Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Hopkins v Mosman Council [2020] NSWLEC 1476 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 September and 1 October 2020 Date of orders: 09 October 2020 Decision date: 09 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: See orders at [39]
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – dwelling house – agreement between the parties – conciliation conference – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005
Cases Cited: Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118
Texts Cited: New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Planning for Bush Fire Protection: A guide for councils, planners, fire authorities and developers (November 2019)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Hopkins (First Applicant)
Sally Hopkins (Second Applicant)
Mosman Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
I Hemmings SC (Applicants)
S Patterson (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/41001 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal concerns a development application brought before the Court under ss 8.6(2) and 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal by the Mosman Council (the Respondent) of Development Application 8.2019.65.1 (the Development Application) which proposes substantial alterations and additions to a dwelling house constituting construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool (the proposed development) at 38 Burrawong Avenue, Mosman (the site).
-
The appeal was listed for mandatory conciliation on 30 September 2020, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).
-
The Court granted leave for the matter to commence with an onsite view. In the company of the parties and the experts, I was taken to the following properties in order to hear submissions from the owners:
Ms Margaret Ward, of 40 Burrawong Avenue drew my attention to the visual bulk and scale that would be presented close to the southern boundary of the property, and with sightlines to a ground floor living area, and external covered patio, and first floor dressing room, study and daughter’s bedroom.
Mr Alex Pope of 36 Burrawong Avenue submits that recent refurbishment of their home relocated the living, dining and kitchen areas to make the most of the northerly aspect that would be overshadowed by the proposed development.
Mr Greg Curson, of 19 Silex Avenue submits that the proposed development would result in view loss to a portion of the harbour currently enjoyed from an outdoor entertaining terrace, and a reduced pitch to the roof of the proposed development would substantially resolve a number of the concerns held by all neighbouring properties.
-
I was also taken on to the subject site to view the existing levels and setbacks on the site including…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hopkins v Mosman 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
- [2020] NSWLEC 1476
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether it adhered to relevant statutory provisions and guidelines. The plaintiffs argued that the Council failed to consider material information and acted outside its statutory authority. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework and was supported by sufficient evidence.
The court found that the Council's decision was flawed due to a failure to consider a material aspect of the application, specifically the impact on the local environment. The court held that the decision was not based on all the relevant considerations and was therefore unlawful. The Council's reliance on certain guidelines was also found to be incorrect. As a result, the court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [39]
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.