Robertson v Mosman Municipal Council

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robertson v Mosman Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 1680
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 July 2025
Date of orders: 19 September 2025
Decision date: 19 September 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No. 8.2024.104.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 3A Sirius Cove Road, Mosman is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.16, 8.7

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 38

Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.3A, 4.4, 4.6, 6.4

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6, Pts 6.2, 6.3

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6

Cases Cited:

Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117

Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90

Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118

Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Guy Robertson (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Smith (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/55844
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 8.2024.104.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (the proposal), at 3A Sirius Cove Road, Mosman (the site), by Mosman Municipal Council (the Council).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 31 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. 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.

  3. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are preconditions to the exercise of power to grant development consent for the proposal.

Amended application

  1. The Council, as the consent authority, consented to the amendment of the application pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW). The plans and documents comprising the amended application are:

Drawing No.

Drawing Title

Revision No.

Date

A 00

Cover Page

B

3.7.25

A 01

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robertson 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1680
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robertson v Mosman Municipal Council involved the appellant, Mr. Robertson, challenging the decision of the Mosman Municipal Council to refuse his development application for alterations and additions to his existing dwelling. The dispute centred on the alleged non-compliance with the council's local environmental plan and the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the area. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice McDougall.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether the appellant's proposal complied with the relevant planning laws and guidelines. Specifically, the court had to consider the extent to which the proposed alterations and additions would impact the visual amenity of the area, as protected under the local environmental plan, and whether the council had acted unreasonably in its assessment of the development application.

Justice McDougall held that the council's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and was therefore unreasonable. The court found that the appellant's proposal did not significantly impact the visual amenity of the area, as the council had suggested, and that the council had failed to properly consider all relevant factors in reaching its decision. The court further held that the appellant's proposal complied with the relevant planning laws and guidelines and that the council's refusal of the development application was therefore unlawful. The appeal was upheld, and the development application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in Annexure A.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No. 8.2024.104.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 3A Sirius Cove Road, Mosman is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure 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.