NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Tectonic Development Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 235 APPLICANT Tectonic Development Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT Sydney City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10085 of 2004 CORAM: Hussey C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 04/05/04 EX TEMPORE 05/04/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :
APPLICANT Ms J Smith, solicitor SOLICITOR Wilshire Webb LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr M Ball, ?
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
10085 of 2004 Hussey C 4 May 2004 Tectonic Development Pty Ltd Applicant
v Sydney City Council Respondent Judgment
1. This appeal as against council's refusal of a section 96 Modification to enclose a first floor balcony and install a sliding screen, in the form of plantation shutters at 1 Copeland Street Alexandria.
2. Mr Goodwin, council statutory planner said the proposal was unsatisfactory because it does not comply with South Sydney DCP Part F. 1.2.4, which states that "the infill of existing balconies will not be permitted".
3. Also, he does not consider that the enclosure of the first floor front balcony satisfies the objectives of Part F. 1.2.3 of the DCP which provides that; "ensure the facades of new buildings, including garages, offences, and screen walls, relates sympathetically to existing buildings nearby and to the streetscape of heritage significance "….
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