{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley 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
CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1208
Tags
No tags available
Case
CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1208
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1208 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 and 8 May 2015Date of orders: 01 June 2015 Decision date: 01 June 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing unit; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: CommPlan Pty Ltd (Applicant) Waverley Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr C. Ireland, barrister (Applicant) Mr Stephen Patterson, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Stevens Cottee Lawyers (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s):11087 of 2014Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Waverley Council of Development Application No DA-126/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing unit 1/21 Gaerloch Avenue, Tamarama. 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 the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The Court Act also required me...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1208
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CommPlan Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1208 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 and 8 May 2015Date of orders: 01 June 2015 Decision date: 01 June 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing unit; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: CommPlan Pty Ltd (Applicant) Waverley Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr C. Ireland, barrister (Applicant) Mr Stephen Patterson, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Stevens Cottee Lawyers (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s):11087 of 2014Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Waverley Council of Development Application No DA-126/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing unit 1/21 Gaerloch Avenue, Tamarama. 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 the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The Court Act also required me...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>