Desired Future Character

Mark Evans • May 22, 2023

This article examines what is desired future character, current measures that local councils adopt to assess desired future character and recommendations to adopt a more strategic planning approach.

A white truck is parked on the side of the road in front of a row of houses

This article examines what is desired future character, current measures that local councils adopt to assess desired future character and recommendations to adopt a more strategic planning approach.


What is desired future character?

The “Local Character and Place Guideline” issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Department) defines “local character” as:


“what makes a neighbourhood distinctive and is the identity of a place. It encompasses the way it looks and feels. It is created by a combination of land, people, the built environment, history, culture and tradition including Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and looks at how they interact to make a distinctive character of an area.”


In Woollahra Municipal Council v SJD DB2 Pty Limited [2020] NSWLEC 115 (Woollahra v SJD), Chief Justice Preston (at [52]) described “desired future character” as:


“In considering what constitutes the desired future character of an area it is relevant to consider at least the zoning of the land, the zone objectives, the range of permissible uses, the development standards, and in this case the designation of heritage significance of the area…

These provisions do not exhaustively define and fix the desired future character, it is also relevant to look at existing built and natural elements in the locality as well as approved developments.”


Articulating desired future character through planning instruments

Traditionally, local councils have sought to incorporate local character and desired future character into the assessment of proposed development through development standards in Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and, in greater detail through guidelines in Development Control Plans (DCPs).


The development standards in an LEP are, principally:

1.1           zoning, land use and objectives of zones;

1.2           minimum lot sizes;

1.3           height of buildings;

1.4           floor space ratio; and

1.5           heritage significance.


Zoning and development standards in LEPs are linked to maps over the local government area in an attempt to preserve local character and control desired future character. Often however, the maps are insufficiently detailed, apply indiscriminately over broad areas and do not account for street level character and topographical constraints.


In Woollahra v SJD, Preston CJ (at [59]) clarified that the desired future character of the neighbourhood or an area exists before and informs the development standards in the LEP, not the other way around. The development standards in the LEP do not exhaustively define and fix the desired future character of an area and the council (and court) may have regard to matters other than development standards to evaluate whether proposed development meets the desired future character of an area.


This interpretation of desired future character creates a problem for councils seeking to define and control desired future character through an LEP, because in addition to the LEP, a consent authority may have reference to “external factors such as the developments that are approved and constructed in the neighbourhood or area.” (per Preston CJ at [54]). Some of the developments that have been approved in the neighbourhood may be the result of contested court appeals or rely on exceptions to development standards via clause 4.6 of the relevant LEP.


Local mapping and development standards initially thought by Council to define desired future character do not take into account variations, increases and decreases to those standards wrought through state-wide instruments such as the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.


“Desired future character” is also not defined in an LEP. Consequently, in Woollahra v SJD, Preston CJ held (at [54]) that, there was “no limitation found in the subject matter, scope and purpose of WLEP which would preclude consideration of developments that have been approved and constructed in the neighbourhood or area”.

A local consent authority or the court should, but were not bound to, take into consideration desired future character provisions of a DCP where the DCP contained desired future character provisions which were not defined in the LEP.


A DCP is subordinate to an LEP and cannot be used to interpret the provisions of an LEP: Mine Subsidence Board v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (2007) 154 LGERA 60; [2007] NSWCA 137 at [41]; Plaintiff M47-2012 v Director-General of Security (2012) 251 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 46 at [56]. The tail does not wag the dog.


These issues demonstrate why reliance on Council’s LEP and DCP alone will be insufficient to adequately articulate and control desired future character.


A strategic approach

If local councils wish to better articulate and control desired future character in a local area, they need to adopt a strategic planning approach aimed at better integrating local character into consideration and determination of development applications that is formulated and implemented in accordance with the Department’s guidelines.

In February 2019, the Department released the “Local Character and Place Guideline” and the “Discussion Paper – Local Character Overlays” (Discussion Paper).


As stated above, reliance on development standards in a council’s LEP alone will be insufficient to meaningfully articulate and integrate local character areas into assessment of development applications.


A clear definition of “desired future character” is required in a Council’s LEP and a clear link must be established between Council’s LEP, DCP, local character statements and local character mapping.


The Department described in the Discussion Paper how this would occur in two ways:

a.   the creation of “local character mapping”; and

b.   an associated clause within an LEP which would identify additional assessment requirements and point directly to the local character mapping, local character statements and guidelines in Council’s DCP.


These measures would only be effective (and acceptable to the Department) where they are derived from community consultation and where they align with broader strategic objectives, namely regional and district strategic plans and Council’s LSPS and Local Housing Strategy.


Community Consultation

Local councils may already have a community participation plan, though to the extent they do not, councils should develop a community engagement strategy that identifies local stakeholders and the approach councils will use to engage with those who may not regularly have contact with council to seek meaningful input into the identification and mapping of local character areas.


Mapping and local character statement

Local councils should also consider drawing and mapping local character areas. Often, words in development standards are an inadequate medium to convey sentiment, feel and character of place. Where possible, Councils can consider engaging community and local artists to pictorially represent local streetscapes and character of places.

These maps and drawings should be accompanied by a local character statement of an area’s history, its aspirations and what the desired future character of the area looks like. The local character statement can articulate the local character with a written description of intangible and tangible values and characteristics of a place.


Local character overlay and linking clause in LEP

Amendments to the LEP would be required to create a link to a local character overlay, a local character statement and/or controls within a DCP. It could also seek to exclude or vary statewide policy (for example, State Environmental Planning Policies).


Specifically, the Department has stated that a local character overlay could:

a.   “identify the defined character area and map its boundaries;

b.   identify the characterisation for the area (as outlined in the Local Character and Place Guideline; and

c.    trigger local variations and in exceptional circumstances local exclusions from statewide policy.”


The Department states that a local council wishing to support local character through their LEP could “…submit a planning proposal in line with the standardised map layer and associated clause…”


The Department would review all submitted planning proposals against published criteria to evaluate the benefits and impacts of introducing a local character overlay.

The local character overlay should be centred on having undertaken a strategic planning process and ideally will follow the local council's local strategic planning statement and local housing strategy.


The benefits of this approach are better alignment with Council’s strategic framework, regional and district plans and a greater likelihood of support from the Department.

A local character overlay would not only have the benefit of community consultation and input but also impose a legal requirement to consider and accommodate desired future character in proposed development through the insertion of a clause in Council’s LEP.


Conclusion

All too often Council planners are forced to rely on development standards in LEPs and DCPs to seek to articulate desired future character of an area. Councils cannot define and control desired future character through an LEP alone.


To articulate and enforce desired future character, local councils need to do the leavy lifting and adopt a strategic approach that incorporates community consultation, detailed mapping of local character areas and insertion of a clause in a council’s LEP linking these measures to the assessment and determination of development applications in a meaningful way.



Require further assistance? please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 9145 0900 or make an enquiry below.

A man in a suit is sitting on the steps of a building.

Servicing all of NSW, Whiteacre provides expert property law and planning and environment law advice and assistance.

Planning Law Advice

Land and Environment Court Appeals

Voluntary Planning Agreements and Contributions

Development Control Orders and Enforcement

Property Development Advice and Due Diligence

Title Structuring

Easements and Covenants

Strata and Community Title legislation

Book an initial consultation through our website with our planning law solicitor. Whether it's about planning and environment law or property law, you can approach us and discuss your matter to make sure we are a good fit for your requirements.

BOOK ONLINE
By Mark Evans May 4, 2025
This article provides a general overview of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, followed by a discussion of the tax implications of establishing a biodiversity stewardship site for Councils. What is the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (the Scheme ) is a market-based scheme that is administered by the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ( Department ) and aims to help address the loss of biodiversity and threatened species in NSW. It seeks to do so by creating incentives for landowners to improve or maintain biodiversity values as a means of offsetting impacts on other areas. The Scheme is established by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ( BC Act ) . How the Scheme works Councils can establish a ‘biodiversity stewardship site’ ( Stewardship Site ) on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement ( Stewardship Agreement ) with the Department: s 6.17 BC Act. In doing so, Councils commit themselves to enhancing and protecting biodiversity values on the Stewardship Site. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits which are created by the Department. The amount of biodiversity credits are calculated by the Council’s accredited ecologist (and verified by the Department) in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Biodiversity Assessment Method ( BAM ): s 6.7 BC Act. Biodiversity credits are created in respect of existing biodiversity values on the land and management actions to be carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. A biodiversity credit remains in force unless it is cancelled or retired: s 6.18 BC Act. The market value of the biodiversity credits is calculated by the Department at the time of creation. Sale and transfer of biodiversity credits Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer (or in parcels to a number of buyers) seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. The sale price of the biodiversity credits is determined by agreement between the Council and the buyer. Alternatively, biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 : s 7.15 BC Act. The Council may transfer biodiversity credits to a buyer or third party: s 6.19 BC Act. The transfer is made through an application to the Department by the parties to the transfer. The transfer is not effective until the transfer is authorised by the Department and registered in the register of biodiversity credits: s 6.20 BC Act. On the registration of the first transfer of the biodiversity credits, the Total Fund Deposit ( TFD ) specified in the Stewardship Agreement (or a proportion, if not all the credits are transferred) is required to be paid by the buyer of the biodiversity credits into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund (the Fund ): s 6.21 BC Act. The TFD is a fixed amount of money used to cover the long-term management costs of a Stewardship Site. It is a calculated value representing the present value of future payments needed to fund the agreed management actions. Contracts for the sale of biodiversity credits between the Council and purchasers will state that the credit owner is entitled to the full amount of the agreed sale price of the biodiversity credits, including the TFD, and that the credit owner will have the obligation to pay the TFD. Once the credits have been ‘used’ to offset negative biodiversity impacts and to permanently secure the conservation of biodiversity, they are ‘retired’ such that they can no longer be used for any other purpose: s 6.27 BC Act. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement: s 6.34 BC Act. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund can help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity conservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement. Capital Gains The ATO deems that a capital gains event (type D4) occurs on entry into a Stewardship Agreement: s 104-47(1) ITAA. The landowner makes a capital gain if the “capital proceeds” are more than that part of the “cost base” of the land that is apportioned to the covenant. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on entry into Stewardship Agreement When the Department and the Council enter into a Stewardship Agreement, the Council makes a taxable supply by entering into the agreement in return for the biodiversity credits issued by the Department and the Department makes a taxable supply of biodiversity credits in return for the Council entering into the agreement. These are non-monetary transactions. The Department and the Council (if both are registered for GST): are required to pay GST in respect of their supply, calculated on the estimated value of the credits; and can claim an input tax credit (ITC) in respect of the tax invoice received from the other party. If a Council is registered for GST, the Department will issue a Department GST invoice and Recipient Created Tax Invoice (RCTI) on behalf of the Council when the Department sends the registered BSA to the Council. The Department will use the estimated market value of the biodiversity credits for the purposes of these invoices. As the GST payable and the input tax credit that can be claimed are the same amount, the net GST position for both the Council and Department is zero. This means that these invoices do not need to be paid. However, both the Department and the Council are required to account for the GST payment and the input tax credit in their business activity statements (BAS). Capital gains from sale or transfer of credits A CGT event (type A1) occurs upon the sale of biodiversity credits. The Council may make a capital gain or loss depending on the capital proceeds and cost base of the credits: s 104-10(4) of the ITAA. A biodiversity credit constitutes a CGT asset: s 108-5 of the ITAA. CGT event (type A1) happens when the Council disposes of biodiversity credits: s 104-10 of the ITAA. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on sale of biodiversity credits For the purposes of GST, the sale of credits is a taxable supply of goods. This means that the biodiversity credit price should include GST that the Council then needs to pay to the ATO. Receipt of annual payments from the Biobanking Trust Fund Annual payments from the Fund made by the Department to the Council are a contractual payment for the performance of services and should be ordinary income and assessable for income tax purposes. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA . GST on annual payments The supply of stewardship services by the Council to the Department in return for payment of the annual payment should be a taxable supply. The Department will issue a recipient created tax invoice (RCTI) and include an amount for GST when making the annual stewardship payments for management actions the Council delivers. Conclusion Councils can establish biodiversity stewardship sites on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements with the Secretary of the Department. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. Biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out by Council. Some of the proceeds of the sale of biodiversity credits must be paid into the Fund to cover ongoing management actions and costs. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund could help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity preservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement.
Navigating Land and Environment Court
By Mark Evans March 20, 2025
Expert Legal Insights on Development Approvals and Appeals with Planning Lawyer Mark Evans
Physical Commencement of Development Consents
By Mark Evans February 27, 2025
Development consents granted after 15 May 2020 face stricter requirements to determine whether they are substantially commenced and thus remain valid. This article reviews recent case law in New South Wales (NSW) and outlines the types of work that can qualify as physical commencement.
shared driveways
By Mark Evans February 13, 2025
Shared driveways A common example of a shared driveway is where a right of carriageway passes through one neighbours’ (burdened) land into the other neighbour’s (benefited) land.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 27, 2024
In Part 1, we considered tiny homes and caravans on private land. That article can be accessed here Part 1 . In Part 2, we turn our attention to tiny homes and manufactured homes.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 22, 2024
In this article we explore tiny homes, caravans, and manufactured homes.
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson November 14, 2024
The general rule is that a development application ( DA ) is to be determined based on the law applicable at the time of determination of the DA, not at the time of lodgement: Sofi v Wollondilly Shire Council (1975) 31 LGERA 416.
When subdivision may not be considered development carried out on land
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 31, 2024
Subdivision, alone, may not constitute development “on land” and thus trigger development restrictions. 
Biodiversity Credits
By Mark Evans October 18, 2024
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a summary of workshops and stakeholders’ submissions concerning the functioning of the NSW Biodiversity Credits Market.
Development
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 10, 2024
It is now well established that a development consent cannot be obtained to authorise works that have already been carried out. The classic example is a building that has been built without development consent.
More Posts