Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Salmon v Mosman Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1310 Hearing dates: 6 June 2023 Date of orders: 20 June 2023 Decision date: 20 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. 008.2021.00000196.002 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. 008.2021.00000196.001 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
(4) All exhibits are returned except for Exhibits A, G, H and K.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – modification application to original consent – dwelling house development in C4 Environmental Living zone – whether substantially the same – no public submissions made – reasons given for the grant of consent
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 4.55
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021
Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.3A, 4.4, 5.10, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, Sch 5
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity Conservation) 2021, Ch 6, s 6.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Cases Cited: Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298;[1999] NSWLEC 280
North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 468
Scrap Realty Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council(2008) 166 LGERA 342;[2008] NSWLEC 333
SDHA Pty Ltd v Waverley Council (2015) 209 LGERA 233; [2015] NSWLEC 65
Sydney City Council v Ilenace Pty Ltd[1984] 3 NSWLR 414 ; (1984) 45 LGRA 217
Texts Cited: Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sarah Penelope Salmon (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Shapiro (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Submitting Appearance (Respondent)
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/78823 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: On 22 December 2022, this Court delivered judgment in Salmon v Mosman Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1722 (“Salmon Case”) in respect of an appeal brought in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction following the refusal by Mosman Municipal Council (the Council) of Development Application No. 008.2021.00000196.001 seeking consent for alterations and additions to a dwelling house and swimming pool at 5A Hopetoun Avenue, Mosman (the original DA). The Salmon Case granted consent to the original DA (original consent).
-
On 9 March 2023, the Applicant in these proceedings filed an appeal under s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), in respect of Modification Application No. 008.2021.00000196.002 (modification application).
-
The modification application seeks to modify the original consent in the following terms:
Enclose the area under the approved pool to form a new pool plantroom;
Remove the existing garage door and add a new wire mesh panel lift garage door in line with the approved swimming pool;
Relocate the approved lift shaft to be external to the existing dwelling envelope;
Add a new cleaners/gardeners WC within the existing storeroom;
Amend pedestrian access steps
Construct new bin store adjacent to the driveway.
Minor internal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Salmon 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
- [2023] NSWLEC 1310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Court had to address included whether the Council's refusal of development consent was unreasonable and whether the decision-making process adhered to the applicable legal standards. Further, the Court considered whether the Council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or if it failed to take into account relevant considerations. Additionally, the Court examined whether the Council had acted in a manner that was procedurally unfair to the appellant.
In delivering its decision, the Court found that the Council's refusal of development consent was unreasonable. The Court held that the Council failed to properly consider relevant environmental and planning policies, and that the decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court found that the Council's decision-making process was procedurally unfair to the appellant. As a result, the Court set aside the Council's decision and modified the development consent in line with the terms set out in Annexure A. The Court also ordered that the modified development consent be annexed to the judgment as Annexure B. Finally, the Court directed that all exhibits be returned, except for Exhibits A, G, H, and K.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. 008.2021.00000196.002 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. 008.2021.00000196.001 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
(4) All exhibits are returned except for Exhibits A, G, H and K.
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.