NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Boyce v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1556 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 September 2024 Date of orders: 11 September 2024 Decision date: 11 September 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent, pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the agreed amount of $2,000.00. (3) Development Application DA24/0372, lodged on 18 October 2023, as amended, is determined by the grant of consent for the demolition of two existing single storey dwellings, construction of a 3-storey motel comprising 39 guest rooms, 1 managers/caretakers room, reception area, guest lounge and bar, 39 under croft car parking spaces (3 accessible), associated landscaping and site works and erection of two business identification signs at 13 and 15 Regent Street, Mittagong, which is legally known as Lots 24 and 25 in Deposited Plan 1289, subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A. Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – three-storey motel – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7, 8.15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 37, 38 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Pt 6.5, ss 6.61, 6.63, 6.64 State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021, s 3.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.98, 2.100 Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010, cll 4.3, 4.6, 5.10, 7.3 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Greg Boyce (Applicant) Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) B Dyer (Solicitor) (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate