Bartel and Schneider (No. 2)
[2012] FamCA 890
Citation 1
(Para 6)
…the relevant controls, contrary he says to the role of an expert witness as espoused by Heydon JA in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 at [87], in particular, did the expert’s evidence go beyond that which is said.…
Joukhador v Canterbury City Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1027
Citation 2
(Para 3)
…-compliant site width of both the site and a hypothetical development on 145, Mr Betros cites a Court decision in Joukhador v Canterbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1027 in which a dual occupancy was approved on a site with a width of less than 15m. While he agreed with Mr Seton that the circumstances were different,…
Hunter Young Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney
[2014] NSWLEC 1234
Citation 3
(Para 6)
…hbe have some application to cl. 4.6 in LEPs made in accordance with the Standard Instrument ( Hunter Young Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1234 at [59])..…
Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney
[2014] NSWLEC 1199
Citation 4
(Para 5)
…earlman in Schaffer Corporation v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGRA 21 at [27], (as adopted by Brown C in Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1199 at his [28]), which states: The guiding principle, then, is that a development will be generally consistent with the objectives, if it is not antipat…
Wehbe v Pittwater Council
[2007] NSWLEC 827
Citation 5
(Para 2)
…of privacy or any other usual amenity impacts arising from the development. While accepting Preston CJ’s proposition in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 at [75] that the acceptability of the merits of itself is not enough, he maintains that it can be argued that compliance with the standard is ‘unnecessar…
Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council
[2005] NSWLEC 191
Citation 6
(Para 3)
…as unfamiliar with the Planning Principle on compatibility with surrounding development published in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 but agreed with Mr Eastman that the existing character of the area is varied and includes the existing building, and that the proposal is capable of…
Luna Moon Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council
[2005] NSWLEC 566
Citation 7
(Para 3)
…the solar access and extent of private open space as the proposed development. Mr Eastman cites Nott C in Lunar Moon Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council [2005] NSWLEC 566 at [12] which states: 12. However, an important circumstance of the case when considering the non-compliance with the FSR and the non-compliance with oth…
Dem Gillespies v Warringah Council
[2002] NSWLEC 224
Citation 8
(Para 17)
…FSR development standard, significantly in my view, it is not consistent (in the broader sense of the word – see Dem Gillespies v Warringah Council [2002] NSWLEC 224 at [70]) with the primary objective for the development standard in cl. 4.4(1)(a) of providing effective control over the bulk of future development. I…