The Court upheld cl 4.6 variations to both height and FSR development standards and granted consent for a 103-room co-living development, finding acceptable amenity impacts despite an FSR of 2.67:1 against a 1.5:1 standard. On the contested GFA interpretation, the Court held that boundary walls physically connected to the building at ground and upper levels constitute external walls of the building, and corridors internal to those walls are GFA — rejecting the applicant's argument that the 'internal face of external walls' requires the space to be enclosed or roofed. The Court also held that ADG building separation distances under s 69(2)(b) of SEPP Housing are matters for consideration rather than mandatory standards, and that agreed privacy screen designs can satisfy the separation objective without requiring increased setbacks, even where the development adjoins a lower density zone. Draft strategic planning documents not yet exhibited were found to warrant little weight in assessing desired future character or FSR acceptability.
The full text is available to signed-in members.