Maison Mosman Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council

Case

[2025] NSWLEC 1199

02 April 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maison Mosman Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 1199
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 30 January 2025
Date of orders: 02 April 2025
Decision date: 02 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Porter C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The modification application is granted.

(2) Development consent DA8.2022.81.1 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 2 February 2023 is modified as set out in Annexure A.

(3) The terms of the consolidated development consent DA8.2022.81.1, as modified, are set out in Annexure B.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – application directly made to Court – mixed use development - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2021, ss 98, 100, 102, 113
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Ch 4, ss 146, 147

Cases Cited:

Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1039

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Maison Mosman Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Gadiel (Solicitor) (Applicants)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicants)
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/93154
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a modification application appeal filed directly to the Court pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to DA 8.2022.81.1 at 64-66 Spit Road, Mosman (Lot 1 DP 551009 and Lot 361 DP 526291). The modification application seeks to modify the mix and configuration of apartments, consolidate the retail floor area, reconfigure the car parking, amend the façade and incorporate solar panels.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties on 30 January 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. The respondent has approved under s 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Reg) to the applicant amending DA 8.2022.81.2 in accordance with the documents listed below (amended application):

  1. Architectural drawings prepared by PBD Architects:

Drawing

Rev

Title

Date

DA000

02

Cover Page

21 February 2025

DA001

02

Project Information

21 February 2025

DA002

02

Demolition Plan

21 February 2025

DA003

02

Site Analysis

21 February 2025

DA004

02

Site Plan

21 February 2025

DA100

02

Basement 3

21 February 2025

DA101

02

Basement 2

21 February 2025

DA102

02

Basement 1

21 February 2025

DA103

02

Ground Floor Plan

21 February 2025

D104

02

Level 1

21 February 2025

DA105

02

Level 2

21 February 2025

DA106

02

Level 3

21 February 2025

DA107

02

Level 4

21 February 2025

DA108

02

Roof Plan

21 February 2025

DA200

02

Elevation Sheet 1

21 February 2025

DA201

02

Elevation Sheet 2

21 February 2025

DA202

02

Streetscape Elevation

21 February 2025

DA300

02

Section Sheet 1

21 February 2025

DA301

02

Section Sheet 2

21 February 2025

DA302

02

Section Sheet 3

21 February 2025

DA303

02

Section Sheet 4

21 February 2025

DA400

02

Finishes Schedule

21 February 2025

DA410

02

3D Image

21 February 2025

DA411

02

3D Image

21 February 2025

DA412

02

3D Image

21 February 2025

DA413

02

3D Image

21 February 2025

DA414

02

3D Image

21 February 2025

DA500

02

GFA Diagram

21 February 2025

D520

02

Height Limit Diagram

21 February 2025

DA530

02

Cross Ventilation Diagram

21 February 2025

DA531

02

Cross Ventilation Diagram

21 February 2025

DA550

02

Unit Mix Diagram

21 February 2025

DA600

02

Solar Access Diagram

21 February 2025

DA610

02

Shadow Diagram

21 February 2025

DA611

02

Shadow Diagram

21 February 2025

DA700

02

Pre/Post Adaptation Plan – Type 1

21 February 2025

DA701

02

Pre/Post Adaptation Plan – Type 2

21 February 2025

DA702

02

Pre/Post Adaptation Plan – Type 3

21 February 2025

DA703

02

Pre/Post Adaptation Plan – Type 4

21 February 2025

  1. Landscape architectural drawings prepared by Studio IZ:

Drawing

Rev

Title

Date

LA-000

E

Cover Sheet

12 February 2025

LA-001

E

Legend & Plant Schedule

12 February 2025

LA-101

E

Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan

12 February 2025

LA-102

E

Ground Floor Planting Plan

12 February 2025

LA-201

E

Level 1 Landscape Plan

12 February 2025

LA-202

E

Level 2 – Landscape Plan

12 February 2025

LA-203

E

Level 3 – Landscape Plan

12 February 2025

LA-203

E

Level 4 – Landscape Plan (Roof Garden)

12 February 2025

LA-600

E

Typical Landscape Details

12 February 2025

LA-700

E

Specification Notes

12 February 2025

  1. Civil drawings prepared by Adams Structural and Civil Engineering:

Drawing

Rev

Title

Date

C001

1

Civil Notes and Details Sheet

29 February 2024

C002

2

Civil Details Sheet 1

4 April 2024

C005

1

Basement Level 3 Drainage Plan

29 February 2024

C010

1

Basement Level 2 Drainage Plan

29 February 2024

C015

1

Basement Level 1 Drainage Plan

29 February 2024

C020

2

Ground Floor Drainage Plan

1 March 2024

C021

2

OSD Tank Part Plan and Details Sheet

1 March 2024

C025

2

Sediment and Erosion Plan

4 April 2024

  1. The parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court granting the modification application and modifying the development consent. Accompanying the submitted s 34 agreement, the parties have provided a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters.

  2. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

  1. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. With consideration of the agreed jurisdictional note and documentation within the Class 1 Application, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This is set out below.

  2. I am satisfied that owners consent accompanied the modification application (s 98 of the EPA Reg).

  3. I have considered the documentation within the amended application and the parties’ agreed jurisdictional statement. I accept the parties’ agreement that the proposed modifications to the apartments, retail area, car parking area and façade are substantially the same as the original development for the reasons set out in the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming dated 28 January 2025 (SEE) (s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act).

  4. With respect to s 4.55(2)(c) and (d) of the EPA Act, the modification application was notified between 3 April 2024 and 18 April 2024. Four submissions were received, which have been considered. The original development application did not require any approvals or concurrence and therefore no other forms of consultation is required (s 4.55(2)(c) of the EPA Act).

  5. Chapter 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) applies to the amended application. The nominated architect, Paul Buljevic (Registration no. 7769), did not design the original development but is now the nominated registered architect. There is no relevant design review panel to refer the amended application to (s 146 of the Housing SEPP). The documentation accompanying the amended application, including the Design Verification Statement and Design Report both prepared by PBD Architects and the SEE satisfy the requirements of s 147 of the Housing SEPP and s 102 of the EPA Reg.

  6. The amended application is accompanied by an amended BASIX certificate (1277938M_05) that satisfies s 100 of the EPA Reg.

  7. The parties agree and I accept that the provisions required to be addressed by ss 4.55(2) and 4.15 of the EPA Act have been met as evidenced in the documentation accompanying the Class 1 appeal and supported by the jurisdictional statement. I have considered the reasons for the grant of consent, noting that the original consent was also an agreement between the parties and the reasons are limited to jurisdiction see: Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1039 (s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act).

Conclusion

  1. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  2. I have considered the jurisdictional prerequisites and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  3. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Orders

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The modification application is granted

  2. Development consent DA8.2022.81.1 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 2 February 2023 is modified as set out in Annexure A.

  3. The terms of the consolidated development consent DA8.2022.81.1, as modified, are set out in Annexure B.

S Porter

Commissioner of the Court 

Annexure A 

Annexure B

**********

Decision last updated: 02 April 2025

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

4