How "walking distance" is measured can matter: an LMR case from Mosman
A plain-English look at a recent Land and Environment Court decision about a six- to seven-storey apartment proposal in Mosman, designed on the basis that the site was in the Housing SEPP's low and mid-rise (LMR) inner area [1], [39].
Watch the video
Video transcript
Under the LMR rules, how you measure four hundred metres can matter. A recent Land and Environment Court decision in Mosman shows why.
The proposal was a six- to seven-storey apartment building with twenty-nine dwellings [1], designed on the basis that the site was in the LMR inner area [39].
The Housing SEPP defines the inner area as land within four hundred metres walking distance of a town centre [40].
For apartment buildings in Zone R3, that can mean a twenty-two-metre height standard, instead of seventeen and a half in the outer area [32].
The applicant accepted that if the site was outside the inner area, the application would fail [39].
Walking distance is the shortest distance along a route that may be safely walked by a pedestrian, using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian crossings [32].
Agreed by both sides: it is measured along a route, not as a circle on a map, and from any part of the site [52].
The applicant's route was three hundred and eighty-three metres, crossing a classified road mid-block [44], [52].
The Council's route was four hundred and twenty-three metres, using a signalised crossing [46], [52].
Both sides agreed the other street crossings were safe. Only the mid-block crossing was in dispute [52].
The applicant argued you first pick the shortest safe route, and only then measure it along footpaths and crossings [53].
The Council argued footpaths and crossings help decide which route it is [61].
The Court accepted the Council's approach. It found those words help select the route, not just measure it [65].
It said whether that is reasonably practicable is “a matter of fact and degree” for each site [67].
On these facts, the Court found the walking distance was four hundred and twenty-three metres, outside the inner area [68], [79].
The Court had no power to grant consent [80], and the appeal was dismissed [83].
The other issues, such as landscaping and bulk and scale, were not decided [19], [81].
This was a merit decision on its own facts, decided under the law at the time.
Whether a site is inner or outer may turn on the route. Get a section 10.7 certificate and advice from a town planner or registered certifier.
Then check your site with SN Architects.
Key points
The inner area is land within 400 m walking distance of a town centre [40].
Agreed by both sides: walking distance is measured along a route, not as a radius, and can be measured from any part of the site [52].
The applicant's route was 383 m with a mid-block crossing of a classified road [44], [52]; the Council's route was 423 m using a signalised crossing [46], [52].
The Court found the words "using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian crossings" help select the route, not just measure it [65], and that this is "a matter of fact and degree" [67].
On the facts, the Court found the walking distance was 423 m, outside the inner area [68], [79].
The Court had no power to grant consent [80], and the appeal was dismissed [83].
Other issues were not decided [19], [81].
The decision turned on its own facts and was decided under the law at the time.
It does not mean the same result for any other site.
Whether a site is in the inner or outer area may turn on the route.
Check your site
Check your site with SN Architects
www.snarchitects.com.au | info@snarchitects.com.au
As at and sources
Case: Metis Developments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1610 (16 September 2026). Paragraph numbers in brackets refer to the judgment.
Read the judgment on NSW Caselaw: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1a0a27ae2b4d1a365cdce0b0
Source: NSW Caselaw. SN Architects is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court, NSW Caselaw or either party.
Case status as at 14 Oct 2026: no appeal located. An appeal may still be possible, so check NSW Caselaw for any later decision.
Instruments: State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, s 163, s 180 and Sch 10 ("walking distance"). Housing SEPP 2021: provisions as extracted in the judgment at [32]; same wording in the version in force at 11 September 2026. Mosman LEP 2012 as referred to in the judgment.
No change to these provisions as at 14 Oct 2026.
Based on content from the New South Wales Legislation website at 8 October 2026. For the latest information on New South Wales Government legislation please go to https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.
General information only, not planning advice. Get a section 10.7 planning certificate and advice from a qualified town planner or registered certifier before relying on it. Current as at October 2026.
Narration: AI-generated voice
Disclaimer
This is general information only, not planning, legal or financial advice, and it is not an assessment of any particular property. Planning rules change and every site is different. Before relying on it, obtain a section 10.7 planning certificate for your property and advice from a qualified town planner or registered certifier. To the extent permitted by law, SN Architects accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this information. Information current as at October 2026. © SN Architects 2026.
Comments