Australia, Sept. 1 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 1:
1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act), brought by Lester Lay Wan (the Applicant), against the deemed refusal of Development Application 8.2024.312.1 (the DA) by Mosman Municipal Council (the Respondent).
2. At the date of its lodgement on 10 January 2025, the DA sought consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new, single, detached dwelling house at 193 Raglan Street, Mosman (the site).
3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference pursuant to s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 9 and 10 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
4. During the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in these proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The agreement involves the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to an amended DA, subject to conditions.
5. Of particular note, the proposal has been amended by agreement between the parties to resolve the contentions initially raised by the Respondent, which included issues of view impacts for neighbouring properties, unacceptable overshadowing impacts upon neighbouring properties, privacy and cross viewing impacts, inappropriate building form and bulk arising from the exceedance of the relevant building height, wall height and floor space ratio (FSR) controls, impacts arising from the proposed swimming pool and its pool fence enclosure, and inadequate landscape design.
6. Agreed design amendments have been made to reduce the scale of the dwelling, lowering the proposed building and its upper-most roof level by approximately 600mm. The form of the upper-most floor has been amended to increase its setback from the more sensitive southern neighbour. The extent of accessible outdoor terrace at the upper-most floor has been reduced. Together, the reduced height and adjusted building form mitigate against impacts of privacy and cross viewing, and deliver improved solar access for the neighbouring property (relative to the DA at the date of its lodgement).
7. The extent of paved pool surround has been reduced and the pool level lowered by approximately 700mm. Associated amendments to the proposed pool fence enclosure reduce impacts upon the lower-set neighbouring property to the east.
8. By agreement, the basement extent has been reduced by one car parking space to bring the amended proposal into compliance with the relevant FSR control, reducing the extent of excavation and delivering an improved landscape area situated above deep soil.
9. Collectively, these design amendments are agreed to resolve each of the contentions in this dispute.
10. 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. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the amended DA.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198594d9f9fee90bd9024cbb)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
