| |
| | Judgment in the matter of Newstate v City of Port Adelaide Enfield |
 | | The development fails to comply with the Development Plan Port Adelaide Enfield (City) Council Wide Objectives 1, 4, 27, 29, 51, 52(a), (d) and (e), Council Wide Principles of Development Control 4, 100, 101, 107(b) and (c), 109(f), 110, 114(a), (d), (h)(i) and (i) |
 | | Messrs Weaver and Short differed, mainly with regard to carparking demand and provisions for the proposal and to a lesser extent on access, carpark layout and loading layout arrangements. |
 | | No more than 50% of the total net lettable floor area shall be used for the storage, display and sale of carry-out items set out in condition 22 clauses 2 and 3. |
| www.courts.sa.gov.au /courts/environment/judgments/2003/newstate_v_pt_adelaide.html (7626 words) |
|