Under clause 16A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a consent authority must not consent to a development if the design is incompatible with the character of the local area.
In the recent decision of Louden Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council  NSWLEC 1285 (Louden), clause 16A played a prominent role in Commissioner Gray’s judgement. In that case, the Council had refused the development, inter alia, because the development’s design did not match the local aesthetic. The Council relied on the argument that the setbacks and design of the proposal were inconsistent with other residential flat buildings in the local area.
However, Commissioner Gray rejected this argument in favour of the Applicant’s reliance on Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council  NSWLEC 191 (Project Venture). There, Roseth SC stated [at 22]: “Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.”