The Court upheld the appeal and granted consent for a depot in the E5 Heavy Industrial zone adjoining a C4 Environmental Living zone, holding that the development was consistent with applicable planning controls and the desired future character as expressed through the current zoning framework. The Court rejected the Council's argument that the site's industrial zoning was an 'anomaly' warranting refusal, holding that the Court must assess the application against the zoning in force and that dissatisfaction with the zoning must be addressed through a planning proposal under Part 3 of the EPA Act, not through refusal of a permissible use. The Court also held that there was no inconsistency between SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 and the SSLEP such as to create a hierarchy between those instruments, and that compliance with principal development standards (height, FSR, landscaped area) supports a finding that the development achieves the objectives of those controls and contributes to desired future character.
The full text is available to signed-in members.