Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Fuda v Mosman Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 1719 Hearing dates: Conciliation 22-23 September 2025: final submissions 29 September 2025 Date of orders: 02 October 2025 Decision date: 02 October 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent 8.2023.305.1 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent 8.2023.305.3 as modified by the Court is set out in Annexure B.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION - whether substantially the same – conciliation conference – agreement between parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.14, 4.16, 4.55, 8.9, 10.3
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 100, 113
Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.4, 4.6, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, Ch 6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, s 2.1
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Mosman Community Participation Plan 2020
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kara Fuda (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Nupuri (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor)(Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/135058 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
Plunkett Road is elevated above Balmoral Beach with panoramic views over The Esplanade below to Sydney Harbour beyond.
-
Development is proposed on a site at 30 Plunkett Road, Mosman. More specifically, Modification Application 8.2023.305.3 seeks to amend Development Consent 8.2023.305.1 that granted consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool (the original consent).
-
The modification application, lodged by the Applicant in these proceedings, Ms Kara Fuda, now seeks the following modifications to the original consent:
Changes to external stairs to the east;
Location and layout of plant room for buildability; and
Doors and joinery relocated.
-
The original consent was granted by Mosman Municipal Council on 21 August 2024, and the modification application was lodged on 21 February 2025.
-
The Council publicly notified the modification application from 3 March 2025 to 17 March 2025, in accordance with the Mosman Community Participation Plan.
-
As the modification application was not otherwise determined at the time, the Applicant appealed its deemed refusal on 9 April 2025, under s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).
-
The appeal was listed for mandatory conciliation on 22 September 2025 in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act).
-
The conciliation commenced with an onsite view, after which the conciliation conference then reconvened at Court where without prejudice discussions were held. The Applicant agreed to amend the proposal, subject to a short adjournment to prepare amended plans.
-
Accordingly, the parties reached agreement on the matters in contention and a signed agreement was initially submitted to the Court…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fuda 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 1719
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision to grant development consent was legally sound. Key issues included whether the assessment of the application was conducted in accordance with the relevant legislative framework and whether the council adequately considered the environmental and community impacts of the proposed development. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process that could render the consent invalid.
The court found that there were procedural shortcomings in the council's assessment process, which led to an improper granting of development consent. The court held that the council failed to properly consider certain environmental factors and did not adequately consult with the community. Consequently, the court determined that the consent was not legally sound and should be set aside. The court also found that the council's decision-making process did not comply with statutory requirements, further invalidating the consent. Given these findings, the court modified the development consent as set out in the annexed documents, ensuring that the altered terms address the identified procedural and substantive issues.
The court's final orders included the upholding of the appeal, modification of the development consent to align with the court's determinations, and the setting out of the modified consent in the annexed documents. The modifications ensure that the council's decision-making process adheres to legal standards and adequately considers environmental and community impacts.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent 8.2023.305.1 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent 8.2023.305.3 as modified by the Court is set out in Annexure B.
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.