{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Murtag Developments Pty Limited 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
Murtag Developments Pty Limited v Ku-ring- gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1508
Tags
No tags available
Case
Murtag Developments Pty Limited v Ku-ring- gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1508
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Case Name: Murtag Developments Pty Limited v Ku-ring- gai Council Medium Neutral Citation: [2016] NSWLEC 1508 Hearing Date(s): Conciliation conference on15 August 2016 Date of Orders: 28 October 2016 Decision Date: 28 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1)(b) against deemed refusal of development consent : conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Murtag Developments Pty Limited (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: S Kondilios, Hall and Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00159164 Publication Restriction: No JUDGEMENTCOMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the deemed refusal of DA 0593/2015 for the construction of a residential flat building (15 units) and three levels of basement parking at 1070 -1072 Pacific Highway, Pymble (the Site).In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s34(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...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Murtag Developments Pty Limited v Ku-ring- gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1508
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Case Name: Murtag Developments Pty Limited v Ku-ring- gai Council Medium Neutral Citation: [2016] NSWLEC 1508 Hearing Date(s): Conciliation conference on15 August 2016 Date of Orders: 28 October 2016 Decision Date: 28 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1)(b) against deemed refusal of development consent : conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Murtag Developments Pty Limited (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: S Kondilios, Hall and Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00159164 Publication Restriction: No JUDGEMENTCOMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the deemed refusal of DA 0593/2015 for the construction of a residential flat building (15 units) and three levels of basement parking at 1070 -1072 Pacific Highway, Pymble (the Site).In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s34(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...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>