Hughes v Council of the City of Sydney

[2006] NSWLEC 225

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Hughes v Council of the City of Sydney [2006] NSWLEC 225
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Gavin Hughes RESPONDENT Council of the City of Sydney
FILE NUMBER(S):	11507 of 2005
CORAM:	Moore C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :-
DATES OF HEARING:	9 March 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	03/09/2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr R d'Apice, solicitor Makinson & d'Apice RESPONDENT Mr S Kondilios, solicitor Maddocks

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

MOORE C

9 March 2006

05/11507 Gavin Hughes v Council of the City of Sydney

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal will be the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but will be available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

JUDGMENT

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 concerning the refusal by the Council of the City of Sydney (the council) of Development Application 2005/01712 proposing the removal of an existing brick balustrade along the western elevation of unit 18, 101-115 Victoria Street, Potts Point and the replacing of that balustrade with a clear glass balustrade supported by structural aluminium posts at appropriate intervals.

2 The matter comes before the Court as proposed consent orders as Mr Kondilios, solicitor for the council, has informed me that the concerns expressed by the body corporate of the building have now been resolved and there is no objection by the body corporate to the proposal. There are no other objectors.

3 I have reviewed:

• the development application;
• the brief accompanying statement of environmental affects; and
• the plans.

4 Noting that the council accepts that the location plan is merely generally depicting of the location of the unit and does not precisely represent the detail of its edge facing Brougham Street as shown on drawing 2A, I am satisfied that the orders of the Court, by consent, should be that:

1. The appeal will be upheld;
2. Development Application 2005/01712 is to be approved subject to conditions which have been provided but which have been subject to revision and amendment in court this morning.

5 As a consequence, orders will be issued when the conditions of consent are filed electronically by the close of business today.

6 I note that there is an agreement between the parties that each party will bear their own costs in the proceedings.

Tim Moore
Commissioner of the Court