NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Griffiths v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1170 Hearing dates: 19-20 August, 2014 Decision date: 26 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: Directions for amended plans, refer to paragraph 90; directions for the provision of evidence of diversion or extinguishment of the existing easement burdening the site, refer to paragraph 92 Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: mixed use development in a heritage conservation area; whether facade of the existing building should be retained; height and impact on neighbours' amenity. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Conveyancing Act 1919 Cases Cited: Blackmore Design Group Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council 118 LGERA 290 Maygood Australia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2013] NSWLEC 142 Mison v Randwick Municipal Council (1991) 23 NSWLR 734 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Randolph Griffiths (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Mr A. Perkins Solicitor (Applicant) Ms A. Pearman Barrister (Respondent) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s): 10086 of 2014
Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Development Application No. D/2012/1856 for a mixed use development (the proposal) at 106-108 Redfern Street, Redfern (the site) by the Council of the City of Sydney (the Council). 2The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation on 28 May 2014, in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). As agreement was not reached during the conciliation phase, the conciliation conference was terminated on 25 June 2014, pursuant to s 34(4) of the LEC Act. The proposal was amended following the termination of the conciliation conference and leave was granted by the Court on 10 July 2014 for the applicant to rely on the amended proposal.
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