DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations to existing development consent — building under construction — desired future character — future character context study — LMR inner area under transition — separation between buildings — setbacks and ADG objectives or controls — ADG prevails over DCP — solar access and opaque glass — design excellence not ‘at large’ — infill affordable housing — neighbouring residential amenity
Quick Take
1ADG Part 3F-1 separation distance design criteria serve the objective of visual privacy (not view sharing, visual bulk or overshadowing); they are not development standards requiring strict compliance (Housing SEPP s 147(3)), and side boundary setbacks in the absence of ADG controls are governed by the DCP, which the ADG overrides where both address the same matter (Housing SEPP s 149).
2Desired future character of an area undergoing transition cannot be determined by height and FSR development standards alone; it must account for approved development, incentive provisions such as affordable housing bonuses, and the strategic planning intent reflected in zoning and the Housing SEPP LMR controls (applying Woollahra Municipal Council v SJD DB2 Pty Limited [2020] NSWLEC 115 and Big Property Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1161).
3Design excellence under RLEP 2012 cl 6.11 is not an 'at large' inquiry; the consent authority must address the specific matters listed in cl 6.11(4), and a proposal need not exceed ADG numerical design criteria to exhibit design excellence (applying Toga Penrith Developments Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2022] NSWLEC 117 and Anglican Community Services v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1031).
