Section 3.5.5.1(10) of CityPlan 2016 does not require interpolation of qualifying words such as 'appropriately' or 'to an acceptable level'; the different language used for committed areas (s 3.5.5.1(8)) and non-committed areas (s 3.5.5.1(10)) reflects deliberate drafting of different standards. Destruction of the habitat of a listed threatened species constitutes a failure to conserve and protect that species for the purposes of s 3.5.5.1(10)(b), regardless of whether the habitat itself is classified as a matter of environmental significance. Environmental impacts relevant to amenity assessment under a planning scheme are not excluded merely because other regulatory regimes would be complied with.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.