{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Cottage Developers Pty Limited 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
Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1399
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1399
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1399 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 2 September 2016Date of orders: 08 September 2016 Decision date: 08 September 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Dickson C Decision: At [5] Catchwords: Appeal under s97AA (a) against deemed refusal of an amendment application [s96(8)]: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cottage Developers Pty Limited (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr. Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ms. Munn, King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/233675Publication restriction:No Judgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97AA (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), against the deemed refusal of a modification application under s96(8) of EPA Act. The modification application is seeking to make amendments to the approval DAN0337/13, which is for the construction of 10 self-contained dwellings at 1754 & 1754A Pittwater Rd Bayview. 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...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1399
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1399 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 2 September 2016Date of orders: 08 September 2016 Decision date: 08 September 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Dickson C Decision: At [5] Catchwords: Appeal under s97AA (a) against deemed refusal of an amendment application [s96(8)]: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cottage Developers Pty Limited (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr. Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ms. Munn, King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/233675Publication restriction:No Judgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97AA (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), against the deemed refusal of a modification application under s96(8) of EPA Act. The modification application is seeking to make amendments to the approval DAN0337/13, which is for the construction of 10 self-contained dwellings at 1754 & 1754A Pittwater Rd Bayview. 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...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>