NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sybele Christopher v Mosman Council [2020] NSWLEC 1140 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 March 2020 Date of orders: 25 March 2020 Decision date: 25 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: The Court orders: (1) Leave is granted to amend the application to include subdivision (boundary realignment) with 7 Sirius Avenue, Mosman and to rely on the Issue E plans and subdivision plan as described in condition 1 in Annexure "A". (2) The written requests under clause 4.6 of the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 are upheld. (3) The appeal is upheld. (4) Development Consent is granted to DA 8.2017.259.1 at 5 Sirius Avenue, Mosman for demolition of existing semi-detached dwelling and construction of a new dwelling, garage, fence and fence, and boundary adjustment (subdivision), with associated works subject to the agreed conditions in Annexure "A". (5) The exhibits are retained except for Exhibits 1 and F. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – dwelling house – clause 4.6 variations for wall height and minimum lot size – view impacts – minor boundary adjustment (subdivision) – objections Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Cases Cited: Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 Rini Pty Ltd ATF Misamtay Trust v Mosman Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1636 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 Texts Cited: Mosman Development Control Plan 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sybele Christopher (Applicant) Mosman Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate