{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
1 Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2 Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
1 Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2 Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1192
Tags
No tags available
Case
1 Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2 Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1192
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: 1. Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2. Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1192 Hearing dates:17 May 2016Date of orders: 26 May 2016 Decision date: 26 May 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeals upheld Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: traffic and access, signage, building appearance Legislation Cited: Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010; State Environmental Planning Policy No 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development; State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land; State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Signage; State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011; State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Texts Cited: 17 Mittagong Town Plan Category:Principal judgmentParties: 1. Brett Cooper (Applicant) 2. Woolworths Limited (Applicant) Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr I Hemmings (Applicants) Solicitors: Solari & Stock (Applicants) Mr C McFadzean Swaab Attorneys (Respondent) File Number(s):1. 2016/159648 (formerly 11118 of 2015)2. 2016/159703 (formerly 11207 of 2015)Judgment These are two appeals relating to two adjoining parcels of land that propose development of a KFC restaurant (Matter No 2016/159648) on one lot (Lot 2) and a service station (Matter No 2016/159703) on the other (Lot 1) sharing a common access road to be constructed between the two lots. As the contentions in the cases are similar the parties elected to have the matters heard concurrently with evidence in one, evidence in the other as appropriate. The site and its context The sites comprise Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1187383 known as...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
1 Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2 Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1192
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: 1. Cooper v Wingecarribee Shire Council; 2. Woolworths Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1192 Hearing dates:17 May 2016Date of orders: 26 May 2016 Decision date: 26 May 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeals upheld Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: traffic and access, signage, building appearance Legislation Cited: Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010; State Environmental Planning Policy No 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development; State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land; State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Signage; State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011; State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Texts Cited: 17 Mittagong Town Plan Category:Principal judgmentParties: 1. Brett Cooper (Applicant) 2. Woolworths Limited (Applicant) Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr I Hemmings (Applicants) Solicitors: Solari & Stock (Applicants) Mr C McFadzean Swaab Attorneys (Respondent) File Number(s):1. 2016/159648 (formerly 11118 of 2015)2. 2016/159703 (formerly 11207 of 2015)Judgment These are two appeals relating to two adjoining parcels of land that propose development of a KFC restaurant (Matter No 2016/159648) on one lot (Lot 2) and a service station (Matter No 2016/159703) on the other (Lot 1) sharing a common access road to be constructed between the two lots. As the contentions in the cases are similar the parties elected to have the matters heard concurrently with evidence in one, evidence in the other as appropriate. The site and its context The sites comprise Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1187383 known as...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>