JONES and CITY OF SWAN and SAMUEL AND AMY CALABRESE

The case involves a dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent regarding the approval of a proposed single residential dwelling outside of the approved building envelope in a locality identified as a foraging and breeding habitat for the Black Cockatoo. The Applicant, who is seeking approval for the proposed development, argues that the only issue at hand is the visual impact of the development on neighbouring properties. In contrast, the Respondent contends that the development does not warrant approval due to concerns about the impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and visual impact, among other factors. The case also involves the Proposed Intervenors, who are seeking leave to intervene in the proceedings to argue that the proposed development will breach the restrictive covenants in place to protect the specified trees.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the proposed development outside the existing building envelope would create an unacceptable visual impact on neighbouring properties and whether the restrictive covenants in place to protect the specified trees would be breached by the development. The Applicant argues that there will be no relevant clearing outside of the building envelope and that the restrictive covenants are not relevant to the application for review. The Proposed Intervenors, on the other hand, argue that the proposed development will breach the restrictive covenants and that the building envelope cannot be varied due to the requirements imposed by the EPBC Act.

The court considered the principles of intervention in planning reviews, which include demonstrating a sufficient interest to gain standing, establishing that intervention is necessary to enable the Tribunal to meet its objectives, and ensuring that the intervenor will not raise the same points as an existing party. The court found that the Proposed Intervenors had a sufficient interest in the proceeding and that intervention was necessary to enable the Tribunal to meet its objectives under the SAT Act and the PD Act. The court also noted that the Proposed Intervenors were not seeking to introduce new issues for consideration, but rather to support or oppose a decision contended for by a party.

In conclusion, the court granted leave to the Proposed Intervenors to intervene in the proceedings, finding that their intervention was necessary to enable the Tribunal to meet its objectives under the SAT Act and the PD Act. The court did not make any final orders regarding the approval of the proposed development or the impact on the restrictive covenants, as these issues were to be determined at a final hearing.