Key Takeaways

• This NSWLEC decision demonstrates a relatively small clearing footprint can still attract a significant penalty where environmental harm is substantial.
• Contractors cannot rely solely on a client’s instructions and must confirm required approvals before undertaking clearing works.
• The Court will give significant weight to deterrence in environmental sentencing.

Background

A landscaping job on Sydney’s north shore has resulted in a $187,500 fine after 287 trees were unlawfully removed from public bushland.

Lane Cove Council v Yi Yang [2026] NSWLEC 96 involved extensive clearing undertaken between 10 and 22 November 2023, on land owned by Lane Cove Council (the Council) adjoining 44 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville (the Property). The Defendant, Yi Wang, is a landscaper that was engaged by the owners of the Property to assist with removing the trees on the adjoining council owned land.  He referred a chainsaw operator to the owners, coordinated labourers, managed payments, transported vegetation to waste facilities and provided progress updates to the owners. Ultimately, 287 trees were removed across approximately 1,210 square metres of council owned and public bushland.

The land comprised council-owned land, road reserve and parkland protected by multiple planning instruments, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 and the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP). No approvals, permits or development consents had been obtained before the clearing commenced.

The Council investigated the clearing after receiving a complaint from a member of the public. The Court heard expert evidence which established that the works caused substantial environmental harm, including the destruction of endangered ecological communities, removal of habitat for native fauna, damage to an Aboriginal shell midden as well as significant changes to visual amenity. The regeneration of the trees removed to an equivalent ecological condition before the removal would take 20 to 30 years.

Wang pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to three offences under the EP&A Act relating to clearing native vegetation without approval, clearing protected vegetation without a permit and disturbing public bushland without development consent.

Decision of the NSWLEC

The Court was required to consider the purposes of sentencing, which include punishment, deterrence and recognition of the harm caused. It also weighed the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors before determining an appropriate sentence.

The Court found that each offence was objectively serious due to the significant environmental harm caused, although it characterised Wang’s culpability as negligence rather than recklessness, as a reasonable person in his position would have taken greater care to ascertain if nay consent or permits were required. At [119], the Court provided that Wang possessed knowledge  ‘well beyond that of a layperson in relation to vegetation removal and its potential consequences for environmental harm’. While he made limited enquiries after concerns were raised about the legality of the works, the Court held that a reasonable landscaping contractor would have taken further steps to verify that the necessary planning approvals had been obtained.

The Court rejected submissions that the offences formed part of a planned or organised criminal activity or were committed for financial gain. However, it found that Wang exercised sufficient control over the works by engaging labourers and coordinating the removal of vegetation.

The Court accepted that Wang had no prior convictions, was of good character, demonstrated genuine remorse and cooperated extensively with the Council. They found that he had good prospects of rehabilitation and therefore was entitled to the maximum 25% sentencing discount.

After applying the totality principle considering the overlap between the various offences, the Court imposed fines totalling $187,500, comprising:

• $112,500 for disturbing public bushland without development consent;
• $50,000 for clearing protected vegetation without a permit; and
• $25,000 for clearing native vegetation within a Biodiversity Values Map area without approval.

In assessing these considerations, the Court found that while the Applicants’ views were ones that were highly valuable, there was insufficient evidence proving the Applicants’ claim that in the past, the Hedges severely obstructed those views.

When taking into account the Respondent’s past conduct in relation to the Hedges, a significant factor was the Respondent’s evidence of the periodic pruning of the Hedges carried out in the past, and the Respondent’s commitment made through a contract with gardeners, to prune and maintain the Hedges in the future.

The Court also ordered Wang to pay the Council’s investigation costs of $11,660 as well as their legal costs.

This decision is notable because of the relatively small area of clearing compared with many other vegetation clearing cases before the Court. For example, Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Ronald Lewis Greentree and Auen Grain Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC (see here) involved the clearing across 1,262 hectares. This offence involved approximately 1,210 m² of vegetation. Despite the significant difference in scale, the penalty imposed was within the range of penalties seen in much larger clearing matters. The decision reinforces that environmental penalties are not determined solely by the area cleared, but also by factors such as ecological significance, the sensitivity of the location and the need for deterrence.

The full decision, handed down on 6 August 2026, can be accessed here.

By Jennifer Hughes & Carmen Bartolo

Published on 1 September 2026