson ruled in favor of Benmill, declaring that the 2016 Consent was indeed for a “roof or sky advertisement” under SEPP 64. The Development Consent granted and modified by North Sydney Council in 2016 was confirmed to be for a “roof or sky advertisement,” and unless an application was made by notice of motion before 12 May 2020 for an alternate order, North Sydney Council was ordered to pay Benmill Pty Ltd’s costs of the proceedings.
Council’s Position and Previous Rulings
North Sydney Council also submitted that the construction of the use permitted by the 2007 Consent and the 2016 Consent had already been resolved by a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court in 2018, following a contested hearing. The council maintained that Benmill was not entitled to seek the relief it did.
Customer Testimonials
Don’t just take our word for it, read what our customers have to say.
