It is not appropriate for the Court to dismiss the evidence of objectors out of hand merely because it is lay evidence. If it were, there would be no point in hearing it. Moreover, objectors have usually lived in an area for a long time and have a certain authority by virtue of their familiarity with it. This has to be balanced against the expert who may have visited the site for only a short time. How an expert, retained by an applicant, deals with the evidence of objectors reveals a great deal of the expert's objectivity.
Good experts are able to relate their expertise to the experience of lay people.
I am not suggesting that acoustic experts should abandon their measurements of noise levels and rely on subjective perception. However, experts should be able to explain why there is a discrepancy between their measurements and what the objectors say they have experienced for years. A traffic expert should be able to explain why the objectors perceive that their street is always fully parked out, while the parking survey suggests that at most times there is available parking space. The possibility to vary a development standard in appropriate circumstances has been an integral part of the New South Wales planning system since its introduction in 1945. The onus falls on the applicant's expert to provide valid grounds for varying a standard.