A numerical floor area limit in a site-specific permissibility clause of a local environmental plan may constitute an essential element of the permissible development (and thus a prohibition) rather than a development standard amenable to variation under SEPP No 1, even where the floor area limit does not appear in the definition of the permitted use. The essential elements of permissible development are not confined to those appearing in the zoning table or in the definition clause of the planning instrument. The dissent (McClellan CJ at CL) would have held that any numerical control on development is almost certainly a development standard as defined, and that the two-step approach of asking first whether a provision is a prohibition is productive of error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.