{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Denis Leech and Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater 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
Denis Leech and Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1315
Tags
No tags available
Case
Denis Leech and Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1315
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Denis Leech & Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2015] NSWLEC 1315 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 13-14 July 2015Date of orders: 06 August 2015 Decision date: 06 August 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown ASC Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a dwelling, swimming pool, driveway access and landscaping: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Denis Leech & Associates Pty ltd (Applicant) Pittwater Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Hudson, solicitor (Applicant) Ms M. Carpenter, barrister (Respondent) Solicitors: Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant) King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent) File Number(s):10390 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against Pittwater Council of a Development Application No. NOO97/15 for a new single dwelling, swimming pool, driveway access and associated landscaping at 24 Bynya Road, Palm Beach (Lot 135 DP 14961) 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...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Denis Leech and Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1315
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Denis Leech & Associates Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2015] NSWLEC 1315 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 13-14 July 2015Date of orders: 06 August 2015 Decision date: 06 August 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown ASC Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a dwelling, swimming pool, driveway access and landscaping: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Denis Leech & Associates Pty ltd (Applicant) Pittwater Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Hudson, solicitor (Applicant) Ms M. Carpenter, barrister (Respondent) Solicitors: Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant) King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent) File Number(s):10390 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against Pittwater Council of a Development Application No. NOO97/15 for a new single dwelling, swimming pool, driveway access and associated landscaping at 24 Bynya Road, Palm Beach (Lot 135 DP 14961) 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...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>