A consolidation requirement imposed as a zone subscript under a local environmental plan is a zoning criterion, not a development standard within s 4(1) of the EP&A Act, and is therefore not amenable to objection under SEPP No. 1. A provision that precludes all forms of development absent compliance with its terms, requires a step not itself a form of development, and applies indiscriminately to every permissible development within the area covered, is incapable of being a development standard. The two-step approach from Poynting may be conducive to error where the critical question is whether a provision should be incorporated into the identification of the development as an essential element.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.