{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney
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
Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney
[2016] NSWLEC 1482
Tags
No tags available
Case
Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney
[2016] NSWLEC 1482
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1482 Hearing dates:28-29 September 2016Date of orders: 21 October 2016 Decision date: 21 October 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: whether substantially the same development; conditions of consent; fire safety; amenity impacts Legislation Cited: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012; Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280 Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia Category:Principal judgmentParties: Archebiosis Design Pty Limited (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms A Pearman (Respondent) Solicitors: Mr S Kondilios Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) Mr A Singh Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s):155265/2016Judgment Archebiosis Design Pty Limited lodged an appeal under s97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) against Sydney City Council’s actual refusal of an application to modify a development consent (DU/1998/1048/B) to change the use of the third floor of a building from a five room boarding house to backpackers hostel operating in conjunction with the existing facility operated on the first and second floors. The contentions in the case are that the development is not substantially the same as that originally approved; a contribution towards affordable housing is required and opposed by the applicant and insufficient information has been provided to properly assess any health and...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney
[2016] NSWLEC 1482
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Archebiosis Design Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1482 Hearing dates:28-29 September 2016Date of orders: 21 October 2016 Decision date: 21 October 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: whether substantially the same development; conditions of consent; fire safety; amenity impacts Legislation Cited: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012; Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280 Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia Category:Principal judgmentParties: Archebiosis Design Pty Limited (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms A Pearman (Respondent) Solicitors: Mr S Kondilios Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) Mr A Singh Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s):155265/2016Judgment Archebiosis Design Pty Limited lodged an appeal under s97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) against Sydney City Council’s actual refusal of an application to modify a development consent (DU/1998/1048/B) to change the use of the third floor of a building from a five room boarding house to backpackers hostel operating in conjunction with the existing facility operated on the first and second floors. The contentions in the case are that the development is not substantially the same as that originally approved; a contribution towards affordable housing is required and opposed by the applicant and insufficient information has been provided to properly assess any health and...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>