Auciello E v Kogarah M C

Case [2004] NSWLEC 153


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Auciello E v Kogarah M C [2004] NSWLEC 153
PARTIES: Auciello E v Kogarah Municipal Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 11242 of 2003
CORAM: Hussey C
KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- s96 modification
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING: 2 / 4 / 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT
Mrs J Kelly, Barrister

Mr Jacovou, Solicitor
Jacovou & Company

RESPONDENT
Mrs L Finn, solicitor

Abbot Tout



JUDGMENT:


In the Land and
Environment Court
of New South Wales

No. 11242 of 2003

Auciello E

Applicant

Kogarah M C

Respondent

Order

The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.


2. Development consent granted to DA 533/98 on 11 March 1999 is modified by adding the following conditions:


      Condition 41
      (a) The lift is to be constructed in accordance with the attached plans numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, Revision D dated 25 March 2004.
      (b) Structural work relating to the lift construction is to be carried out in accordance with design and details prepared by a practising structural engineer.
      (c) The lift-well height is not to exceed RL 51.61 as shown on the approved plans.

Ordered: 2 / 4 /2004

By the Court

Susan Dixon
Registrar
nm

Details
AGLC
Auciello E v Kogarah M C [2004] NSWLEC 153
Case
[2004] NSWLEC 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Auciello E v Kogarah Municipal Council involved a dispute regarding the modification of development consent granted to the applicant for a property in the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Auciello E, sought to modify the development consent previously granted to them under s96 of the relevant legislation. The primary focus of the case was whether the modification to the development consent, specifically related to the construction of a lift, was lawful and in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of s96 of the relevant legislation, which pertains to the modification of development consent. The court had to determine whether the proposed modifications to the development consent were appropriate and in compliance with the statutory framework. Additionally, the court examined whether the modifications adhered to the specific conditions and standards set forth in the original development consent and whether the modifications would have any significant environmental or planning implications.

The court, presided over by Hussey C, found that the modification to the development consent was lawful and in line with the statutory provisions. The court noted that the modifications proposed by the applicant were consistent with the approved plans and adhered to the requirements for structural integrity and safety. Furthermore, the court concluded that the modifications would not result in any adverse environmental impacts and were in accordance with the planning objectives of the local area. Consequently, the court upheld the applicant's appeal and modified the development consent to include the specified conditions related to the lift construction.

The court's final orders were that the appeal was upheld, and the development consent granted to DA 533/98 on 11 March 1999 was modified by adding specific conditions related to the construction of the lift. These conditions included adherence to the approved plans, structural design oversight by a practising structural engineer, and a restriction on the lift-well height. The court's decision was recorded on 2 April 2004, and the modification of the development consent was ordered to reflect these conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.