{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches 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
Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1327
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1327
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Amendment notes Medium Neutral Citation: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1327 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5 August 2016Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: MODIFICATION: modification of approval for demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G. McKee (Applicant) Mr Dyer (Respondent) Solicitors: McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00188437Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of an application to modify Development Application number DA297/2012 for the demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 102 Bower street and 12-13 Marine Parade Manly. In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1327
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Amendment notes Medium Neutral Citation: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1327 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5 August 2016Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: MODIFICATION: modification of approval for demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G. McKee (Applicant) Mr Dyer (Respondent) Solicitors: McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00188437Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of an application to modify Development Application number DA297/2012 for the demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 102 Bower street and 12-13 Marine Parade Manly. In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>