Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hong v Mosman Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1149 Hearing dates: 15 and 16 December 2022 Date of orders: 31 March 2023 Decision date: 31 March 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) The Court exercising, under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the function of Mosman Municipal Council as the relevant consent authority under cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, agrees to the Applicant amending development application DA 8.2021.172.1 to accord with the plans as listed at Condition 1 to the Draft Conditions of Consent filed on 16 December 2022. (2) The Written Request pursuant to cl 4.6 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, dated 22 November 2022 and prepared by W Long is upheld. (3) Development application No. 8.2021.172.1 for demolition and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool and associated development at 10 Julian Street, Mosman is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure "A". (4) The Exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 1, A, B, C and D which are retained. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – dwelling house – wall height contravention – view sharing – visual privacy Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34AA, 39 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3A, 4.6, 5.14, 5.21, 6.4, 6.7 State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, cll 15, 16 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 Cases Cited: GFM Investment Group Pty Ltd in its capacity as Trustee for GFM Home Trust Subtrust No. 7 v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1112 Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1015 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 Texts Cited: Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sergio Hong (Applicant) Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G McKee (Solicitor) (Applicant) R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/251929 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. This is an appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) against the refusal by Mosman Municipal Council (Council) of development application No 8.2021.172.1 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a new three storey dwelling with basement parking, swimming pool, and landscaping at 10 Julian Street Mosman, legally described as Lot 3 in DP 232553 (site). Proceedings 1. The proceedings were initially subject to mandatory conciliation in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). I will note also that there was a site inspection at the commencement of the conciliation, where I had the chance to hear oral submissions from a number of objectors and inspect the site from some of the neighbours' homes. With the conciliation conference not resulting in an agreement, the matter proceeded to the Court for hearing, with evidence from the site inspection agreed to carry over. Site and locality 1. The site is a battle-axe allotment and is located on the eastern side of Julian Street. It contains a single storey cottage, ancillary sheds and structures and considerable vegetation. A sandstone retaining wall traverses the site in an east-west direction, and an exposed rock outcrop near the south-west corner is a notable natural and topographical feature of the site. The access handle falls approximately 5.49m to the west as measured from the front boundary to the end of the access handle. The main area of the site has a width of 32.615m and falls approximately 6.39m to the north. The site has an area of 1651.8m². 2. The locality is characterised by low density residential development, and predominately two and three storey dwelling houses. Middle Harbour is very nearby to the north and views to the harbour are a locally sought after feature. Residences at Shellbank Avenue abut the site and sit above to the south and south-west, overlooking the site to Middle Harbour. To the north of the site is a public reserve identified as Joel's Reserve. The reserve shares a side boundary with the site and includes an open grassed area and walking track to the harbour foreshore. Proposal 1. Apart from demolition, the proposal would involve (sourced from Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions (Ex 1) par 1.3) External - Removal of various trees and landscaping works, swimming pool, driveway, retaining walls, external paving and stairs. - Double garage with turning area, and vehicular access ramp Lower ground level - Entry lobby, games room, gym, store room, mechanical equipment room, bathroom, internal lift and stair - Northern terrace (off games room and gym). Ground floor level - Main entry, formal lounge and dining, bar, casual living and dining, kitchen, pantry, office, WC, guest bedroom 1 with walk-in robe and ensuite, guest bedroom 2 with ensuite, internal lift, and two internal stairs - Northern balcony (partially covered) (off living areas), northern balcony (off guest bedrooms), and southern balcony (off laundry).. - Bedroom 1 with sitting room, walk-in robe, and ensuite, bedroom 2 suite with nursery, walk-in robe, and ensuite, bedrooms 3 and 4 with walk-in robe, and ensuite, office, laundry, internal lift, and two internal stairs First floor - Northern balcony (off bedrooms 2, 3, and 4), and northern balcony (off bedroom 1) - Glass roof over northern balcony below. Roof - Colorbond roof. Statutory considerations 1. The site is zoned C4 Environmental Living under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 (MLEP) and there is no dispute the proposal is permissible with consent. The proposal would breach the wall height development standard under cl 4.3A, which I come back to later. 2. Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012 also applies (MRDCP). The site is located within the Middle Harbour/Pearl Bay Townscape under MRDCP. Issues 1. The contested issues between the parties had narrowed considerably by the time of the hearing. The dispute between the parties related, essentially, to extent of the building in an east-west direction. The western end of the building, as proposed, would extend, somewhat, into the existing rock outcrop in that area of the site. Council saw the proposal as at odds with relevant controls in that regard. There were also objecting lay submissions in regard to the geotechnical aspects of this excavation. 2. The particularly relevant controls seemed to me to include: 1. Clause 6.4 of MLEP concerned with scenic protection. 2. Clause 6.7 of MLEP concerned with earthworks. 3. Part 5.14 of MDCP concerned with excavation and site management. 4. Middle Harbour/Pearl Bay Townscape provisions under MDCP. 1. I will come to the controls, below. But first I note that, while some objecting submissions had been addressed by amending plans, there remained a number of other outstanding concerns from neighbours. These points of objection can be summarised as follows: (1) amenity impacts (in particular view loss and privacy) and (2) local character incompatibility, including tree protection. The contravention of the development standard under cl 4.3A of MLEP was raised also and I will consider these objector concerns when addressing this jurisdictional topic. Western extent of proposed building and required excavation of rock outcrop Policy 1. The stated objectives of cl 6.7 of MLEP (concerned with earthworks) are as follows: (a) to ensure earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land, (b) to allow earthworks of a minor nature without requiring separate development consent. 1. A series of matters are listed at cl 6.7(3) which a consent authority must consider prior to granting consent for earthworks, as follows: (a) the likely disruption of, and detrimental effect, if any, on— (i) existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and (ii) the natural features of, and vegetation on, the land and adjoining land, (b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land, (c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties, (e) the source of fill material and the destination of excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impact on, a watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area, (h) appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development. 1. Part 5.14 of MDCP is concerned with excavation and site management. Council pointed me to objective O1, as follows: "To have the integrity of the physical environment preserved and enhanced by ensuring minimal site disturbance and the geotechnical stability of landfill and excavations." 1. Council highlighted the following two planning controls under this objective: "P2 - Site excavation must be designed and located with an aim to minimise cut and fill requirements (especially on sites that have steep slopes). There must be minimal site disturbance. … P7 - Existing natural features including trees and rock features should be retained and incorporated as landscape features on the site in order to maintain the natural character of the landscape." 1. The character statement provisions of Middle Harbour/Pearl Bay Townscape controls of particular note included those relating to "sandstone cliff faces and outcrops" as "important character elements". The related controls are reproduced below in full: "Building form and design: (a) Maintain the architectural diversity of the area. (b) Limit bulky mega dwelling houses with horizontal emphasis across allotments. (c) Facades of large dwelling houses are not dominating when viewed from Middle Harbour and neighbouring properties, and relate to the existing streetscape and topography. (d) Encourage generous side setbacks. (e) Avoid excessive excavation across entire allotments. Fences: (f) Encourage (and maintain) low open style front and side fences of brick, stone and timber. (g) Maintain the blend with the natural environment on lots adjoining Quakers Hat Park by discouraging fencing between them. Landscaping: (o) Maintain light tree cover and the leafy character of the area. (p) Maintain foreshore bushland. Materials and finishes: (h) Encourage use of colours which are sympathetic to their surrounds and consistent with the colour of the landscape and natural features. Streetscape: (i) Encourage improved streetscape amenity by locating power lines underground for new development in Bay Street, Beauty Point Road, Carrington Avenue and Pearl Bay Avenue. (j) Encourage improved access in Mitchell Lane through lane widening. (k) Encourage developments to present a house front to the street. (l) Maintain sandstone rock faces and stone retaining walls. Views: (m) Maintain public views to Middle Harbour. (n) Public views between buildings from public walkways and streets and those identified on the townscape map should be maintained." Evidence and consideration 1. I saw the hub of the dispute between the parties as relating to a potential adverse impact on the visual environment and natural character of the locality. This impact was concerned with detraction of a portion of the visual setting and natural character (manifesting as the rock outcrop). There was some intricacy involved in gaining an appreciation of the extent of rock outcrop excavation required with the application, as amended. It is important to understand this as the cutting required into the above ground rock outcrop (rather than below surface excavation). The approximation agreed by the experts was 10m3 of excavation (a reduction from the previously proposed 24m3). 2. There were perhaps three policy themes that were called up by Council. The first theme, and for me the most cogent, was concerned with visual impact. The visual impact of, what was argued to be, the loss of the visual presence of a portion of the rock outcrop would be experienced by persons viewing from Middle Harbour, but also recreating within or along the pathway running parallel and to the north of the site. 3. The second theme was about maintaining the existing natural landscape and landform (i.e. even if not so visible). Clause 6.4 of MLEP, for example, includes provisions related to maintaining natural landform of itself. Part 5.14 of MDCP is concerned with preservation of the integrity of the physical environment, among other things. 4. The third theme is the geotechnical, with cl 6.7 of MLEP and Part 5.14 of MDCP providing for various controls. 5. I will consider the first two of these themes together then turn to the third theme. 6. The experts providing sworn evidence in this matter were W Long (town planning expert engaged by the applicant) and S Layman (architect and town planning expert engaged by Council). Visual impact and natural landform impact 1. Mr Layman argued two main points: (1) that there are unusually strong provisions in MLEP and MDCP which support reducing the extent of rock outcrop excavation proposed with the development (e.g. provision P7 under Part 5.14 of MDCP, as nominated at [14]), and (2) there was no compelling reason not to offset the western façade of the building by a relatively minor amount to reduce the extent of rock outcrop excavation. 2. I also note that during the site inspection, in particular while we traversed along the public walkway south of the site and we were in those foreshore environs generally, Mr Layman had sought to demonstrate that the proposed rock outcrop excavation would have an adverse visual impact. 3. In regard to the visual impact concern, Mr Long argued the extent of excavation constituted a minor incursion only, having regard to the visual extent of the outcrop, and by far the major portion would be left intact. 4. I favour the position argued by Mr Long in regard to visual impact. It was clear to me, from the site inspection, that there would be hardly any perception of the proposed excavation of the rock outcrop when viewed from public places. When viewing from Middle Harbour, the small extent of the rock excavation would be "lost" in a visual sense, in the rising landform above, and in the texture of the built form and landscape which surrounds. It was clear from our view along the public walkway that there was very little in the way of a closer view available to the rock outcrop excavation area. 5. I note that provisions of MLEP and MDCP would be reasonably read as promoting the retention of sandstone cliff faces and outcrops, such as that existing on the site and its surrounds, as locally important character elements of themselves. But it seems to me to be that generally this is occurring with the proposal. That is to say, the rock outcrop would remain on the site as a natural character element with only a relatively small reduction in its extent and scale. Because of this finding, I see no reason to follow Mr Layman's suggestion that there is no compelling reason not to reduce the extent of excavation by a reduction in the building length. Geotechnical considerations 1. There were objecting submissions from neighbours made as to the adequacy of the applicant's geotechnical information. Of particular note were a series of geotechnical points made in a submission by Mills Oakley (included in Ex 5), a law firm very experienced in this Court and representing a neighbouring property owner. The submission criticised a geotechnical report accompanying the application (prepared by Crozier Geotechnical Consultants, dated March 2020, and tendered as Ex C (Crozier Report)). Mills Oakley argued that the Crozier Report "fails to provide a level of information that is required in order to satisfy the consent authority of the matters under clause 6.7(3) of (MLEP)". Various points of detail were raised by Mills Oakley in regard to the Crozier Report. 2. In regard to these geotechnical considerations (i.e. including the considerations at cl 6.7 of MLEP and Part 5.14 of MDCP), I note that Council raised no concerns in its nominated contentions (Ex 1). In without prejudice conditions, Council relied on the Crozier Report, imposing a set of conditions requiring the recommendations of the report to be accommodated. I note conditions 9, 10, 11, 13, 24 and 41 (Annexure A) are all related to the topic in one way or another. Conditions 9, 13 and 24 involve further geotechnical confirmation. Conditions 10 and 11 are concerned with dilapidation reports. Condition 41 links up the Crozier Report. I also note Mr Long's comments on the considerable distance offsets of the proposed building to the property boundary. As required, I have considered the matters at cl 6.7(3) of MLEP and believe appropriate arrangements are in place, with Annexure A conditions, in regard to matters related to excavation and geotechnical considerations. Other lay submissions 1. As indicated above, the remaining lay objecting submissions can be categorised into three groups: (1) view loss, (2) privacy impacts and (3) local character incompatibility, including in relation to tree protection. I address the objections on view loss in my consideration of the wall height development standard breach. While I also touch on privacy impacts in that consideration, I will confirm that I took the experts to the various points of concern raised in regard to privacy in objecting submissions and am satisfied with the response received by these experts that adequate arrangements were in place or would be in place with proposed conditions (e.g. proposed Conditions 8A(a) and (b). 2. In regard to local character compatibility including tree protection. This issue also might capture the overall bulk and scale of the development, which I have given some consideration to evaluating the wall height standard breach, finding favourably for the applicant. In coming to this conclusion I have given detailed consideration to the character statement and controls relating to the Middle Harbour/Pearl Bay Townscape. I can see no reason why the built form and landscaping schema cannot make for an appropriate addition to the setting. In regard to landscaping and tree protection, I note again that in Court and to some degree of detail, I worked through with the experts the various points of concern raised. This resulted in a number of further agreed alterations to the landscape plan. The Revision C drawings, based on the evidence of the experts but also in my own reading, now provide that appropriate balance between retaining and sometimes enhancing Middle Harbour views, while also providing for a valuable local landscape contribution. I am not concerned about the tree protection concerns raised in the Mills Oakley submission. Council is satisfied on this point and I am mindful of the need for discernment in regard to objecting submissions a matter I considered most recently in GFM Investment Group Pty Ltd in its capacity as Trustee for GFM Home Trust Subtrust No. 7 v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1112 at [41]. Building wall height development standard contravention 1. Clause 4.3A of MLEP applies to the site. It is titled "Height of buildings (additional provisions)", Subclause (4) provides as follows: A building on land to which this clause applies must not have a wall height, at any point of the building (other than at a chimney, gable end or dormer window), that exceeds 7.2 metres. 1. Clause 4.3A(5) of MLEP defines wall height, relevantly, as follows: wall height means the vertical distance between the ground level (existing) to— (a) the underside of the eaves at the wall line, parapet or flat roof, whichever is the highest. … 1. There is no dispute that a portion of the proposed development would contravene the 7.2m control by up to some 990mm. 2. The Applicant is seeking an exception for the contravention of development standards under cl 4.6(2) of the MLEP which provides relevantly as follows: (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument... 1. The permissive power in cl 4.6(2) is subject to the restrictions in subcll 4.6(3)- (5): (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating— (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless— (a) the consent authority is satisfied that— (i) the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Planning Secretary has been obtained. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Planning Secretary must consider— (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Planning Secretary before granting concurrence. 1. Thus, the Court must form two positive opinions of satisfaction under cl 4.6(4)(a) to enliven the permissive power under cl 4.6(2) to grant development consent notwithstanding a development standard contravention (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [14]). The first opinion is in regard to a written request from the applicant seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard and, specifically, whether it has adequately addressed the two matters required to be demonstrated at cl 4.6(3). The second opinion requires me to make my own finding of satisfaction that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objective of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. 2. The applicant has opened the door to application of cl 4.6(2) by submission of a written request seeking to justify the contravention. This written request, dated 22 November 2022 and prepared by Mr Long was tendered as Ex A (Written Request). Whether compliance unreasonable or unnecessary 1. Mindful of cl 4.6(3)(a) of MLEP, the Written Request initially seeks to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It does so mindful of Preston CJ's finding in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe). The Written Request uses the first "Wehbe way", seeking to show how, otherwise, the development achieves the objectives of the standard. The objectives of cl 4.3A are as follows. (a) to provide for view sharing, (b) to minimise the adverse effects of the bulk and scale of buildings, (c) to encourage 2-storey buildings consistent with the desired future character of the area. 1. With the amending plans and alterations to proposed landscaping, the views of concern were essentially from the elevated properties to the south and south-west of the site. The owners of the neighbouring property to the south, 5A Shellbank Avenue, provided written and oral submissions objecting to the proposal on view loss grounds which included input from specialist planners and photomontages. The key concern of these owners was a loss of view from the home office area at a lower level of the building. I note the advice of the owners that they spent most of their time in this space during the working week. The owners of the neighbouring property to the south-west, 7 Shellbank Avenue, also provided oral submissions and written submissions through Mills Oakley, (all included within Ex 5). 2. The Written Request argues that the amendments have reduced the number of properties with view effect and that the remaining view losses are minor and entirely compatible with the principles of view sharing. The Written Request made the point that the Middle Harbour view losses from these properties was not, in the main, related to the contravening part of the building, which was towards the eastern side of the building. 3. Importantly, I had the opportunity to view the site and gain an appreciation of the proposed built form from the properties raising concerns about view loss, and hear from the neighbours directly. It was my impression that view losses would be relatively minor and generally aligned with the principles of view sharing. The Written Request provided the correct interpretation of the setting and satisfied me in regard to the achievement of Objective (a). 4. In regard to Objective (b), the Written Request argues that the adverse effects of bulk and scale are minimised by the siting of the building, including its boundary setbacks and its "low set position on this heavily landscaped site". The written request refers to related issues of solar access and privacy, the latter of which was a concern raised by neighbours. It indicates compliance with relevant MDCP criteria. I also queried the experts on various points in regard to visual privacy as a measure of testing the claims in the Written Request. I found the experts generally in agreement that privacy concerns would be readily addressed. These points satisfy me that Objective (b) is achieved notwithstanding the contravention. 5. In regard to Objective (c), the Written Request suggests the proposal is set low in the site which is in contrast to the numerous three storey developments in the site environs. It notes the pitched roof and eaves are less than the 8.5m height. The Written Request argues that the lack of impacts associated with the proposal means it is consistent with the desired future character of the area. 6. Firstly, I would note that the objective of "(encouraging) 2-storey buildings" is achieved through the relevant provision in MLEP. On the evidence before me, something expanded upon below, I also accept the advice in the Written Request that the proposal brings low impacts and is consistent with the desired future character of the area. 7. These findings mean I am satisfied that the Written Request has adequately demonstrated that the development achieves the objectives of the standard. Therefore it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict numerical compliance. Whether sufficient environmental planning grounds 1. The Written Request points to particular environmental planning grounds which in a sense restrict the location of the proposed building. These include the retention of a significant tree on the northern part of the site and a small gully running across the north eastern part of the site, along with sewer mains traversing the site. Reference is made to the site analysis plan (Drawing DA2R.00 Revision B (Ex B). 2. As indicated in the Written Request, the site circumstances direct that the north-east portion of the building be located in a lower area of topography, and it is these circumstances that bring about the height contravention in a relatively isolated portion of the building. These are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Public interest 1. I now turn to the test at cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP, and whether the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard and the objectives for development within the C4 zone. I agree with and rely on the Written Request's demonstration that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard as considered above. 2. The term "consistent" has been considered in many judgments of the Court. Here, I generally rely on the summary prepared by Tuor C in Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1015 at [53]: "…The term consistent … has been interpreted to mean "compatible" or "capable of existing together in harmony" (Dem Gillespies v Warringah Council (2002) 124 LGERA 147; Addenbrooke Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 190) or "not being antipathetic" (Schaffer Corporation v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGRA 21) Whichever interpretation is adopted the test of "consistency" is less onerous than that of "achievement." 1. The zone objectives are as follows: • To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values. • To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values. • To retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive residential areas of Mosman. • To maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form, particularly on harbour foreshores. • To ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access and landscaping and to retain natural topographical features. • To ensure that development is of a height and scale that achieves the desired future character of the area. • To encourage residential development that maintains or enhances local amenity and, in particular, public and private views. • To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings. 1. With the exception of the topic in contention relating to the extent of rock excavation, the experts giving sworn evidence before the Court were in agreement that the proposal's impacts were low. It is also clear to me that this is the case on the evidence and from the site inspection. I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the first zone objective. Similarly, given the lack of impacts of any substance, the site would not have an adverse effect on special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values of relevance. I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the second zone objective. 2. The proposal provides for a single dwelling and as such is clearly consistent with the third zone objective. I am satisfied that, with the proposed landscaping, and given the landscaping backdrop to the local area more generally, the proposal is consistent with the fourth zone objective of maintaining the general dominance of landscape over built form. The site is relatively large and of sufficient area to respond responsibly to its physical setting (retain natural topographical features including the substance of the existing rock outcrop) while providing for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access, and landscaping. I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the fifth zone objective. 3. I can consider the final three objectives together. I am satisfied that the proposal: (1) is of a height and scale that aligns with the desired future character as established generally through the applicable planning controls, (2) reasonably maintains local amenity and public and private views as considered elsewhere in the judgement, and (3) is consistent with the objective of minimising adverse effects of bulk and scale as a consequence of its form and architecture. 4. Based on my findings above, the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard and the objectives for development within the C4 zone of MLEP. 5. On this basis, I am satisfied that the requirements of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP are met in regard to the wall height contravention. Conclusion – wall height contravention 1. I do not need the concurrence of the Planning Secretary under cl 4.6(4)(b) of MLEP but note that I have considered the matters in cl 4.6(5) in coming to my conclusions in regard to the contravention and find nothing of significance arises in regard to these matters. 2. With my findings above and at [45], [47] and [48], the states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of MLEP have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development notwithstanding the breach of the wall height standard. Other jurisdictional considerations 1. In regard to flood planning, I am satisfied in regard to the matters listed at cl 5.21(2) of MLEP, with respect to the now amended proposal, having regard to proposed Condition 50, and Council's technical officer's general satisfaction on that topic. 2. In regard to scenic protection and cl 6.4(3) MLEP, based on my reasoning above, I am satisfied that the proposal, as amended, minimises the visual impact of the development to and from Sydney Harbour, and the proposal would maintain the existing natural landscape and landform. 3. In regard to State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, I accept the position argued by Council's assessment officer in the assessment report dated 17 June 2022 and am satisfied in regard to the matters at cll 15 and 16. 4. In regard to State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 requires a consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated, and if contaminated, whether it is satisfied that the land is suitable for the purpose proposed. I accept the advice that the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under these provisions. Conclusion 1. Given my findings above, it is appropriate that the application be approved in accordance with consent conditions referenced in the Orders below. Orders 1. The Court orders that: 1. The Court exercising, under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the function of Mosman Municipal Council as the relevant consent authority under cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, agrees to the applicant amending development application DA 8.2021.172.1 to accord with the plans as listed at Condition 1 to the Draft Conditions of Consent filed on 16 December 2022. 2. The written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, dated 22 November 2022 and prepared by W Long is upheld. 3. Development application No. 8.2021.172.1 for demolition and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool and associated development at 10 Julian Street, Mosman is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure "A". 4. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1, A, B, C and D which are retained. P Walsh Commissioner of the Court Annexure A ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 March 2023