Imseis v Hunter Hill Council [2025] NSWLEC 1394 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Imseis v Hunter Hill Council [2025] NSWLEC 1394 | Case summary | Zoe

COMMISSIONER: Development for the purpose of a dwelling house is proposed on a site on the western half of the Hunters Hill peninsula, at a site known as 48 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill.
To this end, development application DA2023/0134 was lodged with Hunters Hill Council on 30 October 2023 by the applicant in these proceedings, Mr Ebrahim Imseis and Ms Rina Imseis (together, the Applicants). The Applicants seek consent to demolish the existing dwelling on the site in order to construct a new dwelling house, swimming pool, landscaping and driveway (the DA).
The Council notified local residents of the development between 30 October 2023 and 13 November 2023, and received three submissions objecting to the proposal.
The Council refused the development on 25 June 2024, and the Applicants filed an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction on 11 December 2024, under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).
The appeal was listed for mandatory conciliation on 22 May 2025, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).
After an onsite view, the conciliation conference convened in the rear yard of the subject site, during which the parties reached in-principle agreement on those issues in dispute.
A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was submitted to the Court, dated 22 May 2025, and amended plans and other documents were filed on the same date.
The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared on behalf of the Applicants, and noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s34 agreement.
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 prepared a jurisdictional statement to assist the Court in understanding how the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the agreed orders at [31].
The site is located in an area identified by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HHLEP) as R2 Low Density Residential zone, in which dwelling house development is permitted with consent, where consistent with the following objectives:

As the proposal complies with landscape area standard and height of building standard, cl 4.4(2A) of the HHLEP sets aside any floor space ratio on the site.
The site is located on land mapped as ‘class 5’ on the relevant Acid Sulfate Soils Map at cl 6.1(2) of the HHLEP. While a substantial volume of excavation is proposed for the basement and swimming pool, the elevation of the land expressed in terms of the Australian Height Datum (AHD) is such that the excavation will not be to a level that is below 5m AHD and, having regard to the results of three boreholes recorded in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GCA dated 20 February 2025 (Geotechnical Assessment), I am also satisfied that the watertable will not be lowered by the proposed development.
On the basis of the following, I have considered the matters to be considered at cl 6.2(3) of the WLEP and conclude that the earthworks proposed will not have a detrimental impact on the environmental functions, processes, uses of heritage of the subject site or surrounding land:
Geotechnical Assessment
Stormwater Services Plan prepared by EZE Drainage Design (Stormwater Plans)
Landscape Plans prepared by Paul Scrivener Landscape Architects.
In particular I note the excavation proposed for the basement is located in the centre of the site, with surface and subsurface drainage directed to the absorption trench so that drainage patterns and soil stability are unlikely to be disrupted.
Architectural drawing 501 expresses the area of deep soil at 50% of the site which complies with the standard at cl 6.9(2)(b) of the HHLEP, and so satisfies me that the development is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces in accordance with cl 6.3(3) of the HHLEP. Additionally, the Stormwater Plans depict the onsite retention of stormwater in a 6,500L rainwater tank intended for reuse associated with toilets, washing machine and external use only, which satisfies me that on site retention of water is proposed as alternative to mains water. I also accept the agreement of the relevant experts that the absorption trench is suited to, and appropriately documented, for soil characteristics on the site. Finally, as the Council advises there is no under-ground public stormwater drainage system in the vicinity of the site, I accept that the proposed subsoil drainage depicted in the Stormwater Plans is sufficient to ensure adverse impacts arising from stormwater runoff are avoided.
The northern side of Baron’s Crescent is identified on the River Front Area Map at cl 6.7 of the HHLEP. As such, development consent is precluded unless the Court is satisfied that measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact of the development from the nearest waterway. On the basis of the northern setback on the site, compliance with the height standard and the retention of the large mature Monterey Cypress, I am so satisfied.
As stated at [15], the proposal provides a landscaped area of 50% of the site area, in accordance with cl 6.9 of the HHLEP so that no area with a width of 2m or less is included in the calculation.

Chapter 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) applies to the site. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Advanced Treescape Consulting dated 21 May 2025 (the AIA) assesses the impact of the proposal on five trees. Four trees are proposed to be removed and one, a mature Monterey Cypress located on an adjoining site, is proposed to be retained. The arboricultural experts agree with the conclusions of the AIA and s 2.6 of the Biodiversity SEPP allows for the removal of vegetation with consent.
The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as identified by the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. As such, Part 6.2 of the Biodiversity SEPP applies.
Section 6.6 of the Biodiversity SEPP precludes the grant of consent unless the Respondent council, or the Court on appeal, is satisfied that the proposed development ensures that, firstly, the effect on the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial, and secondly, that the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised.
The Stormwater Plans depict the collection and storage of roof water in a rainwater tank, fitted with a first flush device and, connected to Council’s drainage system via an on site detention tank (OSD). I am satisfied that the onsite detention and retention of stormwater, combined with the filtration depicted on the Stormwater Plans, will result in a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality in the catchment, and as the parties agree a discharge rate to the kerb and gutter of 8.7L/s is acceptable, I am also satisfied that the proposal appropriately manages the flow of water into that catchment.
For similar reasons I have also considered those matters at s 6.7 of the Biodiversity SEPP and am satisfied, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation, and no adverse impact on aquatic reserves, or in terms of erosion.
I note that the site is not identified as flood liable land to which s 6.8 of the SEPP is directed and so does not apply.
Neither will the proposed development have an impact on recreational land uses or access to public land, in terms set out in s 6.9 of the Biodiversity SEPP.