Razed site and secret sale: Inside failed bid to build $10m mansion

Developer quietly sells illegally cleared south Sydney site earmarked for now-rejected mansion Mon 6 Jul 2026 at 10:07am In short: A site in Sydney's south where hundreds of trees were illegally cleared to make way for a $10 million mansion has been secretly sold. The developer was fined for clearing the trees, and the housing plan was rejected, with the council saying that despite the sale, he remained responsible for restoring the land. Concerned locals question how the developer will be held accountable for the agreed replanting works. Residents are questioning how a developer will be forced to replant hundreds of native trees he illegally cleared in Sydney's south to make way for his rejected $10 million mansion after he secretly sold the waterfront property to a company created a month before the sale. Amir Abu Abara, the former owner of the 7.4-hectare site in Barden Ridge, was fined $70,000 in July last year and ordered to remediate the environmentally sensitive bushland to its original condition before he carried out the unauthorised clearing in 2020. A legally binding enforceable undertaking, signed by the businessman, required him to replant a mix of 38,700 plants, including 600 native trees at the site along the Woronora River, which is home to endangered koalas and the threatened powerful owl. The 41-year-old accepted this punishment in exchange for the Sutherland Shire Council dropping its long-running criminal prosecution against him, which included charges that carry a maximum penalty of up to $5 million. Mr Abara had a development application before the council to build a $10 million French provincial-style mansion on the site featuring six bedrooms, 10 bathrooms, a ten-pin bowling alley, indoor basketball court, prayer room, man-cave, movie theatre, library, in-ground swimming pool, underground car park for eight vehicles, and a one-bedroom secondary dwelling. The proposal was unanimously rejected by a council panel in late July after an expert assessment described it as "monolithic" and unable to adequately demonstrate how the destroyed vegetation would be restored, considering it proposed cutting down 23 more trees for a 160-metre-long driveway. Replanting order stands despite site changing hands The ABC can now reveal Mr Abara sold the Barden Ridge site in early June off-the-market to Assetra Property Pty Ltd for $850,000, which is $40,000 less than what the developer paid to acquire it in 2019. Assetra Property was registered as a company in late April, about a month before the sale, by Sydney tax agent Rakeshkumar Sanghvi. Mr Sanghvi is also the sole director and secretary of Stonegate Ventures Pty Ltd, a company that was registered in mid-April. Mr Abara and his legal representatives have been contacted for comment, along with Sitaco Developments. The ABC has also contacted the new landowner, Mr Sanghvi, for a response. In a statement, the Sutherland Shire Council said the change in ownership did not free Mr Abara's company, ACCS Family Holdings, from the obligations of the enforceable undertaking. "The company is required to complete the replanting works and must arrange access to the site or otherwise ensure the works are carried out," the council said. "Council will monitor progress and may take further enforcement or legal action to ensure the required environmental remediation is delivered." The ABC understands the enforceable undertaking does not bind the land, and there is no clause that transfers the obligations to the new landowners. Woronora River Community Association member Deb Cansdell said residents had been left in the dark about the sale and that it had not been made clear how Mr Abara would still be held accountable. "How is he now liable for replanting land, on land that he doesn't own anymore?" Ms Cansdell told the ABC. "Council haven't come back and spoken to the community; we've heard nothing from them, not a single word." Mr Abara has about seven months to complete the replanting work, which he must then maintain for a minimum of two years. "It's a terrible message for anyone else that decides to knock a house of hills' worth of trees, because really you're not going to get in trouble for it," Ms Cansdell said. 'Excessive' development rejected Twelve days after selling the land, a team representing Mr Abara's developer, Sitaco Development Pty Ltd, presented their case to a council planning panel in June on why he should receive development approval for his $10 million mansion. Sitaco Developments is owned by Millard Joseph Said, who was the listed supervisor of one of Mr Abara's home building companies, Abara Group Pty Ltd, before it filed for liquidation earlier this year. Mr Abara's architect, Fernando Trajcevski, told the panel last month the application would not have any "consequential adverse impacts to adjoining properties", and that his design was "consistent" with the character of the local area. "Our client sought to look at a long-time family home accommodating a large family while providing a variety of outdoor spaces taking advantage of the location and the size of the property," Mr Trajcevski said. "In our submission, [the] unique characteristics of this site requires a merit-based assessment rather than a strict application of controls for a more conventional residential allotment." Planning consultant Sam Khoury said it would be "unfair" and "premature" for the council to make its decision before they could respond to the 16 reasons for rejection identified in an assessment released by the council last month. Mr Abara signed a legal undertaking requiring him replant a mix of 38,700 plants, including 600 native trees. (ABC News: Jack Ailwood) A few weeks after the hearing, the panel voted to reject the application based on that assessment, which said that if the plan was approved it would set an "undesirable precedent and be contrary to the public interest". "The development is excessive in terms of its size, bulk and scale and monolithic built form, resulting in an adverse visual impact and is out of character with the bushland setting in which it is located," the assessment read. "The application fails to demonstrate that the development can occur without the potential for significant environmental harm on the natural ecosystem of the site and surrounds and the bushland character of the area."