Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Amelia v Mosman Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 1043 Hearing dates: 26 and 27 September 2024 Date of orders: 28 January 2025 Decision date: 28 January 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Byrne AC Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No 8.2023.107.1 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent No 8.2023.107.1, as modified by the Court, is subject to the consolidated modified conditions set out in Annexure B.
(4) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibit A.
Catchwords: APPEAL – modification application – construct garage-like structure and enclosed driveway to extend to approved basement car parking of new dwelling – whether substantially the same development - impact on streetscape – existing mature tree preservation
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.9
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA
Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012
Cases Cited: North Sydney Council v Michael Handley & Associates (1998) 43 NSWLR 468; [1998] NSWSC 163
Texts Cited: Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Libby Amelia (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Smith (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Thomson Geer (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/109394 Publication restriction: No
JudgmenT
-
COMMISSIONER: This is a class 1 appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 NSW (EPA Act) from the deemed refusal of a Modification Application No 8.2023.107.3 (the MOD) by Mosman Municipal Council (the Council) to modify the development consent No 8.2023.107.1 (2023 Consent) on land at 42 Almora Street, Mosman, NSW 2088, being Lot 2 DP 963781 (the Site).
-
The 2023 Consent states that it approved “alterations and additions to a dwelling house including extension of basement garage” which was granted subject to a condition requiring compliance with an earlier consent No 8.2020.130.1. Therefore the 2023 Consent approves more than just ‘alterations and additions’ and authorises demolition of all existing structures, including the dwelling house and garage.
-
The appeal was subject to conciliation starting on Site, in accordance with s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court 1979 (LEC Act). As no agreement was reached, the conciliation conference was terminated pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b) of the LEC Act and the proceedings moved to a hearing forthwith in Court pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b)(i).
The Modification Application
-
The MOD seeks approval for the construction of a ‘garage’ like structure in the nature of a windowless tunnel constructed on the approved angular driveway from the Almora Street entrance to the approved underground basement car parking thus connecting the garage structure to the dwelling house. For ease of reference I will adopt the short hand “garage structure” to encompass the work sought to be approved by the Court. The location of the work is…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Amelia v Mosman Municipal Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1043
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the council acted unreasonably in granting the development consent and whether it failed to consider the environmental impact of the development. The Court had to determine if the council's decision was legally sound and whether it complied with the relevant planning laws and environmental assessments. Furthermore, the Court needed to assess whether the council's actions were procedurally fair and if there was any bias in the decision-making process.
In its judgment, the Court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable. It determined that the council failed to properly consider the environmental impact of the development, particularly in relation to the local flora and fauna. The Court found that the council did not adequately assess the potential harm to the environment and did not take into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the Court concluded that the council's decision contravened the planning laws and was therefore invalid. The Court modified the development consent in accordance with Annexure A and imposed additional conditions in Annexure B to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No 8.2023.107.1 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent No 8.2023.107.1, as modified by the Court, is subject to the consolidated modified conditions set out in Annexure B.
(4) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibit A.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.