Boyd v Woollahra Municipal Council

Whether the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standard and the zone

1. The second opinion of satisfaction in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) is that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard that is contravened and the zone objectives. The consent authority must be satisfied that the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with these objectives, not simply that the development is in the public interest (Initial Action at [27]). The consent authority must be directly satisfied about the matters in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) (Initial Action at [26]).
2. For the reasons set out in the written request, I am satisfied that the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the zone objectives and development standard objectives.

Conclusion

1. I have considered the submissions made by the Council in the Jurisdictional Statement filed with the Court on 27 June 2024 and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Orders

1. The orders of the Court are: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application No. 87/2022 for substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including substantial demolition, construction of a new dwelling and ancillary works, at 127 Victoria Road, Bellevue Hill, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A. Susan O'Neill Commissioner of the Court Annexure A

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 11 July 2024

The applicant's written request to contravene the height of buildings development standard

1. The first opinion of satisfaction required by cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) is that the applicant's written request seeking to justify the contravention of a development standard has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) (see Initial Action at [15]), as follows:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

1. The applicant bears the onus to demonstrate that the matters in cl 4.6(3) have been adequately addressed by the written request in order to enable the Court, exercising the functions of the consent authority, to form the requisite opinion of satisfaction (Initial Action at [25]). The consent authority has to be satisfied that the applicant's written request has in fact demonstrated those matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) and not simply that the applicant has addressed those matters (RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130 at [4]).
2. The common ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary are summarised by Preston CJ in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 at [42]- [51] ("Wehbe") and repeated in Initial Action [17]-[21]:

(1) the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

(2) the underlying objective or purpose of the development standard is not relevant to the development, so that compliance is unnecessary;

(3) the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required, so that compliance is unreasonable;

(4) the development standard has been abandoned by the council;

(5) the zoning of the site was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard was also unreasonable or unnecessary (note this is a limited way of establishing that compliance is not necessary as it is not a way to effect general planning changes as an alternative to strategic planning powers).

1. The five ways to demonstrate compliance is unreasonable/unnecessary are not exhaustive, and it may be sufficient to establish only one way (Initial Action [22]).
2. The applicant's written request justifies the contravention of the height of buildings development standard as follows:
   • compliance with the height standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary because the building height and bulk of the proposal is of an appropriate form and scale and is compatible with the surrounding development and the desired future character for the locality;
   • the proposal substantially reduces the existing height of the built form currently on the site;
   • the proposal has been designed to minimise any impact on views, minimises overshadowing or loss of privacy and involves minimal visual intrusion to adjoining and nearby properties; and
   • the height of the proposal will not have an adverse impact on public views from the public domain.
3. The grounds relied on by the applicant in the written request under cl 4.6 must be "environmental planning grounds" by their nature, and environmental planning grounds is a phrase of wide generality (Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [26]) as they refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act, including the objects of the Act (Initial Action at [23]). The environmental planning grounds relied upon must be sufficient to justify contravening the development standard and the focus is on the aspect of the development that contravenes the development standard, not the development as a whole (Initial Action at [24] and Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117 at [78]). Therefore, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard and not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole (Initial Action at [24]).
4. The environmental planning ground relied on by the applicant is that the exceedance is due to previous excavation on the site made to accommodate the existing basement. The proposal has been designed to respond to the existing excavation and topography of the site.
5. I am satisfied, pursuant to cl 4.6(4)(a)(i), that the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3). The applicant's written request defends the exceedance of the height of buildings development standard as a justified response to the topography and existing excavation of the site. I am satisfied that justifying the aspect of the development that contravenes the development standard in this way can be properly described as an environmental planning ground within the meaning identified by his Honour in Initial Action at [23].

Whether the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standard and the zone

1. The second opinion of satisfaction in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) is that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard that is contravened and the zone objectives. The consent authority must be satisfied that the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with these objectives, not simply that the development is in the public interest (Initial Action at [27]). The consent authority must be directly satisfied about the matters in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) (Initial Action at [26]).
2. For the reasons set out in the written request, I am satisfied that the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the zone objectives and development standard objectives.

1. I have considered the submissions made by the Council in the Jurisdictional Statement filed with the Court on 27 June 2024 and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No. 87/2022 for substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including substantial demolition, construction of a new dwelling and ancillary works, at 127 Victoria Road, Bellevue Hill, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

Annexure A