Speed dating roxy parramatta Free apps adult chat phonesex
VC155 amends the Planning Policy Framework at Clause 15.03 Heritage to introduce a new strategy to consider the restoration or reconstruction of a heritage building that has been unlawfully or unintentionally demolished, and inserts ' The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013' as a policy guideline; Makes minor changes to the wording of the residential rooftop solar energy facility provisions recently introduced by Amendment VC149 to ensure that they are clear and unambiguous with respect to their intended operation.New South Wales Too good to waste: discussion paper on a circular economy approach for New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW); Department of Planning and Environment (NSW): 22 October 2018 This discussion paper presents an overview of the circular economy, how it can be applied in New South Wales, and the benefits it could bring.LAND LAW easements section 88B instruments right of access description of "right of access" in s 88B instrument did not include right to construct trafficable surface whether instrument's express terms varied statutory short form meaning of "right of access" whether construction a trespass  NSWCA 237 LAND & ENVIRONMENT where respondent issued appellants with notice preventing appellants from keeping more than two dogs on property where respondent issued appellants with orders requiring removal of certain structures and advertisements where respondent brought proceedings against appellants for failure to comply with notice and orders where primary judge ordered compliance within 60 days where appellants appealed primary judge's decision whether respondent had jurisdiction to issue notice and orders whether respondent had standing to bring enforcement proceedings whether evidence before primary judge supported the respondent's claims whether primary judge failed to consider appellants' evidence.Queensland (Qld) (ACHA) imposes on the applicant a cultural heritage duty of care where the applicant developed and sought approval of a cultural heritage management plan under the Act where the applicant identified an Aboriginal party (referred to as the applicant to the former Jagera #2 Claim) and an Aboriginal cultural heritage body for the area in respect of which it proposed to developed its cultural heritage management plan where the applicant to the former Jagera #2 Claim was endorsed by the applicant to take part in developing the cultural heritage management plan where, as at , the applicant to the former Jagera #2 Claim was no longer a registered native title claimant under the (Cth) and no longer an Aboriginal party (as defined in the ACHA) where the applicant entered into a cultural heritage management plan with the applicant to the former Jagera #2 Claim and the Aboriginal cultural heritage body where, on 6 September 2017, the applicant submitted the cultural heritage management plan to the respondent for approval under s 107(1)(b) of the ACHA where two other native title parties were registered for the area (one registered prior to the submission of the cultural heritage management plan and the other subsequent to the submission of the plan but prior to the respondent's decision) where the respondent decided that the cultural heritage management plan could not be approved under s 107(1)(b) of the ACHA because the applicant to the former Jagera #2 Claim could no longer be regarded as an endorsed party where the respondent decided that the cultural heritage management plan also could not be approved under s 107(2) of the ACHA where the applicant applies for judicial review of the respondent's decision on the grounds that it involved a number of errors of law whether the respondent erred in law whether the respondent's decision should be quashed or set aside whether the respondent should be required to approve the applicant's cultural heritage management plan pursuant to s 107(3) of the ACHA. NSWCA 245 JUDICIAL REVIEW decision of Land and Environment Court Commissioner decision to grant consent to development application for residential flat building that contravened height development standard decision in accordance with parties' agreement reached at conciliation conference whether Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make decision development partly on neighbouring owner's land whether neighbouring owner's consent was required to development application whether Commissioner formed the requisite opinions of satisfaction to justify contravention of development standard whether decision to grant development consent was legally unreasonable whether conciliation conference was validly constituted CIVIL PROCEDURE power to amend orders "slip rule" Commissioner's decision to amend orders under slip rule amendments to conditions of consent and approved plans whether order valid Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17.
We've done away with the whistles, name-tags and over the top party trimmings.You are invited to review and provide feedback on the documents. Have your say: Reducing the risk of pollution from service station runoff The NSW Environment Protection Authority is inviting feedback, particularly from industry and local councils, on a draft guide that outlines how service stations can better protect the environment from potentially polluted run-off from service station forecourts. Changes affect new provisions for building and subdivision certification, Local Strategic Planning Statements for councils in the Greater Sydney Region and Community Participation Plans.