Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

You are here: 

Sliwa v Ballarat CC & Ors [2002] VCAT 1125 (29 October 2002)

Last Updated: 30 October 2002

IN THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST No. P755/2002

Planning and Environment List - Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Ballarat Planning Scheme - Residential 1 zone - Heritage Overlay - Design and Development Overlay - Good Design Guide - demolish dwelling and construct two double storey dwellings - impact on heritage significance - neighbourhood character - visual bulk - amenity.

APPLICANT FOR REVIEW: A and C Sliwa

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: Ballarat City Council

RESPONDENTS: C Sutton and Others

WHERE HELD: Melbourne

BEFORE: S. R. Cimino, Member

HEARING DATE: 1 August 2002

DATE OF ORDER: 29 October 2002

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2002] VCAT 1125

SUBJECT LAND: 409 Drummond Street North Ballarat

1. With respect to permit application no. 2001425, the Responsible Authority's decision is set aside.

2. A permit is granted for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of two dwellings in accordance with the endorsed plans at 409 Drummond Street, North Ballarat.

3. The permit must contain the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans received by the Responsible Authority on the 18 January 2002,but modified to show:

a) A reduction in the size of the upper floor level of the dwelling fronting Oddie Street (reduce the floor area by deleting bedroom 3/study and bathroom) and the location of the reduced upper level so that it is over the rear of the ground floor level (essentially over the kitchen/meals area), and

b) Details of external building and fencing materials, finishes and colours.

When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority it will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.

2. The development shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. All buildings and works are to be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All buildings shall be located clear of any easements or water and sewer mains.

3. Landscape Planting Plan:

Prior to the commencement of buildings and works a professionally prepared Landscaping Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for approval by the Responsible Authority. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Ballarat's Landscape Guidelines for Development 1999 (Sections 3.3). Once approved the Landscaping Plan shall be endorsed as forming part of this permit and shall not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

All landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the Landscaping Plan before the occupation of the. buildings and works hereby approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No plant substitutes are permitted for species identified in the endorsed Landscape Planting Plan within the 12 month planting establishment period, without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

The applicant shall notify the Responsible Authority of the completion of landscaping works so that they may be inspected to establish compliance. Note: A minimum 5 days notice is required for inspections.

A total of two mature exotic trees to a minimum height of 2.0 metres must be planted in the front gardens of each dwelling to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Outdoor Lighting:

Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse affect on adjoining land.

5. Vehicle Access:

Vehicle access to the proposed development shall be constructed at approved locations in accordance with plans, designs and specifications approved by the Responsible Authority. The works shall include the construction of a concrete layback and apron and the removal of all redundant access points, reinstating the area to match adjacent materials and profiles. All works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, before the dwellings are occupied.

6. Stormwater Drainage:

All stormwater drainage shall be directed to the kerb and channel in Drummond Street, Oddie and/or Fore Streets to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Sediment on Roadways:

No material shall be permitted to be deposited or remain deposited on any road used by construction vehicles or associated plant entering or leaving the land subject to this permit. Any material deposited on the road shall be removed by mechanical or manual means to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Note 1: Depositing such material on Council's Roads is an offence under the  Litter Act 1987  and penalties may apply.

Note 2: Any costs associated with a clean up of road surfaces borne by Council must be met by the operator of the permit.

8. Disposal Plan:

A waste Disposal Plan and a Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for approval by the Responsible Authority before the commencement of site works which details:

a) Where all building rubble and materials including soil is to be removed to off site. Note all materials must be taken to approved waste receiving sites or recycling centres. The site soil may be contaminated and should be disposed to an authorised facility in accordance with EPA regulations;

b) Provision for materials recycling and collection of rubbish during site construction.

All necessary approvals shall be gained prior to materials being handled and disposed of in accordance with the Disposal Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Internal Access ways and Car Parking:

Areas set aside for parked vehicles and driveways as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

(c) Surfaced with an all-weather wearing course to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Parking areas and access ways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

All works shall be completed in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the buildings or the use hereby approved commencing.

10. Naturestrips:

The naturestrip fronting the development shall be constructed in accordance with levels and specifications submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

The works shall include -

1. The reshaping of the naturestrip.

2. Topdressing the area with a 75 millimetre rolled depth of good quality loamy topsoil free of any weed or seed.

3. Seeding the area with art appropriate seed mix.

All works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the use hereby approved commencing.

11. Established Street Trees:

The following activities or works shall not be undertaken on or adjacent to an existing street tree without the approval of the Responsible Authority in writing:

(a) Excavation within either two metres of the sides of any street tree trunk or the drip line of the canopy, whichever is greater;

(b) Excavation for crushed rock base leading to the crossover exceeding 75mm in depth;

(c) Damaging or cutting any street tree roots exceeding 30mm in diameter (root pruning will only be permitted under the supervision of the Responsible Authority);

(d) Stockpiling of building or toxic materials adjacent to any street tree;

(e) Damaging or cutting any street tree branches;

(f) Removal of any street tree.

12. This permit will expire if:

* The development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this Permit; or

* The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

4. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue planning permit in accordance with the order.

S.R. CIMINO

MEMBER

APPEARANCES

Ms L Stupak, Planning Consultant, appeared for the Responsible Authority.

Mr P McCuskey, Planning Consultant, appeared for the permit applicant.

Ms C Sutton, Ms M Harvey and Ms V Edlund appeared on their own behalf and on behalf of Ms M Dick.

Nature of the application

1. This was an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Responsible Authority's decision to refuse the grant of a permit with respect to permit application no. 2001425. The permit application seeks permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of two new double storey dwellings on land at 409 Drummond Street, North Ballarat.

The hearing

2. At the hearing Ms Stupak and Mr McCuskey tabled and spoke to written submissions whilst Ms Sutton, Ms Harvey and Ms Edlund made oral submissions. In addition, Ms Stupak and Mr McCuskey presented other material to assist my consideration of the proposal. This material included photographs of the subject land and surrounding area, plans of the proposal, various maps and diagrams and extracts from the planning scheme and other policy documents relevant to the proposal. All submissions and other documents have been considered.

Inspection

3. After the hearing I inspected the subject land and locality.

Background

Previous applications

4. On the 5 May 1998, the Responsible Authority refused a permit application [908-97] seeking permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of two double storey dwellings on the subject land. The applicant lodged an application for review [No. 1998/40111] against this decision and the matter was heard by the Tribunal [Member Monk sitting alone] on the 30 November 1998. By order dated 8 December 1998, the Tribunal decided that it would affirm the Responsible Authority's decision and directed that a permit must not be issued.

5. I will refer to the previous Tribunal decision as appropriate.

Current application

6. Permit application no. 2001425 was lodged with the Responsible Authority on the 20 July 2001. Following discussions with the Responsible Authority's planning officer and heritage adviser, the applicant submitted revised plans. The Responsible Authority the required notice of the application to be given and in response it received 11 objections. The grounds of objection were summarised as follows by Ms Stupak:

* The proposed buildings will be substantially bulkier than existing dwellings in the area;

* Overdevelopment of the site;

* Not in keeping with the streetscape (neighbourhood character);

* Increased traffic in the area;

* Loss of further historic homes in Ballarat;

* Overshadowing into adjoining property.

7. In response to the objections, the applicant submitted plans showing further amendments. The objectors were invited to make comments in relation to these further amended plans resulting in two objections being withdrawn. A mediation meeting was also held at the Council, however, the issues in dispute were not resolved and the other objections were not withdrawn.

8. Despite receiving a report from its planning officer recommending the grant of a permit, the Responsible Authority subsequently made its decision to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1. That the design response does not comply with the objectives and Techniques of Element 1 (Density) of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing will result in an overdevelopment of the site and a development that is not consistent with the neighbourhood character in terms of building scale and bulk.

2. The proposal does not represent an appropriate design response for the site and locality, particularly the unit facing Oddie Street.

9. The application for review was filed on the 25 March 2002. The grounds of the application are:

1. The developments conforms to the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

2. The proposal is an appropriate design for the site and locality.

3. The proposal is consistent with the neighbourhood character in terms of scale and bulk.

4. The proposal conforms to the principles of proper and orderly planning of the area.

The subject land and locality

10. The subject land is located on the north-west corner of Drummond Street and Oddie Street, North Ballarat, and extends through to have an abuttal with the east side of Fore Street. The subject land is a regular rectangular shape, with frontages of 20.12 metres to Drummond Street and Fore Street and a frontage of 25.91 metres to the north side of Oddie Street. The land has an overall area of 521 square metres and is relatively flat.

11. The subject land is occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling which is oriented so that it has its frontage to Drummond Street and sideage to Oddie Street. The other main building on the land is a red brick outbuilding constructed to the south-west corner. Gardens are established however there is no significant vegetation on the land.

12. The land is located within an established residential area. It has a direct abuttal with one other property which is located to the north. A single storey weatherboard dwelling occupied by Ms Sutton and her family exists on the property to the north. Single storey dwellings exist further north and south along Drummond Street and to the west along Oddie Street. There is evidence of some newer double storey residential development in Fore Street and across the road in Drummond Street, however it would be fair to say that the area is predominantly characterised by single storey development from the Victorian and Edwardian eras.

13. Drummond Street is a relatively wide main thoroughfare extending from Ballarat's City Centre to residential areas to the north. Other streets to the west, including Oddie and Fore Streets, are much narrower typically taking on the form of local streets.

The proposal

14. The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the land and the construction of two new double storey dwellings. The applicant relies on the second amended plans which are date stamped as being received by the Responsible Authority on the 18 January 2002.

15. The site layout involves one dwelling (unit 2) fronting onto Drummond Street with the other dwelling located to its rear and oriented to have its frontage Oddie Street. The proposed dwelling density is 1 per 260 square metres with a building site coverage of 50 per cent.

16. The dwelling fronting Drummond Street provides for main living areas at ground floor level and three bedrooms, en-suite and bathroom at first floor level. The first floor level has been designed in an attic style largely contained within the main gable roof form. This dwelling has an overall living floor space of about 163 square metres. The dwelling has been designed to have Edwardian style features including gable roof ends, colour bond roof and mix of painted weatherboards and red brick. A double car garage is to be provided with access from Oddie Street.

17. The dwelling fronting Oddie Street also provides for main living areas at ground floor level and three bedrooms at first floor level. This dwelling has been designed to take on a more traditional and "grand" Victorian appearance given its two storey height, roof form and front verandah. Main external finishes include colour bond roof and render. It provides for living floor space of about 165 square metres. A double car width garage is provided towards the north-west corner of the land with access from Fore Street.

Planning scheme provisions

18. Pursuant to the Ballarat Planning Scheme, the land is located within the "Residential 1" zone, the provisions for which are found in Clause 32.01 of the ordinance. The purpose of the Residential 1 zone is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

In appropriate locations, to allow educational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs.

19. Under clause 32.01 "dwelling" is an as of right or "no permit required" use within the zone. However, a permit is required for the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot pursuant to clause 32.01-4. Proposals for the construction of more than one dwelling must be considered against, amongst other things, the decision guidelines at clause 65, the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). Although the provisions of clause 55 are now in force, the "Transitional Provisions for Residential Development" at clause 52.04 require the proposal to be considered against the provisions of the Planning Scheme as it existed before the 24 August 2001. As such, the proposal is to be considered against the provisions of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

20. The land is also affected by the Heritage Overlay [164], the provisions for which are found at clause 43.01. Under the provisions of this overlay, a permit is required to demolish a building and or to construct a new building and works. I understand that this heritage control is of an interim nature. Decision guidelines for proposals on land affected by this overlay require consideration to be given to, amongst other things, the planning scheme's policies, how the proposal will affect the significance of the heritage place and whether the bulk, form and appearance of the building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.

21. The land is also covered by the Design and Development Overlay (clause 43.02) with the provisions of schedule 7 being relevant. A permit is required to construct a building under this overlay. The provisions in schedule 7 apply to Urban Character Area 11 in the "Ballarat Urban Character Study". The design objectives for the area as set out in the schedule are as follows:

* To retain and enhance high quality Edwardian and inter-war residential urban character that is identified in the Ballarat Urban Character Study, 1999 as being of special significance to the City of Ballarat.

* To retain the existing rhythm and scale of development along the street frontage.

* To encourage new development that complements existing Edwardian and inter-war

development in form, scale, height, siting, materials and colour.

* To retain views of Nazareth House from Mill Street west of Drummond Street North.

* To retain a visual connection between the street space and private land.

* To encourage retention of the existing garden character featuring exotic canopy trees.

22. The SPPF sets out general policies for planning in Victoria, with those relating to settlement (clause 14), heritage (clause 15.11), medium density housing (clause 16.2) and design and built form (19.03) being most relevant to the consideration of this proposal. The general thrust of the housing and urban consolidation policies is to encourage the consolidation of existing urban areas including increased residential density, to provide for a wider variety of housing choice, the more effective and efficient use of physical and community infrastructure and to promote energy efficient design for new dwellings and subdivision. The policy at clause 16.2 also calls for development which is respectful of neighbourhood character. The policy for Heritage calls for conservation of places which are of heritage significance whilst the policy for Design and Built Form and at clause 19.03 states, inter alia, that:

Development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising impact on neighbouring properties.

23. With respect to heritage the policy at 19.03 goes on to state that:

New development should respect, but not simply copy, historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations.

24. The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), which sets out the "vision" for the municipality (clause 21-5-1) identifies the need to provide for, amongst other things, "a wide range and choice of attractive residential lifestyles and environments with environmental and economic constraints" as well as "to improve and protect the City's recreation, culture, heritage and natural assets..."

25. In addition to the MSS, the provisions of the local policies at clauses 22.02 (Residential) and 22.16 (Inner Ballarat Interim Heritage Precinct). I will refer to these as appropriate.

Consideration

26. After having considered the submissions presented by the parties, it seems to me that the key issue in this matter is whether the design, scale, height and bulk of the dwelling fronting Oddie Street is appropriate for this site having regard to heritage and neighbourhood character considerations.

27. In saying that this the key issue, it is relevant that I set out my views with respect to a number of other matters pertaining to the overall consideration of the proposal.

28. First, whilst it was submitted by Ms Harvey that the existing dwelling should be retained because of its value to the heritage character of the area, the evidence before me does not lead me to the view that the existing dwelling is of such value that its demolition cannot be contemplated. In particular I note that:

* The dwelling has a very low "F" heritage grading under the relevant local study (Andrew Ward 1997).

* In May 1999 the Heritage Adviser came to the view that the existing house has "minimal heritage value" and could be demolished given that it appears to have been built in the 1940's with recycled materials, its low grading under the above mentioned study and the nature of the streetscape. This view was also expressed by the Heritage Adviser in July 2001 in response to discussions about the current application.

* The Responsible Authority has not refused the permit application on the ground that it is inappropriate to demolish the existing dwelling.

29. In such circumstances, I am unable to find that the existing dwelling is of such value that it cannot be demolished.

30. Second, whilst the Responsible Authority's grounds of refusal express the view that the proposed density is excessive, I was not persuaded that there is no potential for this site to be developed for more than one dwelling. The site is not overly large with an area of 521 square metres. However, it has a number of attributes which, in my view, make it candidate site for some form of well designed medium density housing. These include the excellent street access; favourable east-west orientation; for reasons previously set out the existing dwelling can be demolished; there are no awkwardly positioned easements or significant vegetation to consider and all infrastructure services are available. Whilst the land is located within a heritage overlay area, this is not a factor that would preclude the land from redevelopment, rather, it is a factor to be taken into account in the preparation of an appropriate design response.

31. Third, it is relevant to consider that the planning scheme's policies, as set out in both the SPPF (clauses 14 and 16.2) and LPPF both call for the consolidation of the existing urban area and to provide additional housing opportunities. Indeed the redevelopment of land with appropriate attributes for some form of medium density housing would, in my view, be a direct response to the objective in the policy at clause 22.01 which is "to promote and facilitate urban consolidation within the older, established areas of Ballarat to maximise the use of existing resources and infrastructure."

32. Fourth, it was asserted by Ms Sutton that the proposed development would cause adverse amenity problems associated with extra traffic and carking demand. After considering the merits of the proposal, I cannot find that this would be the case. From a traffic and parking point of view, the proposal involves the development of one additional dwelling, bearing in mind that a dwelling generating both traffic and car parking already exists on the land. The existence of one additional dwelling will result in a modest increase in both traffic and carking. Indeed, I would think that the extra traffic will be difficult to perceive whilst there was no evidence to demonstrate that overflow parking cannot be accommodated within the surrounding streets. I also find that the car parking layout meets the requirements of Element 8 of the Good Design Guide.

33. Whilst on the issue of amenity impacts, it is also relevant that the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts due to shadows or impacts on daylight to windows. The proposal easily complies with the relevant parameters set out in the Guide. In addition, potential for direct overlooking is limited.

34. Fifth, it is worth noting that in addition to density, the Responsible Authority's only other concern in relation to the proposal's compliance with the Good Design Guide was with respect to the requirements of Element 3 - Neighbourhood Character. I have none the less considered the merits of the proposal against the other requirements and generally find that satisfactory compliance is achieved.

35. This leads me to the key issue in this matter, namely whether the proposed development has been designed appropriately having regard to both heritage and neighbourhood character considerations. In considering these issues, the decision guidelines at clause 43.01-5, the objectives of DDO7 and the provisions of both Elements 3 and 6 of the Good Design Guide, make it clear that an assessment needs to be made as to whether the design, scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings will have unreasonable impacts on the heritage significance of the area and neighbourhood character.

36. In relation to heritage, it is relevant that whilst the Drummond Street streetscape has been identified as being of heritage significance, there was nothing put before me to demonstrate the significance of the area to the west. On this point I note that under the Ballarat Urban Character Study, the subject land is located at the western edge of character area 11, whilst the area to the west which embraces the opposite side of Fore Street, is within character area 10. The citation for character area 11 acknowledges that it contains "a series of most high quality residential streets" and goes on to say that "streetscapes are predominantly highly consistent, being of high character, amenity and heritage value." In contrast, the citation for character area 10 states that "Residential buildings are typically detached and of mixed style, form, materials, setbacks and scale" and that "There are also recent buildings, including new, double storey, medium density townhouses and double storey, Neo-Georgian residential buildings".

37. When reviewing the comments given by the Council's heritage adviser, it seems to me that the primary basis upon which the proposal was assessed related to its impact on Drummond Street with no direct reference being made to the area beyond to the west. Indeed, the heritage adviser considered the proposed development as two separate components. On this point it is relevant to refer to the heritage adviser's comments with respect to the proposed dwelling fronting Drummond Street (Unit 2) which included that:

The new design of the unit proposed for the corner of Drummond and Oddie Streets and fronting Drummond Street is satisfactory in regards to height, bulk, roof pitch, and the use of double hung and casement windows and the reflection of the Federation style of many houses nearby.

38. With respect to the dwelling fronting Oddie Street the heritage adviser went on to say that:

The design of this townhouse does not fit into the dingle storey area as well as the design of the Drummond Street unit, because the walls are the full two storey height and therefore still appears as a two storey structure.....

39. The heritage adviser went on to recommend that the Drummond Street dwelling be moved closer to the south boundary (ie: closer to Oddie Street) to help obscure views of the rear dwelling. Ms Stupak asserted that whilst the Council's heritage adviser had expressed support with respect to the Drummond Street dwelling this support did not extend to the Oddie Street Unit.

40. I accept that the heritage adviser expressed some concern about the visibility of the Oddie Street dwelling. However, it is also relevant that the heritage adviser concluded by saying that "I am generally supportive of the development proposal as shown to me on the 14 January 2002."

41. It seems to me that in considering the impact on the heritage significance, the fundamental area of concern relates to the impact on Drummond Street. In this regard the proposed development has been designed to reduce the impression of height and bulk on the streetscape through the design of a dwelling (Unit 2) which although two storey, largely presents itself so that it has single storey proportions when viewed from the street. The upper level has been recessed into the roof space and located centrally within the site. I appreciate Ms Harvey's concern that the design response appears to borrow from traditional "Federation" forms, however, it seems to me that this approach is not at odds with the policy at clause 22.16. I find the design of the front dwelling to be acceptable from both a heritage and neighbourhood character viewpoint.

42. Whilst the heritage adviser suggested that the Drummond Street dwelling should be set closer to Oddie Street to essentially "mask" views of the rear dwelling, I do not agree that this is the correct approach. Rather, I would have thought that it would be more appropriate to set the upper level of the Oddie Street dwelling further back away from the street. The advantages of this approach are that it will still allow for some landscaping to the south of the Drummond Street dwelling whilst the single storey scale of development along Oddie Street would also be reinforced. This approach requires the size of the upper level of the Oddie Street dwelling to be reduced, however, I consider that this is consistent with the views of the previous Tribunal when it expressed the view that "partial" use of double storey development would be possible on this site.

43. This approach would still result in some double storey development being located towards Fore Street. However, given the mixed nature of the streetscape and that double storey development already forms part of its character, I would not regard the visual bulk presented by a more modest upper level than currently proposed as being out of place having regard to neighbourhood character considerations.

44. Essentially when consideration is given to both heritage and neighbourhood character, I am of the view that the upper level of the Oddie Street dwelling should be reduced in size and setback further away from Oddie Street. I consider that the size of the upper floor level should approximate the floor area and shape of the master bedroom, W.I.R., en suite and bedroom 2 (about 48 square metres) as shown on the plans. Furthermore this upper level should be designed so that it sits over the rear section of the ground floor, that is, largely over the kitchen/meals area.

45. Whilst this reduction will in all likelihood result in the loss of one bedroom at first floor level, the opportunity to provide a study/bedroom still exists at ground floor level if desired.

46. The changes that I have set out above can be easily implemented by way of permit conditions.

Conclusion

47. My conclusion is that a permit should issue, albeit subject to a condition which requires the size of the upper level of the rear dwelling to be reduced and setback further from Oddie Street.

48. I am satisfied that it is acceptable to allow the demolition of the existing dwelling given its limited value from a heritage point of view. The proposal, as modified, will be an acceptable infill development for this site having regard to heritage and neighbourhood character considerations. The proposal is consistent with policy and demonstrates satisfactory compliance with the Good Design Guide. It will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

49. Accordingly, the Responsible Authority's decision is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

S. R. CIMINO

MEMBER