SARA_Information response

Continuing that long line of authority, Bowskill DCJ concluded that “the
natural and ordinary meaning of the word “consistency”, ought to be
adopted in construing [the relevant provisions]".'? Her Honour also held
that determining the consistency of an approval with current laws and
policies is to determine if the approved development is capable of existing
in harmony with those laws and policies. Her Honour stated that
“consistency” is a more flexible concept than whether the development
conflicts with the planning scheme. Instead, development may still be
compatible even if it is at variance with some aspects of the planning
scheme.

It follows that what emerges from the above cases is that the term
“consistent”:

1. does not mean precisely the same;

2. provides for a degree of flexibility; and

3. requires an element of compatibility and harmony.
Discussion

Relevantly, the starting point is to consider whether the changed
development is “consistent” with the Development Approval.

Given that consistency between the Development Approval and the
Change Application is a question of fact and degree, there are a few
indicators which may be relevant in determining whether, from a
perspective of koala habitat ecology, the two are consistent with one
another.

Firstly, in addition to the trees required to be retained by the Development
Approval, the development as it is proposed to be changed provides for a
net reduction in the area to be disturbed, largely as a consequence of
additional vegetation to be retained, of 7,970m?.

Second, we note that although the proposed development’s site cover is
increasing, that increase is modest and limited.

2 (24),

0061 2867.D0CX