Development dependant on another undeveloped proposal
Quick Take
1Where a development application effectively amends a prior approved but unconstructed development via a separate permit (because s 56 LUPAA and cl 10 Pt 8 Sch 2 TASCAT Act preclude amendment of Tribunal-conditioned permits), the method of application is not itself a ground for refusal but is relevant to assessing and weighing expert evidence.
2Compatibility of building height with the scale of nearby buildings under cl 15.4.1 P1(b) is a qualitative assessment of how buildings relate to each other in the streetscape, not a quantitative comparison; reasonable experts may differ, and setback, articulation and perspective may render a taller building visually recessive and compatible.
3Under cl E6.6.1 P1, sufficiency of car parking is assessed against the reasonable needs of users; where on-site spaces quantitatively meet calculated demand, practical limitations on visitor access (such as parking lifts) are mitigated by available on-street parking and do not render the provision insufficient.
