When assessing whether sufficient grounds exist under s 3.5.14(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to justify approval of a development despite conflict with a planning scheme: (1) the fact that a use falls within a catch-all 'not consistent' provision cannot of itself characterise the conflict as minor; (2) the permissibility of the same use by a public utility is an irrelevant consideration; (3) the absence of negative impact is a relevant but not sufficient consideration; (4) no differential weighting applies to grounds depending on where they fall in the Weightman three-step analysis; and (5) the availability of alternative sites designated in a regional plan is a relevant consideration that must be addressed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.