Legal Research
Cases
Tony Legge v Council of the City of Sydney

Tony Legge v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1424

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Tony Legge v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1424
Case: [2016] NSWLEC 1424
Decision Date: 20 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development application DA 2015/1247 for the addition of a new fifth floor to the existing four storey mixed use building at 292 King St. Newtown is refused.

(3) The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1, C and F.

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.

Actions

Citations

Tony Legge v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1424

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226
Citation 1 (Para 46)

…ut aside the standard set by the DCP and apply its own standard of what is reasonable (see Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226). Section 79C(3A)(b) of the Act requires flexibility in the application of provisions of a DCP and the consent authority is to “allow reasonable alte…
Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167
Citation 2 (Para 46)

…isions are a fundamental element in, or a focal point to, the decision-making process, but are not determinative (see Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167). The consent authority is not entitled to put aside the standard set by the DCP and apply its own standard of what is reasonable (see Botany Bay Cit…
Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90
Citation 3 (Para 68)

…applied by the LEC court including in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 and subsequently in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council[2015] NSWLEC 90. For the purpose of cl 4.6(4)(a)(i), the Court in exercising its discretion must be satisfied whether the written request has sufficiently dealt with…
Stamford Property Services Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1189
Citation 4 (Para 41)

…evels of the site at its interface with the public domain. This approach was reinforced in Stamford Property Services Pty Ltd v City of Sydney & Anor [2015] NSWLEC 1189 for the value it provides in placing ‘the proposed building in its context, rather than relying on the present built form of any existing development…
Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009
Citation 5 (Para 68)

…Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe) and has variously been applied by the LEC court including in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 and subsequently in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council[2015] NSWLEC 90. For the purpose of cl 4.6(4)(a)(i), the Court in exercising its discretion…
Bettar v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1070
Citation 6 (Para 2)

…Therefore the appropriate approach is that outlined in Bettar v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1070 . In applying this in his assessment of the application he utilised the October 2014 survey (exhibit H), and the footpath spot levels adjacent the boundary. He then extrapolated these points to establish a…
Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827
Citation 7 (Para 68)

…he development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. This test was considered by the Chief Judge in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe) and has variously been applied by the LEC court including in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 and subsequently in Four…

AI Chat isn't available for this judgment.