//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:tas/TASRMPAT/1995/251
appellant. Decision of Hobart City Council varied by addition of two conditions (conditions 9 and 10) regarding lightwells and screen wall for neighbouring property at No. 163 Elizabeth Street; each party to...
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
This case involved an appeal against a planning permit granted by Hobart City Council for a development at 49 Melville Street. Rather than proceeding to a contested hearing, the parties reached agreement through mediation. The Tribunal approved the agreed terms, which added two conditions to the permit to protect the neighbouring property's amenity—specifically requiring lightwells and a screen wall. The parties were to bear their own costs unless a costs application was made within seven days.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
G Hay and Associates obo SL Rogers and GC Yaxley v. Hobart City Council and Trinity Projects Pty Ltd [1995] TASRMPAT 251
Hobart City Council - City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 - Consent Decision
Hobart City Council and Trinity Projects Pty Ltd Respondents
This was an appeal pursuant to Section 61(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 against the decision of the Hobart City Council to grant a permt for demolition, shop, carpark and cafe/bistro located at 49 Melville Street, Hobart.
A preliminary hearing and mediation conference were held at Hobart on 20 and 24 November 1995.
Mr R Bacon appeared on behalf of the Hobart City Council.
As a result of conferences pursuant to Section 17 of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 held on 20 and 24 November 1995 at Hobart agreement was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision of the Appeal Tribunal and the terms of that agreement were reduced to writing and were signed by the parties and given to the Appeal Tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal being satisfied that a decision in the terms as agreed by the parties would be within the powers of the Appeal Tribunal and would be an appropriate decision makes a decision accordingly without holding a hearing.
The decision of the Tribunal is that the decision of the Hobart City Council appealed against be varied by the addition of the two following conditions.
9. The lightwells to the side facing windows of the neighbouring property at No. 163 Elizabeth Street, are each to be a minimum of 0.9 of a metre deep and are to extend for the full width of all window areas. The lightwells are to be of a light colour scheme and are to be glass roofed.
10. The provision of a solid screen wall to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above the carpark deck, along the side boundary of the neighbouring property at No. 163 Elizabeth Street, and to extend from a point level with the rear section of the neighbours principle frontage building to a point one (1) metres to the rear of the rear most flat.
The Tribunal will entertain any application for and any submissions in support of any application for an order for costs in this appeal if made to the Tribunal in writing within the next seven days. If requested the Tribunal will reconvene to hear any evidence in respect of any matter bearing on an order for costs.
In the absence of any application for an order for costs the order of the Tribunal is that each party bear its own costs.
Decision of Hobart City Council varied by addition of two conditions (conditions 9 and 10) regarding lightwells and screen wall for neighbouring property at No. 163 Elizabeth Street; each party to bear own costs unless application for costs order made within seven days