{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai 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
Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1452
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1452
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1452 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 6 October 2015Date of orders: 02 November 2015 Decision date: 02 November 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and constructions of multi-unit housing development, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A. Knox, solicitor, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Mr J. Merlino, solicitor, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):10379 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development Application DA 0012/15 for the demolition of existing dwellings and associated structures and construction of a three storey multi-dwelling housing development containing thirteen (13) dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping at 3 and 5 Wonga Street, Turramurra 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...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1452
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1452 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 6 October 2015Date of orders: 02 November 2015 Decision date: 02 November 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and constructions of multi-unit housing development, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A. Knox, solicitor, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Mr J. Merlino, solicitor, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):10379 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development Application DA 0012/15 for the demolition of existing dwellings and associated structures and construction of a three storey multi-dwelling housing development containing thirteen (13) dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping at 3 and 5 Wonga Street, Turramurra 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...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>