Two Court Appeals Axed in Test of Mosman LMR Reforms

Two Mosman projects have been knocked back at the NSW Land and Environment Court, as the suburb’s new planning reforms face their first real test in the court arena. These are first court outcomes for Mosman projects following the introduction of the Mosman Council’s alternative Low and Mid Rise (LMR) reforms. Mosman Council endorsed its own LMR plan as an alternative to the state government’s in August 2026, reshaping where density could go in the affluent Lower North Shore suburb, 8km north-east of the Sydney CBD. The news that the LMR proposals had been finalised was welcomed after more than a year of uncertainty , but the latest court outcomes throw doubt on the usefulness of the reforms. Transitional development in Mosman The most recent case testing the reforms concerned the development of an eight-storey residential building of 14 apartments on 48-50 Almora Street at Mosman. Sydney boutique developer Prosker received a deemed refusal for the project from Mosman Council, which had not determined the application in the allotted timeframe. The developer subsequently lodged an appeal with the LEC. Mosman Council remained opposed to the development throughout court proceedings. The council said it was incompatible with local character, and had “excessive height, bulk and scale, and view and heritage impacts”. Complicating matters, the site itself is on the borderline of the precinct affected by State Environmental Planning Policy 2021for Housing (SEPP) area, which would “over time be developed for higher density development,” court documents stated. ▲ A rendering of Prosker’s development on 48-50 Almora Street at Mosman. The development relied on the SEPP reforms, which allow floor space ratio and height bonuses for the inclusion of affordable housing, of which there were three units in the planned building. The council had 14 contentions on which the application should be refused. The Mosman Local Environment Plan had Prosker’s site in the medium density zone, but next to low density zone and one lot away from an environmental living zone. This proved to be one of the tipping points for the LEC. The LEC said that while it acknowledged the area surrounding the site as being “in a state of transition” as a result of the SEPP reforms and that the LMR provisions applied to the site, the proposal was still not acceptable. LEC acting commissioner Helena Miller said that the development was “not consistent” with the desired character of the precinct, and that the development needed to have “built in” a transition to the surrounding non-LMR land. Miller criticised what she perceived as a lack of regard for neighbouring low scale development and nearby heritage items, and dismissed the appeal. This is the second LEC case to deal with projects situated in a Mosman LMR area, and the second appeal to be dismissed. A 400m distance rule scuppers Mosman project Just 1.4km north, Metis Developments is planning to build a 29-unit, part-six, part-seven-storey building on 93-101A Awaba Street at Mosman. Submitting plans in mid-2025, Metis also faced a deemed refusal from the council and took the case to the LEC. Similar to the Prosker project, the site was in a transitional area, sitting in a medium density zone under the Mosman LEP but abutting a low density residential zone. The central dispute over the development related to the rule that the site must be 400m walking distance of a designated Town Centre. Metis’s route was about 383m, while the council said it was 423m. The difference came down to the definition’s wording; “that may be safely walked by a pedestrian” and “using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian crossings”. ▲ A rendering of Metis’s project at 93-101A Awaba Street at Mosman. Metis argued that the council’s approach to the distance question, which only used formal crossings, could stretch the distance to around 800 metres. LEC Commissioner Nicola Targett, however, ruled that the distance was too great and subsequently fell outside the allotted Inner Area. The provisions therefore did not apply, Targett said, and the development also did not comply with the Outer Area LMR standards. The developer’s appeal was dismissed by the LEC and Metis was ordered to pay the council’s costs of $15,000. In response, the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) called for the NSW Government to clarify rules which allowed the “ambiguity” of a 400m walk to become a “roadblock” to development. “While no measurement approach is perfect, it seems unfathomable in the middle of a housing crisis, that we could let a 23-metre walk kill off the construction of 29 new homes,” UDIA NSW chief executive Stuart Ayres said.

Apartments
Clare Burnett
Thu 08 Oct 26

Two Court Appeals Axed in Test of Mosman LMR Reforms

Development Potential

VIEW LISTING

Metro Provokes Multi-Billion-Dollar Castle Hill Development Surge

Grocon’s Fall, Bathla’s Fallout: The Cashflow Lessons for Builder-Developers

Overvalued, Not Overheated: Brisbane’s Property Paradox

Refresh, Rebrand, Repeat: Why Hotel Owners Are Reinventing What They Own

Gehry’s Last Dance: The Curtain Rises on Abu Dhabi

Blueprint Podcast: Fiducia Reveals Data-Driven Biohacking Property Play

The Deal with Adam Di Marco: Developing Design-Led Industrial Parks Without Capital - Tim Kourtaibe, Freeform

Blueprint Podcast: The $210,000-a-Box Answer to Sydney’s Missing Middle

The Deal with Adam Di Marco: Reshaping the Heart of Byron Bay - Jason Dunn, JD Property Group

Metro Provokes Multi-Billion-Dollar Castle Hill Development Surge