{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City 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
Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1334
Tags
No tags available
Case
Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1334
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1334 Hearing dates:21 April and 1 August 2016Date of orders: 12 August 2016 Decision date: 12 August 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: CONSENT ORDERS: impact on adjacent properties Legislation Cited: Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development; Texts Cited: Sydney Development Control Plan 2012; Residential Flat Design Code; Apartment Design Code Category:Principal judgmentParties: Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited (Applicant) Sydney City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Reid (Applicant) Mr P Clay (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers (Applicant) Ms J Mort, Sydney City Council (Respondent) File Number(s):151622 of 2016Judgment Jo Hancock Investments P/L (Hancock) lodged Development Application D/2014/1955 with Sydney City Council seeking consent to amalgamate 2 adjoining sites, demolish an existing three storey building and construct a new part 7 and part 6 storey residential flat building containing 32 apartments and parking for 10 vehicles and alter and add to an existing building to create 2 separate apartments. The Council has refused consent and Hancock is appealing its deemed refusal. Following an earlier conciliation conference, joint conferencing between experts and discussions between the parties, the applicant amended its proposal and was granted leave to rely on amended plans by the Court. As a result of the amendments made, the Council no longer presses its contentions and the Parties are seeking Consent Orders from...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1334
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited v Sydney City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1334 Hearing dates:21 April and 1 August 2016Date of orders: 12 August 2016 Decision date: 12 August 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: CONSENT ORDERS: impact on adjacent properties Legislation Cited: Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development; Texts Cited: Sydney Development Control Plan 2012; Residential Flat Design Code; Apartment Design Code Category:Principal judgmentParties: Jo Hancock Investments Pty Limited (Applicant) Sydney City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Reid (Applicant) Mr P Clay (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers (Applicant) Ms J Mort, Sydney City Council (Respondent) File Number(s):151622 of 2016Judgment Jo Hancock Investments P/L (Hancock) lodged Development Application D/2014/1955 with Sydney City Council seeking consent to amalgamate 2 adjoining sites, demolish an existing three storey building and construct a new part 7 and part 6 storey residential flat building containing 32 apartments and parking for 10 vehicles and alter and add to an existing building to create 2 separate apartments. The Council has refused consent and Hancock is appealing its deemed refusal. Following an earlier conciliation conference, joint conferencing between experts and discussions between the parties, the applicant amended its proposal and was granted leave to rely on amended plans by the Court. As a result of the amendments made, the Council no longer presses its contentions and the Parties are seeking Consent Orders from...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>