Legal row erupts over $26 million Sydney MAFS mansion
David Waterhouse, an estranged member of the famous Australian horse racing dynasty, had plans to develop his garage into a 'self-contained dwelling' but had his plans shot down last week in the NSW Land and Environment after major pushback from his neighbours.
The harbourside pink Spanish-style mansion, known as Villa Biscaya, sits on Tivoli Avenue in Rose Bay and has been featured on Married at First Sight, The Bachelor and The Voice.
In 2007, a development application made by the former owners of Villa Biscaya was granted by Woollahra Council for 'alterations and additions' to be made to the garage. The works did not go ahead.
However, in 2023, Mr Waterhouse decided he wanted the alterations to go ahead, submitting a modification to the originally approved application to the council, which was approved.
Next-door neighbour Mr Mincong Huang took Mr Waterhouse to court as a result, arguing the new works were substantially different to those approved in 2007.
The court heard how in December 2023, Mr Huang's lawyer Graham McKee wrote to council, noting that the amended plans increased the 'apparent visual bulk and locate[d] more of the development hard of the boundary of our client's property'.
He also noted that 'the original consent was qualitatively and quantitatively different to the original development consent'.
Mr Huang submitted to the court that the new application included 'the presence of a kitchen and bathroom' which was 'completely different' to the originally approved proposal, labelling it 'modification creep'.
Justice Sarah Pritchard ruled that the development consent in 2007 could not be relied upon by Mr Waterhouse and declared it had formally lapsed in June 2012.
Mr Waterhouse has sold Villa Biscaya to investment banker Michael Rothner, with the settlement to be concluded at the end of July. Mr Rothner moved into the property in January.
However, the two men have been embroiled in their legal tussle with Mr Waterhouse accusing Mr Rothner's wife of cutting down trees on Mr Huang's neighbouring property.
The Rothners have denied cutting down the trees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
24 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Fair Work Commission rules against BHP in ‘same job same pay' decision on Queensland coal mines
Some 2200 coal mine workers in Queensland's Bowen Basin are in line for a $30,000 pay bump following a landmark ruling from the Fair Work Commission against mining giant BHP. The Mining and Energy Union and Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union took the $200bn behemoth to court over the Same Job Same Pay reforms. Passed in 2023, the changes are designed to equalise pay rates between direct hire and labour hire employees at large-scale enterprises if they are performing the same job. The unions argued BHP had undercut worker wages at its coal mines by using an in-house labour hire service called OS Production and Maintenance. Late Monday evening, the FWC determined the work performed by OS employees at the company's Saraji, Peak Downs and Goonyella Riverside mines was not 'for the provision of a service, rather than for the supply of labour' and so delivered 'regulated labour hire arrangement orders'. The orders clear the way for average worker pay bumps of $30,000 at a cost of $66m to the company, the ACTU has claimed. 'This is about Australian unions winning wage justice for workers, which stops labour hire workers being treated as second-class citizens,' ACTU secretary Sally McManus said after the ruling. 'Wealthy mining companies like BHP have clawed money out of workers' pay packets for many years when the income should be returned to workers, their families and the communities they support.' Several factors contributed to the ruling. First, the FWC determined BHP held significant control and direction of where OS employees would work, what they would do and details of how the work would be performed. Second, the workers were compelled to adhere to 'detailed and highly prescriptive requirements imposed by BMA (BHP Mitsubishi Alliance)'. Further, the FWC found OS workers used 'virtually entirely, plant and equipment supplied by BMA to perform work'. 'That consideration supports a conclusion that the work performed by employees of OS Production is not for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour,' the bench ruled. It also concluded that although the work performed by OS employees might be specialised, it was of the 'same nature and involves the same specialised and expert skills as are exercised by employees of BHP Coal performing the same work'. The ruling also covers employees with labour hire companies Workpac and Chandler McLeod, who the commission found were 'performing the same work in the same crews and BMA employees and receiving substantially lower remuneration because of the identity of their employer'. The landmark decision could up-end labour arrangements across the country's massive and lucrative mining sector. Minerals Council of Australia CEO Tania Constable called the decision 'incredibly disappointing' and said it would 'directly threaten thousands of specialised contractors who play a vital role in mining operations across the country'. 'Unlike labour hire, these businesses exist to provide a specialised service, not just workers, and should never have been covered by these laws,' she said. 'These businesses now face the risk of being drawn into complex and costly legal proceedings, creating instability in employment arrangements that have long supported operational flexibility, efficiency and mining productivity. 'The commission's ruling confirms what the MCA has long argued: that the government's legislation goes well beyond its original promise to target only the 'limited circumstances' where 'labour hire' is used to deliberately undercut wages.' BHP, meanwhile, has railed against what it sees as an escalation in excessive cost burdens on its Queensland operations, citing complex industrial relations demands and the state's sharp coal royalty regime. The company has reduced its footprint in the Bowen Basin in recent years, offloading its Daunia and Blackwater mines to Whitehaven Coal in April last year. It now runs five mines in conjunction with Mitsubishi: Saraji, Goonyella, Caval Ridge, Broadmeadow and Peak Downs.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Break it Down: Western Yilgarn bulks up bauxite resource to 205Mt
Western Yilgarn has announced a 16.5-million-tonne bauxite resource estimate for its Cardea-3 deposit in Western Australia.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Productivity Commission urges Australia to remove tariffs as Donald Trump extends US deadline
The federal government's economic think tank says Australia will likely be a winner from Donald Trump's tariffs if it does not retaliate and that we would be better off by removing more of the nation's remaining tariffs. In its annual trade and assistance review, modelling by the Productivity Commission finds that Donald Trump's "liberation day" tariffs — as well as sector-specific tariffs on aluminium, steel and automobiles and parts — could lead to a 0.37 per cent increase in Australia's economic output, as measured by real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). "What happens is that there's capital outflow from the United States that's got to go somewhere. It comes to Australia as well as other countries," explained Productivity Commission deputy chair Alex Robson on Radio National Breakfast. Professor Robson said that Australia would benefit in part because it was at the lower end of tariff rates being proposed by the US government. "Australia, we have a 10 per cent tariff imposed on us by the United States. But other countries, it's much higher than that. And so, that tends to benefit us in a relative sense," he said. Overnight, US President Trump signed an executive order further delaying the implementation of his so-called "liberation day" tariffs, which were due to commence at 12:01am US Eastern Standard Time on July 9. The tariffs, originally announced on April 2, will now not take effect until August 1, while negotiations continue with affected countries. Mr Trump has been publishing on his Truth Social platform the letters he has sent to global leaders flagging his proposed tariff rates that would kick in on August 1, unless negotiations see the US strike a trade deal with the nominated countries in the meantime. In most cases, these tariffs are the same or similar to those announced on "liberation day" in April, with two of Australia's major trading partners, Japan and South Korea, threatened with 25 per cent tariffs and another, Indonesia, facing a 32 per cent tax on its exports to the US. Paul Ashworth, the chief North America economist with Capital Economics, says he does not anticipate major economic fallout within the US, even if these threatened tariffs are implemented on August 1. "If none of these 14 countries manage to seal a preliminary trade deal (and assuming Trump doesn't delay implementation for another month) then the effective tariff rate on US imports would rise from 15.5 per cent to 17.3 per cent," he wrote in a note. "That would push it even further above 20th-century norms — it was 2.5 per cent last year — but given the very muted impact of tariffs on US consumer prices up to now and that the tariff revenues are now being recycled thanks to the Republican mega-bill that Congress just passed, the fallout should be manageable," he wrote. However, Professor Robson warned that the possibility of widespread retaliation against the US tariffs posed a bigger risk to the global, and Australian, economy. "The main concern in all of this is the uncertainty that the different announcements create in the global trading environment and the risk of escalation and retaliation around the world," he told Radio National Breakfast. "If there was more broad escalation, even with countries imposing tariffs on each other and not only the United States, that would be very bad for Australia," he said. Rather than retaliating, which Professor Robson said would be economically counterproductive, the Productivity Commission has urged Australia's government to unilaterally remove more tariffs. It says there are still too many "nuisance tariffs" in place that generate little revenue and impose high costs on businesses. "We estimate that, in 2023-24, the tariff regime imposed compliance costs of between $1.3 billion and $4 billion, while collecting $2 billion in revenue," its report says. Professor Robson said last year, the government abolished 457 nuisance tariffs that had compliance costs that far outweighed the revenue collected, and it could eliminate hundreds more. He said those tariffs cost Australia's economy roughly twice as much to collect as they raised in revenue. "Currently, 90 per cent of imports into Australia are tariff-free and the remaining have about a 5 per cent tariff imposed on them," he said. "They raise revenue of about $2 billion, but the compliance costs are up to $4 billion, and also they're not protecting any industries." The Productivity Commission has also urged caution about the Albanese government's signature "Future Made in Australia" industry support program. It said budgetary assistance remained the main form of industry assistance in Australia, and the government's Future Made in Australia agenda was cementing that growing role. "This mirrors international practice seen in the European Green Deal, the Made-in-Canada plan, China's industrial subsidy programs and the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States," its report said. It said well-designed industry policy could offer benefits, but when it was poorly designed, it could be costly for governments, act as a form of trade protection and distort the allocation of Australia's resources. "This underscores the critical need for transparency, as is delivered through the Trade and Assistance Review, ongoing evaluation and review and clear exit strategies," its report said. Professor Robson said the Albanese government had legitimate policy objectives around supply chain resilience and transitioning to net zero, but it also had to make sure that the benefits of its spending on those Future Made in Australia programs would outweigh the costs. "The government's put a framework around that. We think that's good," he told Radio National. "But it remains to be seen whether that spending will produce the benefits that the government says it will."
