VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1734/2020
Permit Application no. GE/SP-33718/2020	
CATCHWORDS	
Neighbourhood Residential Zone – double storey extension to attached dwelling – ResCode – neighbourhood character –  amenity – potential owners corporation consent – claim of futility	

ApplicantS	Esther Lewis and Raymond Neil Lewis	

Responsible Authority	Glen Eira City Council	
Respondent	Megowan Architectural	
SUBJECT LAND	45 Fitzgibbon Crescent
CAULFIELD NORTH    3161	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	19 July 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	11 October 2021	
CITATION	Lewis v Glen Eira CC [2021] VCAT 1172 	

Order

1	The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. 
2	A planning permit is granted and directed to be issued in accordance with the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority on 24 September 2020.  The permit allows: 
An extension to a dwelling on a lot less than 300 square metres in accordance with the endorsed plans. 

Dalia Cook
Member			

appearances
For applicants	Mr G Ryan, Solicitor	
For responsible authority	Mr W Horsfall, Town Planner 	
For respondent	Ms R O’Neill, Town Planner 	
Information
Description of proposal	Double storey extension to an existing dwelling 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit	
Planning scheme	Glen Eira Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 1)
No overlay controls apply	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-5 (extension to a single dwelling)	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21, 22.08 (Minimal Change Area Policy) and 54 (ResCode) of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in addition to the matters in Clause 65	
Land description	The subject land has an approximate area of 277 square metres.  
It contains an attached Interwar dwelling which shares a roofline and common party wall with No. 47 Fitzgibbon Crescent.  
Both dwellings are currently single storey. 	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the subject land and surrounds on 20 July 2021.  I subsequently inspected the outlook from 47 Fitzgibbon Crescent on 31 September 2021 (delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions). Both inspections were on an unaccompanied basis. 	

Reasons
Introduction
1	The Petries own the subject land.  They propose to extend their existing single storey dwelling to provide improved family living. They instructed their architect to apply for a planning permit on their behalf (permit applicant). 
2	Glen Eira City Council (Council) assessed the proposal by reference to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (planning scheme) and had regard to objections.  It determined to support the grant of a permit subject to conditions.
3	Mrs Lewis and her son Mr Lewis (objectors) sought review of this decision.  Mrs Lewis lives in the attached property to the east. She was concerned that the extension would be inconsistent with the character of the host dwelling and the immediate neighbourhood.  
4	She also submitted the extension would result in unacceptable impacts to her amenity, including visual amenity from her rear garden, overshadowing and perceived overlooking.  
5	The objectors also alleged that consent for the buildings and works (potentially for external alterations and for any works deeper than one metre below ground) was required from the owners corporation for this land.  Since Mrs Lewis is the second lot owner and did not intend to consent, the objectors submitted the grant of a planning permit either violated related legislation or would be futile.  
6	The permit applicant considered the proposal to retain and extend the existing dwelling was a positive response to Minimal Change Area policies in the planning scheme.  It submitted the proposal was well designed to minimise impacts on the streetscape and neighbouring amenity, emphasising the extent of compliance with the provisions of ResCode in Clause 54 of the planning scheme.
7	It further submitted that consent was unlikely to be required from the owners corporation but that, in any event, this was not a precondition to the grant of a planning permit.    
8	Key issues relevant to my determination of this application are:
•	Is the proposal consistent with relevant planning policy?
•	Would the buildings and works result in an acceptable built form outcome?
•	Would the impacts on neighbouring land be acceptable?  
•	Should owners corporation arrangements preclude the grant of a planning permit? 
Is the proposal consistent with relevant planning policy?
9	The purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes, as relevant:
•	to implement planning policy at state and local level; 
•	to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development; and 
•	to ensure development respects identified neighbourhood character and landscape characteristics. 
10	The parties outlined key state and local policies relevant to this permit application, most notably pertaining to housing.  The subject land is included in a Minimal Change Area in Council’s local planning policies.  
11	The subject land is included in Character Area 3 under this policy, relating to St Kilda East - Caulfield North (south of Balaclava), with a character type identified as “Interwar garden suburban with modern overbuilding (infill development)”.  
12	Ms O’Neill on behalf of the permit applicant submitted that the proposal would align with policies seeking to reuse and adapt existing housing stock in areas designated for minimal change.  She sought to demonstrate the design and siting of the proposal could comfortably be absorbed in its neighbourhood setting and that there were numerous examples of double storey additions in this street and surrounds.
13	Council agreed that the proposal responded well to state policies seeking to increase housing diversity and choice.  It identified support in local policies since the application proposes a confined low scale, double storey residential extension in an area with varied housing stock. 
14	It also considered the subject land is well located to public transport and a range of services, infrastructure and community facilities. 
15	The objectors submitted that the proposal was a poor response to policies seeking increased housing diversity since it would remove a two bedroom house from the housing pool and replace it with a larger family home, being a type of development that is already represented well in the immediate area.  
16	They also sought to demonstrate that the proposal would not respond suitably to local policy at Clause 22.08 for Minimal Change Areas since there were few examples of contemporary extensions in the immediate area, with even fewer within one of two attached dwellings.  
Tribunal findings 
17	I find that the proposal has a high level of consistency with state and local policies relating to housing.  The proposal is for a relatively modest renovation of an existing dwelling, with a confined upper level addition.  
18	I accept that a single proposal such as this cannot of itself be expected to make a meaningful contribution to housing diversity.   In my opinion, this policy is better applied and understood for the housing opportunities it seeks to create over a broader area. 
19	That said, the proposal would provide a different housing product compared with both newer family homes in this area and more traditional housing stock.  It would be more akin to townhouse living and provides an attached dwelling format. 
20	I accept Council’s analysis that the proposal further meets policy objectives to promote a diversity of dwelling layouts and sizes by “modifying an existing layout to create improved vertical living spaces while maintaining a modest building coverage”. 
21	I also find that the proposal responds appropriately to the policy in Clause 22.08, to the extent that extensions to existing dwellings are encouraged so long as they protect neighbourhood character.  This is consistent with objectives for the Minimal Change Area, which inherently makes provision for reuse and refurbishment of existing housing stock. 
22	This policy expressly notes the existing mixed character of this area, with a range of different dwelling forms and types.  It also recognises the emergence of contemporary architecture, including more box-like, flat roofed additions with a range of materials.  
23	The proposal exhibits a high level of compliance with aspirations for this particular character area by retaining the existing dwelling but extending to its side and rear and with a relatively confined second storey extension.  
24	Another important consideration is that the proposal maintains the existing, well established garden setting of this property.  The additions are set back substantially from the street frontage with no alterations to the front building setback.  This is consistent with policy to protect the low density, vegetated character of the area.
Would the buildings and works result in an acceptable built form response?
25	Council evaluated the proposal against the standards and objectives of ResCode.  It considered the proposal largely complied with all standards and met all objectives.  
26	Policy in Clause 22.08 seeks to ensure that: 
•	the siting and design of new residential development takes account of its interface with existing residential development on adjoining sites; and 
•	the design of new residential development is sensitive to and respectful of the scale of existing residential development on adjoining sites.
27	The objectors considered that the upper level extension in particular would result in a “lop-sided response” to the building which currently presents akin to a single dwelling.  
28	In particular, they submitted that the objective of Clause 54.04-2 (Walls on Boundaries) and Standard A11 of ResCode would not be met since the upper level addition would be constructed along the common (eastern) boundary. 
29	The objective seeks:
To ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.
30	The Standard seeks to limit the height of walls on boundaries to an average of 3.2 metres and maximum 3.6 metres (unless abutting a higher wall).  The application proposes a 10.135 metre long upper level wall along the common boundary with No. 47 to a height of 6.6 metres, which would not comply with Standard A11. 
31	I do not take issue with the ground level extension at ground floor.  The extension to the living room wall on the eastern boundary to the boundary is marginal and the remainder of the new works would align with the existing built form.   Although the western wall on the boundary (at a height of 3.565 metres) exceeds the 3.2 metre average height requirement, I consider this is consistent with the objective noting this wall is only 5.38 metres long.  I also observed that the adjacent dwelling to the west has a projection close to the boundary of similar scale, albeit much closer to the street frontage. 
32	To the extent that Standard A11 would not be met for the upper level (presenting double storey built form to the boundary), Council submitted that “the extent of wall on the boundary in this case is set well back from the street and does not form a visually dominant element of the design”. It considered the extent and height of the proposed walls appropriate having regard to the narrow width of the lot.
33	This was reinforced by Ms O’Neill on behalf of the permit applicant who submitted that the relevant decision guidelines of the objective would be met.  These call for consideration of: 
•	policy and character objectives in the planning scheme;
•	the extent to which walls on boundaries are part of the existing neighbourhood character;
•	the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings; 
•	the orientation of the boundary; and 
•	the width of the lot. 
34	I accept that the proposal would not meet Standard A11.  However, I further accept submissions for the permit applicant and Council that the proposal overall would result in an acceptable outcome that meets the relevant objective - to respect character and limit impacts on amenity - since: 
•	Respect for character does not necessarily equate to replication of built form or siting.  It can also include compatible built form that is not visually dominant.  Although it is uncommon for double storey built form to be constructed to the boundary in this character area, the application proposes construction of the extension to the common boundary above existing roof level.  From the public domain, this side boundary is not readily apparent and instead, will read as being midway along an existing roofline above the building.  This will have a fundamentally different character impact to the same structure being built on a conventional side boundary.
•	The existing evergreen street tree (Melaleuca) will in part filter views of the structure at upper level from numerous streetscape vantage points. 
•	The lot is narrow and the extension will still appear as a relatively slimline addition to the dwelling. 
•	Significantly, the extensions would be suitably set back from the street (15.25 metres at upper level) so as not to appear overly visually dominant.  
•	The first floor extension is confined in height to just over 7 metres (although the chimney would extend up to 400mm above this to comply with building regulations).  The extension would sit only marginally above the existing main roof ridge of the attached dwellings.  A portion of the extension would appear behind the original roofline of the dwelling on the subject land. 
•	The height of the extension has been designed to align with the parapet of the adjacent property to the west.   I find that the extension provides a suitable transition to this property in terms of height, modulation and form.  
•	There are no windows proposed on the common boundary.  
•	The extension is well removed from sensitive areas on the adjacent property. Because Mrs Lewis’ dwelling is single storey there are no windows with a direct outlook to the extension. The extension will be a confined element of her visual experience of her back garden viewed from oblique vantage points (discussed below). 
•	The overshadowing impacts of the extension are acceptable (outlined below). 
35	I further find that the addition is entirely compatible with the scale and proportions of existing single and double storey dwellings in this immediate locale.  This includes readily discernible contemporary alterations and additions, most relevantly at 37A Bambra Road (corner Fitzgibbon Crescent) and 18 Fitzgibbon Crescent.  
36	In terms of upper level setbacks, the rear of the extension would generally align with the upper level built form of the dwelling to the west. It would also be very substantially set back from the rear property boundary. 
37	The objectors contested the suggestion that the design and external materials of the additions would present acceptably to the street and neighbouring land.  
38	I disagree. While the design is streamlined and contemporary and does not seek to replicate the styling of the host dwelling, I consider there is scope for such additions in this particular character area given the genuine mix of eras, designs and materials as referenced in Clause 22.08.  This combines with the appropriate use of simple external forms and materials including timber battens.
39	It is true the extension would result in part of the attached building as a whole appearing as single storey, and part would appear as double storey.  However, I do not regard this as fatal in circumstances where the host building is not subject to a Heritage Overlay, is already asymmetrical in design and there are already examples of purpose-built extensions in this immediate streetscape setting.  
40	Following subdivision, there is inherent potential for attached dwellings to be redeveloped in different ways.  
Would the impacts on neighbouring land be acceptable?  
41	I accept submissions from Council and the permit applicant that there is a high level of compliance with relevant provisions of ResCode, especially those seeking to protect neighbouring amenity.  They are one measurable way of assessing whether the impacts of an extension are acceptable.
42	Notwithstanding, the objectors were concerned about either actual or perceived overlooking into their rear garden.  
43	The proposal would present one upper level (bedroom) window to the rear of the site.  The plans indicate full height battens across this window, with a maximum 25% transparency to comply with the requirements of ResCode. 
44	It is well accepted that the relevant ResCode objective seeks to limit overlooking to a reasonable extent, rather than to prevent it altogether.  This is particularly relevant in closely settled residential areas such as this.  
45	I find that the proposed siting and screening measures in combination are adequate to prevent unreasonable overlooking of Mrs Lewis’ private open space to meet the ResCode objective. 
46	Other parts of the dwelling would be suitably treated to prevent unreasonable overlooking of the residential property to the west.    
47	The objectors were also concerned about the potential for the upper level extension to overshadow translucent tiles they had installed in the roof to provide additional light into a ‘middle (dining) room’ of their dwelling.   
48	They also explained that they propose to install solar panels on the roof subject to owners corporation consent and that the proposal would compromise their potential effectiveness, contrary to policy.  They provided overshadowing diagrams to support this contention. 
49	I accept that the Tribunal needs to be cautious when approving proposals that may affect existing solar panels – this has been confirmed by recent changes to the planning scheme including Amendment VC149.  Ms O’Neill referred to Planning Practice Note 88 which seeks to protect existing residential rooftop solar energy facilities. 
50	However, as at the date of this hearing, the panels referred to by the objectors have not been approved, purchased or installed and are therefore not protected by current planning scheme provisions.  
51	I am also not persuaded that the relevant time period to evaluate the impact on solar panels is as demonstrated in the shadow diagrams tendered by the objectors.  In any case, at the equinox (the ResCode measure) there are some areas of the objectors’ roof that could still be used to generate solar power at an appropriate scale for a compact single dwelling without undue overshadowing.  
52	I am unable to accept that the compact, transparent tiles installed on the objectors roof are either effective to bring light into this room, or would be unduly compromised by the proposal.  In any event, they are not features of the dwelling specifically protected by ResCode amenity provisions, such as those pertaining to north facing windows. 
53	The proposal also would comfortably meet other ResCode standards indicating there is no unreasonable, overshadowing, loss of daylight or the like to relevant windows or private open spaces. For example, at 3pm at the equinox, the development would partly overshadow Mrs Lewis’ rear yard but a reasonable portion of useable area would remain free from shadow at that time, comfortably meeting Standard A14. 
54	The objectors were also concerned about the potential for the construction of a staircase adjacent to the common wall to generate unacceptable noise emissions within their property.   
55	The starting point for my consideration is that the land is zoned for residential purposes and will be used for a conventional dwelling.  This use of land is as-of-right and does not require planning permission.  That said, the conventional law of nuisance would most likely apply. 
56	There is nothing particular to this application that would warrant this Tribunal imposing acoustic testing or attenuation measures when assessing this planning permit application.  This is especially the case where the upper level simply provides two conventional bedrooms and a bathroom. 
57	Appropriate construction detail and materials would otherwise ordinarily be considered at the building permit stage, with particular specifications applying to common walls.  
What is the relevance of Owners Corporation arrangements to the grant of this planning permit? 
58	The subject land and its attached dwelling comprise two lots within an owners corporation.  The title defines common property as being ‘that part of the land above 10 metres or below one metre relative to natural ground level’.   
Preliminary Hearing determination
59	Member Whitney delivered a decision with reasons following a Preliminary Hearing in this proceeding.  She confirmed that the encumbrances contained in section 12(2) of the Subdivision Act 1988 and the Model Rules that apply to this owners corporation do not constitute a registered restrictive covenant for the purpose of section 61(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 
60	She found that the grant of a planning permit would not be precluded on this basis. 
Subsequent submissions
61	In their grounds of review, the objectors further alleged that: 
•	the proposed planning permit would authorise works in breach of sections 128 and 129 of the Owners Corporation Act 2006 (OC Act) and would be unlawful; 
•	further or alternatively, the permit application requires the consent of the owners corporation which has not been obtained; and
•	the planning permit would allow the development to proceed without resolving a relevant dispute under the OC Act and Model Rules.  
62	It does not appear these issues were finally determined in the Tribunal’s earlier decision in this proceeding. On this basis, I accepted submissions from the objectors and have considered the further written submissions from other parties in reply. 
63	I accept submissions from the parties that there is relevant case law indicating that owners corporation arrangements, including consent or lack thereof, may be relevant when evaluating a planning permit application.   
64	In the seminal case of Port Phillip CC v Hickey, Smith J held: 
I have great difficulty understanding how the owner's refusal to give consent and the owner's views can be said to be irrelevant to a planning permit application. It is implicit in the legislation that the position of the owner and his or her views may be relevant. In addition, to take an extreme case, if the owner of the property refuses to give consent, it would be highly relevant for the authority and, subsequently the Tribunal, to know whether there was any realistic prospect of such consent being given. If not, it could be highly relevant to the authority and the Tribunal in deciding whether to reject the application as futile. It should be borne in mind that while a permit may be given a lengthy duration, in the absence of express provision, the permit lasts for two years. An application in those circumstances may well be futile. Councils and VCAT ought to be able to deal summarily with futile applications.
Relationship between planning permission and owners corporation entitlements
65	I have turned my mind to the objectors’ submission that the proposed planning permit would authorise works in breach of sections 128 and 129 of the Owners Corporation Act 2006 (OC Act) and would be unlawful.  
66	Those sections provide:
128. Compliance with laws 
A lot owner must comply with this Act, the regulations under this Act and the rules of the owners corporation. 
129. Care of lots 
A lot owner must— 
(a) properly maintain in a state of good and serviceable repair any part of the lot that affects the outward appearance of the lot or the use or enjoyment of other lots or the common property; and 
(b) maintain any service that serves that lot exclusively.
67	Even after considering submissions from the objectors, it is not clear to me how the grant of a planning permit for development would necessarily lead to the lot owner (the Petries) being unable to meet their obligations under section 128 of the OC Act.  
68	Likewise, I am not satisfied that there is any live issue as to their ability to maintain the property in good repair or to maintain relevant services under section 129. 
69	Perhaps more significantly, Elwick9 v Freeman is a recent Supreme Court decision that confirms that a planning permit will confer a valuable right which, in some instances, will displace obligations under the owners corporation Model Rules. 
70	On authority of this decision, the grant of this planning permit may obviate the need for consents under owners corporation law.  
71	Fundamentally, the objectors have failed to make good their fundamental claim as a matter of law that the consent of the owners corporation is required before a planning permit can lawfully be granted for this development.
72	While there is an explicit provision in the PE Act preventing the imposition of conditions on a planning permit that would be inconsistent with the Building Act 1993 or associated regulations, no such provision exists in respect of this area of law and there are alternative dispute mechanisms provided.  
73	I accept that owners corporation legislation law including the Model Rules may continue to require certain permission/s to be obtained before works approved under this planning permit may lawfully be carried out.  For example, it is possible that consent may be required for the external alteration of the building or for works on common property (if required). This may also depend in part on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Elwick9 v Freeman.  
74	However, even if such consent was required, such consent could still be sought from the other lot owner. 
75	Mr Horsfall explained in Council’s right of reply: 
Council submits that the refusal to grant consent is a matter of discretion and there is a possibility that these views might change over time. The refusal to consent is not immutable…
The applicant will have a three year period to start the development. This relatively long lead time provides a further possibility of a change in position over time. 
76	Mr Townsend of Counsel expressed similar sentiments in submissions in reply on behalf of the permit applicants and emphasised the availability of review mechanisms available if such consent was in fact withheld. 
77	I agree with these observations. 
78	This would not be materially different to the situation where multiple permissions may need to be obtained by the holder of a planning permit, such as building consents, road related consents, local laws permissions and the like, before works could lawfully commence on the land.  
79	In Richards v Hobsons Bay CC the Tribunal observed: 
Accordingly, it seems to me, that it is still open to obtain a planning permit even though other permissions, licences or arrangements would need to be made in relation to other obstructions to the project. Obtaining a planning permit does not excuse the need to obtain such other permissions or the removal of other obstructions required to allow the proposal to proceed legally. It would necessary [sic] to remove all legal impediments. It is just that you do not have to do them in any particular order, save for s 61(4) PE Act.
That applies whether the other permission, licence or approval is something that must be obtained from a public authority or whether it takes the form of adjusting a private right, like the right to an easement.
It is not the function of this Tribunal to enforce private real property rights or to make declarations in relation to them, at least not unless such a question has to be determined in the course of making a decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Other than that, such rights must be asserted and defended in the courts...
80	I agree with the permit applicants that it is open to a permit applicant to decide in which order to obtain relevant permissions for this development. 
81	I consider this also extends to obtaining relevant property consents, noting that a valid planning permit application does not necessarily require the consent of the owner of the land itself, so long as they are notified.  
82	In short, while potential consent may be required from the owners corporation as a prerequisite for the practical implementation of the works approved under a planning permit, it is not a prerequisite for the grant of a planning permit for the works in this instance. 
83	For completeness, I record that there is no known related proceeding in any other forum that would preclude me from hearing and determining this application for review.
Potential futility absent owners corporation consent
84	In more extreme cases, it may be possible for the Tribunal to conclude that the grant of a permit is likely to be futile if consent of the owners corporation is required and cannot realistically be obtained.  
85	Council explained in its right of reply: 
[It] recognises the concept of futility is a relevant consideration that a decision maker needs to consider, when deciding if approval of an application is so remote it may be dismissed. 
86	This requires consideration of all the facts of the case at hand, including the planning merits.  The bar for such a finding is very high.  
87	Mr Ryan emphasised that Mrs Lewis, as the second and only other lot holder, had not and would not consent to any works permitting the extension.   
88	The permit applicant submitted that this was insufficient to meet the high  bar for futility on the facts before me. Council agreed.  
89	A key distinguishing factor in this application compared with the scenarios raised in most cases referred to in this proceeding by Mr Ryan on behalf of the objectors is that it is far from clear that the proposal will involve works on common property per se. 
90	In many of the seminal cases where consent was refused by the owners corporation, either a whole or substantial portion of the works were proposed on common property controlled by a relevant owners corporation.  
91	Mr Pong (an engineer and registered building surveyor) gave evidence before Member Whitney in the Preliminary Hearing. He was briefed by the objectors to prepare a structural report on the condition of No. 47 Fitzgibbon and to consider the potential implications of the extension at No. 45 Fitzgibbon on that dwelling. 
92	At the hearing Mr Pong explained that, in his opinion, it would not be uncommon for footings between 450mm and 2 metres deep for an extension such as this using stump foundations.  However, he was not able to conclusively confirm that footings of 1 or more metres deep would be required in this instance. 
93	By contrast, in this application, the works proposed to be approved by the planning permit are either wholly or substantially within the private title to the subject land.  
94	The objectors have failed to satisfy me that works are required on common property as an integral part of the permission currently sought. There may be myriad design and construction techniques that could be applied to avoid works on common property from this proposal.  
95	Principally for this reason, I find that the current fact situation is closer to that considered by the Tribunal in Ryan v Frankston (referred to by Council in its reply submission), when the Tribunal concluded: 
Merely because at the present time the Body Corporate has not consented and one of the three members of the Body Corporate have indicated they object does not lead to the conclusion that the application should be rejected on the grounds of it being futile without a consideration of the merits of the proposal…
96	In the current circumstances as a whole, I find that the grant of a planning permit is far from futile. 
97	In addition, balancing all relevant matters, concerns about a lack of consent from the owners corporation do not outweigh other considerations supporting the grant of the planning permit.  
Other matters 
98	I acknowledge that the extension would need to be designed to preserve the private rights of Mrs Lewis as an adjacent property owner.  This responsibility arises under building law and potentially under owners corporation entitlements.  
99	I have considered the evidence of Mr Pong tendered by the objectors and have read the transcript of his oral evidence before Member Whitney at the Preliminary Hearing. 
100	Mr Pong was concerned about potential noise/vibration, support and waterproofing issues that may arise for Mrs Lewis’ property in connection with the potential redevelopment of the subject land.  However, in answering Member Whitney’s questions, he acknowledged that, in his experience, these are matters that could be dealt with via ordinary processes following the grant of a planning permit.   
101	I agree. 
Conclusion
102	For the reasons above, I consider that the proposal is a suitable response to state and local planning policy, including policy for Minimal Change Areas. 
103	I consider the siting, design and materials of the extension would respond suitably to neighbourhood character.  
104	Likewise, the proposal would not cause unreasonable detriment to the amenity of any property, including the objectors’.  
105	I find there are no obstacles to the grant of a planning permit for the development sought arising from owners corporation issues.  However, further consents may be required before the planning permit could be acted on. 
106	Overall, I support the grant of a permit subject to the conditions provided by Council and accepted by the permit applicant.   

Dalia Cook
Member