He helped the NSW racing industry survive the 2007 equine influenza crisis and has recently fought his way into favouritism for the role of chief executive of the new Australian Rugby League Commission.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But Racing NSW boss Peter V'landys looks to have been defeated by the next-door neighbours of his Woolwich home.
The racing supremo has been involved in a long-running stoush over development plans by Melanie and Steven Dive, which he claims will interrupt the "iconic and panoramic views" of Chatswood, the harbour and the city skyline, and will intrude on his privacy.
But the Land and Environment Court yesterday rejected Mr V'landys's attempt to overturn the approval of the new second-storey balcony and roof proposed as part of the Dives' substantial renovations of their home.
"Naturally you're disappointed when you lose any legal matter," Mr V'landys said today.
"We haven't yet decided whether we'll appeal ... that's a matter we'll consider."
Hunters Hill Council initially refused to give development consent for alterations to the Dives' single-storey house on the grounds of "inadequate view sharing", loss of privacy and heritage considerations.
This decision was overturned in February when the Dives appealed to the Land and Environment Court, with the court granting consent subject to a series of conditions.
But Mr V'landys claims he was not given adequate opportunity to look at the amended plans and make submissions or objections, despite the fact that he was in the courtroom when they were lodged.
During a week-long hearing last month, Mr V'landys's barristers argued that, under the council's Development Control Plan, residents in neighbouring properties are supposed to be notified of any significant changes to developments affecting them in order to give them time to object.
The failure of the court to do so was a "denial of procedural fairness" that could only be remedied with a new hearing, they said.
But Justice Peter Biscoe rejected Mr V'landys's application.
He found that the changes to the proposed development were not significant and so there was no legal requirement for Mr V'landys to be informed.
"Treating the development as a whole, my evaluation is that the changes brought about by the conditions do not significantly alter the development so as to result in a significantly different development," Justice Biscoe said.
"The conditions only modify details of the development."
Mr V'landys said he respected Justice Biscoe's decision but maintained that the changes were significant and that a new hearing was warranted.
"We have never opposed the Development Application as a whole. In fact we've supported it. We've only objected to the roof of the balcony on the second floor," he said.
