{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Nasab 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
Nasab v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1474
Tags
No tags available
Case
Nasab v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1474
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Case Name: Nasab v Ku-ring-gai Council Medium Neutral Citation: [2015] NSWLEC 1474 Hearing Date(s): 23 July 2015 Decision Date: 21 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: (1) The parties are directed to provide to the Court an electronic copy of the conditions of consent, combing those to which they have agreed, within 7 days of the date of this judgment. Catchwords: APPEAL- development application –subdivision- erection of second dwelling - impact of development on existing heritage item Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 Ku–ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (As amended at 5 July 2013) Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual – Development Control Plan No38. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rahim Nasab (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Michael Staunton (Applicant) Anthony Hudson (solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Storey & Gough (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 11044 of 2014 JudgmentRahim Nasab has made application to the Court for approval to subdivide his heritage listed property at 47 Highfield Road, Lindfield to facilitate the construction of a second dwelling on an area of the property known as forest grove.Mr Nasab’s development application (DA 0472/13) for that purpose was refused by the Ku -ring-gai Council on 7 October 2014.The Council decided that the proposed second dwelling was in breach of relevant height and front setback controls, and that the development generated unacceptable impacts upon the existing heritage listed...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Nasab v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1474
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Case Name: Nasab v Ku-ring-gai Council Medium Neutral Citation: [2015] NSWLEC 1474 Hearing Date(s): 23 July 2015 Decision Date: 21 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: (1) The parties are directed to provide to the Court an electronic copy of the conditions of consent, combing those to which they have agreed, within 7 days of the date of this judgment. Catchwords: APPEAL- development application –subdivision- erection of second dwelling - impact of development on existing heritage item Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 Ku–ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (As amended at 5 July 2013) Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual – Development Control Plan No38. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rahim Nasab (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Michael Staunton (Applicant) Anthony Hudson (solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Storey & Gough (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 11044 of 2014 JudgmentRahim Nasab has made application to the Court for approval to subdivide his heritage listed property at 47 Highfield Road, Lindfield to facilitate the construction of a second dwelling on an area of the property known as forest grove.Mr Nasab’s development application (DA 0472/13) for that purpose was refused by the Ku -ring-gai Council on 7 October 2014.The Council decided that the proposed second dwelling was in breach of relevant height and front setback controls, and that the development generated unacceptable impacts upon the existing heritage listed...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>