VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P659/2022
Permit Application no.BANYULE P1404/2021 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Review the refusal to grant a permit; Banyule Planning Scheme; Residential Growth Zone–Schedule 6; Design and Development Overlay–Schedule 14; Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework; Construct five two-storey dwellings; Density; Scale; Underdevelopment; Lot consolidation.	

Applicant	CKRA Developments Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Banyule City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	140 Altona Street
HEIDELBERG WEST VIC 3081	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	4 November 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	20 April 2023	

CITATION	CKRA Developments Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2023] VCAT 430	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	RBD - Residential Building Design	
•	Drawings:	TP02–TP06	
•	Revision:	C VCAT Issue	
•	Dated:	July 2022	
and
•	Prepared by:	Justin Hutchison Landscape Design	
•	Drawing:	Landscape Concept Plan	
•	Revision:	Revision B	
•	Dated:	26 August 2022	

No permit granted
2	In application P659/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
3	In planning permit application BANYULE P1404/2021 no permit is granted.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Chris Mackenzie, planning advocate,
Planning Appeals Pty Ltd	
For responsible authority	Andrew Crack, town planner, 
Andrew Crack & Associates	

Information
Description of proposal	Construct five, two-storey dwellings.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Banyule Planning Scheme (the Scheme).	
Zone and overlays	Residential Growth Zone–Schedule 6 (RGZ6); Vegetation Protection Overlay–Schedule 5 (VPO-5); Design and Development Overlay–Schedule 14 (DDO14); Development Contributions Plan Overlay–Schedule 1 (DCPO-1).	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.07: To construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the RGZ6.
Clause 43.02: To construct a building and construct and carry out works in the DDO14.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02, 11, 12, 15, 16, 32.07, 43.02, 45.06, 52.06, 55, 65 & 71.	
Land description	The subject land is on the northern side of Altona Street, in a group of four properties between Oriel Road (to the west) and Morotai Parade (to the east).
The land is rectangular, with an area of 669 square metres.  It has a width of 18.3 metres along its Altona Street frontage, and a depth of 36.6 metres.  A 1.8 metre wide easement extends adjacent to the northern (rear) and eastern (side) boundaries.  The land is generally flat.  A one-detached house occupies the land.
The surrounding area is residential.  Older (original) houses are typically single detached houses.  Many lots have been developed with multi-dwelling developments, typically one or two-storey townhouses.  The adjoining properties to the west and north are each occupied with a one-storey detached house.  The adjoining property to the east is occupied by four two-storey townhouses.	
	The Bell Street Mall (shopping centre) is approximately 300 metres to the south of the subject land.
Figure 1 shows the subject land and surrounding context.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied inspection of the subject land and surrounding area was undertaken after the hearing.	
Figure 1:  Subject land & surrounding context

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This application relates to the land at 140 Altona Street, Heidelberg West (the subject land).  CKRA Developments Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought a permit to construct five, two-storey dwellings on the subject land.
2	The Banyule City Council (the Council), as the responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), gave notice of the application and received no objections to the proposal.  However, the Council refused to grant a permit for the proposal on grounds relating to, in summary:
•	the proposal not achieving site consolidation and restricting the potential to achieve higher density residential development on abutting sites, resulting in the under-development of land;
•	the proposal not contributing to a diversity of housing types, including increased building heights in a prominent location that is within the Principal Public Transport Network and proximate to the Bell Street Mall;
•	the proposal not according with the preferred rear setback under the DDO14 schedule, further restricting and hindering the development potential of the northern abutting site; and
•	inadequate space for canopy tree planting and landscaping.
3	The applicant sought this review of the Council’s decision.  Its grounds for review basically counter the Council’s grounds for refusal.
4	Prior to the hearing the applicant gave notice of an application to amend the permit application to substitute amended plans for the permit application plans.  The amendments to the plans can be described as refinements to the design details of the proposal, rather than substantive changes to the siting or design of the proposed dwellings.  There being no objection from the Council, I have substituted the amended plans for the permit application plans.  It is on these amended plans that this decision is based.
5	The amended proposal (the proposal) retains the proposal for five, two-storey dwellings with a single vehicle crossover along the eastern side of the land.  Units 1-3 and unit 5 are arranged in an attached form along the western side of the land.  Unit 4 is attached to the eastern side of unit 5, across the rear portion of the land.  Units 1-3 comprise a ‘reverse living’ layout, with the living areas (as well as one bedroom and bathroom) and balconies providing private open space at first floor level.  Units 4 and 5 are a conventional layout, with the living areas and courtyard private open spaces at ground floor level.  Each of the dwellings comprises two-bedrooms and one car parking space.
6	The layout of the site and dwellings is shown at Figure 2.
Figure 2: Site & ground floor layout

7	The applicant’s submissions include that:
The proposal seeks to balance the policy support for intensification with the interface context, to manage impacts to existing GRZ1 townhouse developments on adjoining lots and to preserve development capacity for the adjoining undeveloped RGZ / DDO14 sites in accordance with siting expectations under those policies.
8	As a result of the amended plans the Council no longer relies on its third ground for refusal relating to failure to the proposal not according with the preferred rear setback under the DDO14 schedule.  However, it says that in providing an increased rear setback it is concerned that the internal amenity of unit 4 has been compromised.  Despite the Council acknowledging minor improvements in the amended plans, it continues to oppose the proposal.
9	The parties have referred me to several Victorian and Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisions in support of their submissions.  Although I do not refer the details of those decisions in my reasons, I have had regard to the principles of the findings in those decisions as relevant to the facts and circumstances of this proceeding.
10	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  In doing so I must consider whether the proposal will produce ‘acceptable outcomes’, in relation to the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme.
What are the key issues to be decided?
11	Based on the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme and the submissions of the parties, I consider the key issues to be determined relate to:
•	the degree of housing change provided by the proposal;
•	underdevelopment;
•	the impact on the development potential of adjoining properties in the RGZ6; and
•	the landscaping outcome.
12	Having considered the submissions, statements of grounds, and relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme, and having viewed the subject land and surrounding area, I have decided to affirm the Council’s decision and direct that no permit be granted.  My reasons follow.
Procedural issues
13	After the hearing, Amendment C162bany to the Scheme was gazetted.  The amendment replaced the Municipal Strategic Statement at clause 21 and Local Planning Policies at clause 22 of the Scheme with the Municipal Planning Strategy (the MPS), and local policies within the Planning Policy Framework (the PPF).
14	By an interim Order, the Tribunal set out a process for the Council and applicant to provide submissions addressing the implications of this amendment for this proceeding.  The Council provided a written submission addressing the implications of the amendment.  The Council advised that the amendment was ‘policy neutral’.  The applicant confirmed it agreed with the Council’s submissions in relation to the amendment being policy neutral, including that:
•	the re-arrangement of policy content relating to the ‘Postcode 3081’ Area from clauses 21.04, 21.06, and 21.08 is appropriately policy neutral; and 
•	the RGZ6 and DDO14 continue to apply to the subject land and have not been changed by the amendment.
15	I have regard to these submissions in reaching my decision.  This decision is based on the MPS and PPF as amended by Amendment C162bany.
What is the planning context relevant to the key issues?
Zone
16	The subject land is in a lineal strip of RGZ6 land that extends along either side of Oriel Road.  The adjoining land to the west and rear are within this strip of RGZ6 land.  The adjoining land to the east is within the General Residential Zone–Schedule 1 (the GRZ1).  (See Figure 3)
Figure 3: Zoning map

17	The purpose of the RGZ6 zone includes, as relevant to the key issues:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.
To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres.
To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas.
To ensure residential development achieves design objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.
18	Under the provisions of the RGZ6, the development must meet the requirements of clause 55.
19	The RGZ6 schedule applies to the ‘Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework Main Roads’ area.  The design objectives of the RGZ6 schedule are:
•	To encourage higher density development along Main Roads to enhance legibility within Postcode 3081.
•	To encourage site consolidation enabling preferred scale and dwelling form outcomes that improve housing diversity.
20	The RGZ6 schedule specifies a maximum building height for a dwelling (or residential building) of 21.5 metres or six storeys.  However, it does not vary the requirements of any of the specified standards at clause 55 of the Scheme, even though there is the capacity to do so.
21	Oriel Road is a Transport Zone 3 ‘Significant municipal road’.  The subject land is also within the Principal Public Transport Network area.  Four bus routes run along Oriel Road.
Overlay
22	The DDO14 schedule also applies to the strip of land along either side of Oriel Road, including the subject land.  This overlay also relates to the ‘Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework Main Roads’ area.
23	The design objectives for the DDO14 area are:
•	To encourage the development of a new built form identity along Main Roads through increased heights with upper levels that visually recede.
•	To encourage site consolidation and discourage the under-development of land.
•	To ensure the scale and form of development achieves the preferred character for the area and manages the potential adverse amenity impacts on adjoining residential and parklands properties through an appropriate built form transition. 
•	To ensure new development provides a positive contribution to the existing landscape character and enhances the amenity of any adjoining public open spaces.
•	To ensure buildings are of a high quality design and construction that include the use of appropriate materials and colours of muted tones that blend in with the surrounding environment.
24	The DDO14 schedule includes ‘Buildings and works’ provisions.  Among other things these include requirements relating to landscaping and preferred minimum building setbacks.
25	Although the VPO-5 also applies to the subject land, the proposal does not require a planning permit under this overlay.
Planning Policy Framework
26	The PPF includes a range of policy objectives and strategies that encourage the intensification of housing in established areas close to jobs and services, and increasing housing supply and diversity.  These include, clauses 16.01-1S Housing supply, 16.01-1R Housing supply – Metropolitan Melbourne, and 16.01-2S Housing affordability.  The Housing supply – Metropolitan Melbourne policy at clause 16.01-1R seeks to ‘Manage the supply of new housing to meet population growth and create a sustainable city by developing housing and mixed use development opportunities in locations’ including, among others, areas designated as National Employment and Innovation Clusters.  The subject land is within the Latrobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster.  
27	The PPF also includes a range of policy objectives and strategies that seek to ensure that development responds to an area’s context and character.  These include, for example, clauses 15.01-1S Urban design, 15.01-2S Building design and 15.01-5S Neighbourhood character.
28	The local strategic directions for housing supply in the MPS at clause 02.03-5 include:
•	Direct housing growth to locations in or close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, and to strategic redevelopment sites, to satisfy housing demand.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
29	Under the Strategic framework plan at clause 02.04, the subject land is within a ‘Diversity Area’.  Diversity Areas are the highest category of housing change under the ‘Residential Areas Framework’.  
30	The vision for Diversity Areas at clause 02.03-5 includes that:
Diversity areas will provide for shop-top and apartment living in higher density mixed use and residential developments.  These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for higher density housing. ... these areas include higher density and some medium density housing opportunities.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
31	The vision for the Postcode 3081 UDF Diversity Areas is:
Postcode 3081 is renewing. Properties along main roads, along the creekside area at interfaces with parks, and close to the Bell Street Mall Neighbourhood Activity Centre and Olympic Village, are well located to support increased density on consolidated lots.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
32	The Postcode 3081 UDF ‘… forms part of the Latrobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster, where housing renewal and improved diversity is needed to support expanded job opportunities and employment growth’.  Council’s strategic direction for the Postcode 3081 UDF area is to:
•	Facilitate the urban renewal of the area by encouraging innovative and affordable medium and high density housing, including cohousing, that results in a socially cohesive community and attractive, treed streetscapes.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
33	The objective of the local ‘Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework’ policy at clause 15.01-5L-02 seeks:
To guide the future identity of the Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework area while providing for housing change and urban renewal.  
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
34	The supporting strategies seek to, among other things:
•	Avoid development that would entrench buildings and/or uses that are inconsistent with the preferred built form or vision for the urban renewal area.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
35	The subject land is in an ‘Area 2 – Main Roads’ urban renewal area under the Postcode 3081 UDF plan.  This urban renewal area applies along much of the length of Oriel Road between Tobruk Avenue (to the south) and Dougharty Road (to the north), as well as other main roads within the broader surrounding area (see Figure 4).
Figure 4:  Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework Plan 

36	The areas of RGZ6 zoned land (see Figure 3) reflects the Area 2 – Main Roads urban renewal areas.
37	The strategies specific to Areas 1–4 at clause 15.01-5L-02 are:
•	Maintain backyard character by providing a tree zone at the rear of lots to enable the retention of existing trees and allow for additional tree planting.
•	Provide a landscaped front setback to protect existing trees and root protection zones. 
•	Provide side setbacks and breaks between buildings to allow for landscaping and to improve residential amenity.
38	The Postcode 3081 UDF document is a policy document to be considered, as relevant, under this clause 15.01-5L-02.
39	In having regard to the PPF, the principles for integrated decision making at clause 71.02-3 require that I must endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. 
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
40	At a general level, the proposal will contribute to increased housing supply, consistent with the various policies of the Scheme that seek to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas to make better use of existing infrastructure.  It is obvious that the provision of five dwellings on land that currently accommodates only one dwelling is a modest increase in housing supply.  With all five of the proposed dwellings containing two bedrooms, and three of the dwellings being a reverse living format with balconies, the proposal responds to the demand for smaller dwellings and housing diversity expressed in the MPS, the PPF and the RGZ6.
41	However, as outlined above, the RGZ6, DDO14, the MPS and the local planning policies that apply to the subject land articulate an expectation for higher density housing and a new built form of up to six storeys in height along this main road location.  Both the RGZ6 and DDO14 also encourage site consolidation to achieve the preferred scale and dwelling form outcomes.
42	The Council submits that ‘opportunities for appropriately scaled development by consolidating small lots is not only encouraged by the DDO14 provisions, but also absolutely necessary’.  The Council relies on the various VCAT cases regarding the concept of ‘underdevelopment’.  The Council says that ‘the underdevelopment of land in National Employment and Innovation Clusters and Urban Renewal Areas is also to be avoided given they are identified as areas for housing growth’.
43	The Council submits:
…the weight of policy, together with the zoning of the land and provisions of DDO14 cannot be any clearer in the current matter. … Opportunities that the review site and adjoining land within the same DDO14 area present are relatively rare, and the longer-term planning vision should not be lost in pursuit of shorter-term gains.
44	The Council argues that:
The construction of five, two storey townhouses on the review site would clearly constitute an underdevelopment inconsistent with the preferred neighbourhood character and would set the tone for other development to follow in the important main road locations, and the Postcode 3081 area more broadly.  Put simply, it would be a clear planning failure, the implications being felt for many decades.
45	The applicant acknowledges that the RGZ6 and DDO14 encourage site consolidation to facilitate design outcomes towards the higher end of the policy settings along Oriel Road.  However, it argues that this is a policy preference, not a mandatory development requirement or prohibition on single lot developments.  The applicant submits that there are many reasons why single lots may be developed and many ways this may be done quite properly and still make a suitable contribution to the overall policy vision.
46	The applicant has referred me to other sites in the surrounding RGZ6 and DDO14 area along Oriel Road.  These include sites that are already developed with reasonably new townhouse developments, and others that are single sites adjacent to developments that make consolidation unlikely.  The applicant says:
•	There will never be a neat complete delivery of a new 6-storey boulevard.  All of these development configurations and practical considerations mean there will inevitably be some single lot redevelopments as part of the housing intensification policy delivery along this corridor.  There will inevitably be a mix of scales and development configurations.
47	The applicant has also referred me to several groups of properties that it says present good consolidation opportunities.  It says there are still many opportunities to realise the capacity provided by the policy in this immediate location regardless of the specific outcome for the subject land.  It argues that this proposal is not an inherent or significant threat to the broader policy vision to consolidate and intensify along Oriel Road.  The applicant submits that the proposal is a reasonable and appropriate response to the policy settings and the surrounding context to propose redevelopment of this individual lot.
48	I acknowledge that not every development site may be developed in a way that maximises the development potential provided for under the planning provisions and policies.  This was recognised by the Council during the process to implement the Postcode 3081 UDF through the Scheme amendment C120bany, which applied the RGZ6 and the DDO14.  The Planning Panel Report for that amendment includes discussion about the evidence of the Council’s urban design expert that three properties may need to be consolidated to achieve six levels and comply with the side setback requirements.  The strategic direction for the Postcode 3081 UDF area also anticipate these areas will include some medium density housing in addition to high density housing.  I agree with the applicant that there will inevitably be a mix of scales and development configurations.  The particular circumstances of each site will influence its development potential and the design response.  Despite this, I am not satisfied that this proposal is consistent with the degree of housing change sought in this location.
49	The proposal will provide a net increase of only four dwellings on the land in a two-storey townhouse building form.  The provisions and policies that apply to the subject land’s main road location anticipate a change to higher density and more intensive built form outcomes.  The proposal is similar in density and scale to other townhouse developments in the surrounding are that pre-date the introduction of the RGZ6 and DDO14, and those within the GRZ1 hinterland to the east and west of the Oriel Road ‘Area 2 - Main Roads’ area.  The planning and policy context demands a greater density and scale of development.
50	I place considerable weight on the expectations for a greater density, scale, and form of housing in the RGZ6/DDO14 and Postcode 3081 in the circumstances of the subject land’s proximity to the Bell Street Mall Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
51	I am not persuaded that the existence of other two-storey townhouse developments in the RGZ6/DDO14 area along Oriel Road justifies approving this proposal.  Many of these existing developments occurred before the Postcode 3081 UDF was implemented with the application of the RGZ6 and DDO14 to the Main Roads areas.  These include the four two-storey townhouses on the land on the south-eastern corner of Oriel Road and Altona Street, opposite the subject land, and four two-storey townhouses at 202 Oriel Road.  While the development of four two-storey townhouses at 198 Oriel Road was approved after Amendment C120bany implemented the Postcode 3081 UDF, it was only two months after this amendment occurred.  This may explain why that development was approved by the Council.  The development of five townhouses occurring at 2 Derna Street, on the north-western corner of Oriel Road and Derna Street 100 metres to the south of the subject land, is on a site that comprised a single development site.  The adjoining properties to the north and west were already developed with townhouses.
52	The capacity of the subject land to accommodate the potential degree of change provided for by the RGZ6 and DDO14 is reduced by it being a single, unconsolidated site.  The RGZ6 and the DDO14 both encourage the consolidation of sites to enable the preferred scale and built form outcomes that improve housing diversity and discourage underdevelopment.
53	I acknowledge the applicant’s submissions that it has had discussions with the adjoining neighbour at 142 Altona Street and that neighbour is unlikely or unwilling to undertake a redevelopment.  This may be the case.  I accept that it is not always possible or feasible to achieve consolidation of two or more properties.  The issue of consolidation of privately owned properties is recognised in the Postcode 3081 UDF document.  However, the subject land is in a prime position for consolidation with one or both of its adjoining properties.  I cannot overlook the real potential the subject land provides to be consolidated with adjoining properties to achieve development outcomes consistent with these planning provisions and policies.
54	The subject land presents an obvious opportunity for site consolidation with the property to the west at 142 Altona Street.  It also presents an opportunity for site consolidation with the property at 190 Oriel Road, either in combination with 142 Altona Street, or on its own.  I do note, however, that the easement that extends across the northern portion of the subject land adjoining the boundary with 190 Oriel Road may be a constraint for development.  Consolidation of all three of these properties would provide a substantial development site, consistent with the size of site identified by the Council’s urban design expert in relation to Amendment C120bany.  Together, or in pairs, these properties provide realistic opportunities to achieve development outcomes consistent with the scale and density anticipated by the RGZ6, DDO14 and the Postcode 3081 UDF.
55	While development of the subject land as a single site would not preclude consolidation of the adjoining properties or their development as single development sites, I am concerned it may impact the potential for consolidation to occur and/or the scale of density and development that may be achievable.  Development of the subject land as a single development site will create a similar scenario to that of the three properties at the north-western corner of Oriel Road and Derna Street.  The older two townhouses on the land at 4 Derna Street, one property in from the corner of Oriel Road (like the subject land), preceded the development of the land at 175 Oriel Road to the north and the corner property at 2 Derna Street.  This left these two properties forming an L-shaped configuration, which is not typical of consolidated development sites.  Those two properties have subsequently been developed with two townhouses and five townhouses, respectively.
56	Although the vision for Diversity Areas and the strategic directions for the Postcode 3081 UDF at clause 02.03-5 anticipates some medium density housing in this area, this does not persuade me that the proposal is acceptable.  Given the planning and policy context, medium density housing developments could be acceptable in particular circumstances.  For example, on isolated development sites such as those at 200 Oriel Road and 2 Derna Road.
57	Even if it may not be possible to accommodate an apartment building or six-storey development on the subject land as a single development site, this does not persuade me that a development of five two-storey townhouses is an acceptable response to the planning provisions and policies.  On sites such as the subject land, which are not isolated and present opportunities for site consolidation or development at a scale more reflective of that sought by the RGZ6, DDO14 and the Postcode 3081 UDF, I consider a medium density development of five two-storey townhouses to be an underdevelopment.
58	I accept that the subject land’s interface to the GRZ1 zoned land to the east, which has recently been developed with four two-storey townhouses, calls for some degree of transition from the higher scale and density expected in the RGZ6 / DDO14.  However, I am not persuaded this justifies a development of the limited scale and density proposed.  Rather than providing a transition, the proposal has adopted the scale and density of development more typical of developments in the GRZ1.
59	I find that the proposal is an underdevelopment of land that not only has the strategic context but also the potential to provide a greater number of dwellings in a building of a greater scale than is currently proposed, either as a single site or as part of a larger, consolidated development site.  The incremental development of medium density housing on sites that have the potential for higher densities or consolidation with adjoining properties runs the risk of entrenching buildings that are inconsistent with the preferred built form and vision for these urban renewal areas.  Incremental underdevelopment of land identified for housing change and urban renewal is inconsistent with orderly planning.
60	If the subject land is to be developed as a single, unconsolidated site, it requires a more innovative design response to provide an acceptable response to the degree of change sought by the planning provisions and policies.  I acknowledge that it may also require the Council to adopt a more considered approach to how it applies the provisions of the DDO14 schedule, such as the preferred minimum setback requirements.  For example, I note that it may not be necessary to provide a 6 metre rear setback along the subject land’s northern boundary, which adjoins the side boundary of 142 Oriel Road which is similarly in the RGZ6 and DDO14, to achieve the design objectives sought.  It seems to me that the more important interface for the built form transition is to the adjoining GRZ1 land to the east.
61	For the reasons I have outlined, I find that the density and scale of the proposal does not provide an acceptable response to the degree of housing change sought by the RGZ6, DDO14, the Postcode 3081 UDF, and the MPS and local policies.
62	Even if I were to find that the landscaping outcome provides an acceptable response to the planning provisions and policies, and the proposal will provide an acceptable amenity for unit 4, I would not consider the proposal provides a net community benefit.
63	As such, I find that the application should be refused.
Conclusion
64	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Sarah McDonald
Member