DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — residential flat building in R3 Medium Density Residential zone — whether site is within 800m of town centre — whether compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary
Quick Take
1Under the Housing SEPP definition of 'walking distance', a route is excluded if it cannot be safely walked. On the facts, an informal crossing of a busy road was unsafe because it had limited sightlines near a roundabout and complex offset intersections, and Austroads Pedestrian Crossing Facility Selection Tool outputs (LoS D–E) indicated likely risk-taking behaviour.
2Where a paved footpath runs immediately alongside a grass verge, the distance should be measured along the footpath rather than across the verge. Bennett v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1720 is distinguishable as concerning a route with no paved path. On the evidence, the site remained within 800m even when the footpath was used and surveying tolerances were added.
3The broad principles at s 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 do not have a sufficient nexus with the s 176 number-of-storeys standard to serve as its objectives in a cl 4.6 request, following Patchy Properties Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1190. In any event, a cl 4.6 request that promotes the benefits of the development as a whole, rather than addressing the particular departure, fails cl 4.6(3).
