NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Morris v Leichhardt Council [2008] NSWLEC 1106
APPLICANT Mark Morris PARTIES : RESPONDENT Leichhardt Council
FILE NUMBER(S) : 11035 of 2007
CORAM: Tuor C
KEY ISSUES: Section 96 Application :- delete condition that requires removal of swimming pool, whether substantially the same development, noise, excavation, damp and impact on tree.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000
Vacik Pty Limited v Penrith City Council (unreported, NSW LEC, Stein J, 18 February 1992) CASES CITED: Sydney City Council v Ilenace Pty Limited (1984) 3 NSWLR 414 North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Limited (1998) 97 LGERA 433 Motor Projects (No 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council, 1999 106 LGERA 298
DATES OF HEARING: 25/01/2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 25 January 2008
APPLICANT Mr D Baird, solicitor Maddocks LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
RESPONDENT Ms J Walsh, solicitor Pike Pike & Fenwick
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Tuor C
25 January 2008
11035 of 2007 Mark Morris v Leichhardt Council
JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the refusal by Leichhardt Council (the council) of an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to amend a development consent (D2006/219) for 68 Darling Street, Balmain (the site). 2 The description of the development in the Notice of Determination dated 12 December 2006 is:
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