APPEAL — development application — centre based child care facility — whether clause restricting vehicular access for child care facilities on a cul-de sac or on a road with carriageway width less than 10m is a development standard — clause 4.6 variation to cul-de-sac and road width control
Quick Take
1A provision of an EPI that restricts development consent based on pre-existing external characteristics of the surrounding road network (road type, carriageway width, cul-de-sac status) follows the Mayoh formulation of 'on land of characteristic X no development may be carried out' and is not a development standard within s 1.4 of the EPA Act, because those external features are not 'aspects of that development'.
2The inclusion of a jurisdictional precondition in an EPI provision does not automatically make it a development standard (per Dib), but equally does not automatically prevent it from being one; the sole test remains whether the provision falls within the statutory definition in s 1.4 of the EPA Act (per XYZ Services).
3Where a cl 4.6 variation request relies on the Wehbe 'first test' and the development standard has no stated objectives, the assumed objectives must be properly discerned (per Jeffrey); failure to identify relevant assumed objectives such as residential amenity impacts — not merely traffic safety — is fatal to the request.
