Illegal balconies and landslip risks: court rules harbourside mansion 'unlawfully' built

A court has upheld a shut down on the construction of a Sydney harbourfront mansion after finding the works carried out there so far were unlawful, including a sandstone wall built on public land along the harbour foreshore.

The Seaforth waterfront property prior to construction (left) and the site pictured last week. Credit: Domain, James Brickwood

The Land and Environment Court has ruled the half-built luxury residence at Seaforth has not been constructed according to its development consents, is encroaching onto a neighbour's property and is in need of emergency works to make it structurally stable.

To top it off, a sandstone block wall was erected on foreshore land that belonged to Transport for NSW, the court found.

The court has sent landowner Peter Prasad back to the drawing board, ordering he must seek new development consents from Northern Beaches Council before beginning work again.

The unlawful works were carried out under the watch of notorious private certifier Stanly Spyrou of Dix Gardner Group, who is currently serving a five-year ban for allowing people to move into two other buildings posing a "hazard" to occupants.

Mr Prasad said he was "very shocked and surprised" in February when the Herald revealed the council had issued a stop-work order following a flurry of complaints from neighbouring residents.

Workers have not been allowed to return since to finish constructing the palatial two-storey residence on the cliff face at Seaforth, boasting panoramic views over Middle Harbour.

The half-built mansion at Seaforth, overlooking Middle Harbour. Credit: James Brickwood

The block, which Mr Prasad snapped up for $1.2 million in 2015, was one of the last vacant allotments of absolute waterfront land on the prestigious Seaforth Bluff.

Northern Beaches Council argued the home was not being constructed in line with a development consent first granted in 2007 or a construction certificate issued by Mr Spyrou in 2018.

Mr Prasad challenged the decision in the Land and Environment Court through his company, Zoro Developments.

Council told the court that there were two unauthorised balconies and an unauthorised staircase, a lift shaft in the wrong location and openings in the master bedroom and ground floor that were never approved.

Excavation and geotechnical piles were being installed under the house that were never included in the plans, the council said. Those activities gave neighbours the impression an illegal third storey was being built.

Council found the awning, staircase, terrace and pool were all encroaching onto a neighbour's property and there was a question as to how "lawful access to the front door will be gained".

Zoro Developments defended the works and argued the stop-work order was "excessively broad and disproportionate".

An artist's impression of the two-storey home approved for the property at Seaforth. Credit: Domain

It argued most of the unauthorised structures were only there temporarily and the encroachments onto the neighbour’s land could be resolved or removed.

Mr Prasad gave evidence that the stop-work order had left him in financial hardship and he was worried he would not be able to secure further financing to finish the building works.

Zoro Developments argued it should be allowed to finish construction and make corrections so that the finished home complied with the development approvals.

However, in a judgment handed down in August, Land and Environment Court Commissioner Joanne Gray concluded the works had contravened both council's development consents and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

"I do not accept that the stop work order is excessively broad,” she wrote. "The financial hardship suffered by Zoro is not a sufficient basis on which to exercise the Court's discretion to revoke or modify the order."

She found it was not acceptable for works to continue and the only way for the problems to be resolved was for Zoro Developments to go back to the council and seek fresh approvals for its altered plans.

All parties agreed emergency works were needed to urgently stabilise the site because the geotechnical investigations required as part of the approvals were never carried out.

The original complainant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, welcomed the court's verdict.

"After the story appeared in the Herald I was pleased that the council then responded quickly and decisively to address the compliance issues with the development," he said.