© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:tas/TASRMPAT/2005/215
appellant. The decision of the Clarence City Council is varied by deleting condition 2 and substituting a new condition requiring redesign of the proposal with specific modifications to the deck location and...
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
This is a consent decision where the parties agreed to vary a planning permit condition. The Evanses appealed against a council decision granting a permit for house additions. After a conference, the parties agreed to change condition 2 to require specific design changes to the deck and balustrade. The Tribunal approved this agreement without holding a full hearing, and each party paid their own legal costs.
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.
JM & LD Evans v Clarence City Council and A Williamson [2005] TASRMPAT 215 (27 Sep 2005)
4 Nerang Street Lauderdale - Additions to existing dwelling - variation to setbacks- Consent Decision
This was an appeal against the grant of a permit subject to conditions or restrictions for additions to existing dwelling requiring variation to side and front setbacks at 4 Nerang Street Lauderdale.
A conference was held between the parties at Hobart on 10 August 2005.
1. As a result of a conference pursuant to Section 17 of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 held on 10 August 2005 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.
2. 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.
3. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is that the decision of the Clarence City Council appealed against is varied by deleting condition 2 and substituting the following:
"2. The proposal is to be redesigned in accordance with the attached plans which relocate the deck in line with the wall of the addition and include a 1.2m high opaque balustrade along the eastern side. The boundary wall is not to exceed 3m in height above the natural ground level."
4. It is directed that the Clarence City Council issue a replacement permit incorporating the above amendments.
5. It is further ordered by consent that each party bear its own costs of the appeal.
JM & LD Evans
Clarence City Council and A Williamson [2005] TASRMPAT 215
The decision of the Clarence City Council is varied by deleting condition 2 and substituting a new condition requiring redesign of the proposal with specific modifications to the deck location and balustrade requirements. Each party to bear its own costs.