NEWS
A Mosman homeowner's plan for a rooftop terrace was refused because of overlooking from the external stairs to the terrace. But the council's case had been about the terrace itself, and no one had raised the stairs. The Land and Environment Court has set the refusal aside for denial of procedural fairness.
We explain why a Commissioner must give a party notice before deciding a case on an issue that neither side has argued.
In LFB Resources NL v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 3) [2026] FCA 1504, the Federal Court held that the Commonwealth heritage declaration over part of the Belubula River, its headwaters and springs at Kings Plains is invalid. The declaration had blocked the McPhillamys Gold Project, even though the project already had State and EPBC Act approval. The Court found that a Dreaming story first raised 19 months after the statutory reporter’s report was, in substance, a new application. That meant the reporter process, including public notice, had to start again before the Minister could make a declaration.
The Court also expressed the view, that a s 10 declaration must expressly state how long it lasts. We explain the decision and what it means for proponents, Aboriginal applicants and decision-makers.
Uploading a development application to the NSW Planning Portal does not mean it has been lodged. Councils are under pressure to process applications quickly and are increasingly "returning" DAs at the front door.
We explain the limited grounds on which a council can reject a DA, why lodgement dates matter, and what you can do if your application is sent back.
In a 3:2 decision, the High Court has upheld a community group's challenge to the approval of the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion in the Upper Hunter. The majority found that the Independent Planning Commission failed to consider whether to impose conditions to minimise the project's scope 3 emissions, which make up 98 per cent of its total emissions.
All five justices rejected the Court of Appeal's view that the EPA Act is centrally concerned with impacts "in the locality". We explain both findings and what they mean for resource projects and consent authorities.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that old development consents are read according to their terms and approved plans, finding that a Picton landowner had used his property well beyond what three consents allowed.
The Court also set aside injunctions that were drafted too broadly. We explain both lessons for landowners and councils.
A Bellevue Hill homeowner lodged the plans needed to activate a deferred commencement consent two weeks before the deadline. Because the council did not finish assessing them until after the deadline, the Land and Environment Court held that the consent had lapsed.
We explain why lodging on time was not enough, and what holders of deferred commencement consents should do to avoid the same result.
A proposed caravan park at Alstonville was found to be "tourist accommodation", even with many sites intended for long-term stays. However, the Court held that this did not override the zone's prohibition on caravan parks.
We explain why a clause regulating a type of development does not necessarily make it permissible.
The Land and Environment Court has dismissed a challenge to the Minister's decision to declare a North Sydney shop-top housing proposal State significant development through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway.
We explain how the pathway works, why the challenge failed and what it means for proponents and objectors.
A homeowner's modification application included some changes the Commissioner found acceptable and others the council did not even oppose, but the whole application was refused. The Court of Appeal held that there was no duty to approve it in part.
We look at why bundling changes into one modification application can be risky, and how to manage that risk.
A digital sign on the former Grace Bros building in Ultimo was refused after the Commissioner assessed a superseded visual impact report rather than the new one filed with the amended application. The Chief Judge set the decision aside.
We explain why the amended application must be the one assessed, and what this means when applications change during an appeal.
In Wilson v Kiama Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1423, our firm acted for the successful applicant seeking development consent for a dwelling on an undersized rural lot on which there was no “dwelling entitlement”.
This case confirms that, while the term “dwelling entitlement” is often used by Councils, planners and developers, it is not a phrase that is used in the modern Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or any environmental planning instruments made under it.
The real question is whether the provision is a “development standard” or a “prohibition”. If it is a development standard that is amenable to cl 4.6, it is open to the consent authority to grant consent provided the requirements of cl 4.6 are met.
The absence of a “dwelling entitlement” is irrelevant and does not prevent the grant of consent.
A neighbour tried to stop a new two-storey house that would overshadow her courtyard, first by challenging the development consent and then by seeking a court-ordered easement to protect her sunlight. The Court of Appeal rejected both.
We explain the lessons for neighbours considering a challenge, including why asking the council for its reasons early matters.
Homeowners who built a masonry boundary wall, planter boxes and a screen argued they did not need development consent because the wall was a dividing fence. The Land and Environment Court disagreed and ordered the unapproved parts demolished.
We explain why the Dividing Fences Act does not replace planning approval, and why a neighbour's heritage listing can rule out exempt development.
A private certifier approved a rooftop mobile phone facility on a heritage-listed building in Collaroy as complying development. The Land and Environment Court declared the certificate invalid, because development on a heritage item cannot be complying development.
We explain how the two State planning policies interact and what this means for infrastructure and other fast-track approvals.
When land is compulsorily acquired, a mortgagee can pursue its own compensation claim even if the landowner has been deemed to accept the offer by not responding. That is the first ruling of its kind from the Land and Environment Court.
We also look at the Court's findings on valuing flood-prone land.
Most Class 1 appeals settle through a s 34 conciliation agreement. In this decision, the Court of Appeal rejected a neighbour's challenge to a consent granted that way, confirming that a Commissioner can generally rely on the material the parties provide, including a jurisdictional note.
We explain what the decision means for applicants, councils and objectors.
Forestry Corporation of NSW has been ordered to pay $450,000 after pleading guilty to cutting down six giant trees and three hollow-bearing trees that were required to be protected in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest.
We look at how the Court weighed environmental harm, cultural harm to the local First Nations community and a restorative justice process in sentencing.
The Land and Environment Court has approved a strata renewal plan to redevelop three 1960s apartment buildings in Cronulla, requiring three dissenting owners to sell.
We explain the statutory tests and why a casual business acquaintance between the strata committee and the developer was not a disqualifying "relationship".
A development application was lodged in the wrong company's name, and that company later went into liquidation during the appeal. The Land and Environment Court allowed the correct company to be substituted.
We explain the steps taken to fix the mistake, and why the order in which they are taken matters.
