NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jewish Learning Centre Limited v Waverley Council (No.2) [2017] NSWLEC 1590 Hearing dates: 16 August 2017 Date of orders: 20 October 2017 Decision date: 20 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: Orders see pars 16 and 17 Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: two separate but related development applications for same property – use of building for a child care centre – use of building for a synagogue and teaching centre – dispute on condition of consent Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Jewish Learning Centre Limited v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1276 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jewish Learning Centre Limited (Applicant) Waverley Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Jaku, solicitor (Applicant) Mr S Patterson, solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors: Jaku Legal (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/159476, 2016/374762 Publication restriction: No
Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: These are two separate but related appeals in relation to the existing heritage building at 60C Blair Street, North Bondi (the site). The parties accepted that the evidence in one appeal can be evidence in the other appeal. The appeals are: Appeal No 2016/159476 – development application that seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing building to incorporate a child care centre (the child care application). Appeal No 2016/374762 - development application that seeks consent to use the existing building as a place of public worship (synagogue), associated religious and community education and ancillary dormitories for religious educators (the synagogue application). 1. On 16 August 2017, the Court handed down findings on the two appeals that concluded that both appeals should be upheld (Jewish Learning Centre Limited v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1276). As the Court was being asked to consider two separate applications on the same site, the parties agreed at the hearing that the Court should hand down its findings initially and allow the parties time to provide conditions; which may vary depending on whether both applications are approved or alternatively only one application is be approved. 2. This judgment addresses the dispute between the parties on a condition of consent.
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