1. The first respondent is to issue an amended permit in accordance with annexure A within 14 days.
2. Any application for costs, together with written submissions, be filed and served within 21 days. In the absence of any such application, each party bear their own costs.

Planning and environment - Planning appeal - Tasmanian Planning Scheme Launceston - Setback requirements - Proposed setback compatible with streetscape

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, ss 61, 62, 78; Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, Sch 2, Pt 8, cl 12.

Clarence City Council v Drury [2021] TASSC 5; G Palmese v Hobart City Council and J Connolly [2022] TASCAT 137; Pain v Clarence City Council [2021] TASRMPAT 28.

First Respondent: N Street - Simmons Wolfhagen Second Respondent: M Edwards - Page Seager

Amended pursuant to s119 of the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

1. The second respondent (the developer) wants to construct a second dwelling at 22 Stone Street, Launceston (the site). The first respondent (the council) granted the developer a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). The appellants appeal under s 61(5) against the grant of a permit on the basis that the proposal does not comply with the planning scheme's parking and setback requirements.
2. We conclude that the proposal complies with the planning scheme requirements. The correct and preferable decision is for a permit to be granted, albeit with varied conditions attached to it.

1. The site is on the corner of Stone and Frederick Streets in Launceston. The existing dwelling is constructed adjoining the Stone Street frontage and is accessed at the south-western corner off Frederick Street.
2. The proposal is for a split-level dwelling, with the upper level comprising a double garage and the living area accessed by an internal staircase. The proposal is to be approximately 23m long and 8.76m wide, with a maximum building height above natural ground level of 7.64m.

Planning scheme requirements and grounds of appeal

1. The applicable planning scheme is the Tasmanian Planning Scheme Launceston (the Scheme). The site is within the General Residential Zone. Three of the Scheme's performance criteria are in issue:
   • the number of car parking spaces in Code C2.5.1 P1;
   • the number of accesses for vehicles in Code C2.6.3 P1; and
   • the setback from the frontage in cl 8.4.2.
2. There are three grounds of appeal, each of which correlates to one of the three performance criteria in issue. The first two relate to parking (the number of parking spaces and the design of the driveway) and were the subject of expert engineering evidence filed by the appellants and the developer. The third relates to the setback of the proposal from the site frontage. It was the subject of expert planning evidence filed by each party.

1. The appellants did not press the first two grounds, relating to parking, at the hearing. The parties were agreed that the only matter in issue is whether the proposal satisfies cl 8.4.2 P1.
2. The parties agree that the parking requirements in C2.5.1 P1 and C2.6.3 P1 will be met if an amended condition is imposed on a permit of approval. The proposed amended condition is contained within Annexure A. The parties' agreement is supported by engineering reports which were in evidence. We accept that evidence and the parties' joint submission that the proposed amended condition satisfies C2.5.1 P1 and C2.6.3 P1.

1. The parties agree, and we accept, that the proposal does not meet the acceptable solution A1 in cl 8.4.2. The proposal must therefore be assessed against performance criterion P1, which reads:

(a) provides reasonably consistent separation between dwellings and their frontage within a street;

(b) provides consistency in the apparent scale, bulk, massing and proportion of dwellings;

(c) provides separation between dwellings on adjoining properties to allow reasonable opportunity for daylight and sunlight to enter habitable rooms and private open space; and

(d) provides reasonable access to sunlight for existing solar energy installations.

A dwelling must have a setback from a frontage that is compatible with the streetscape, having regard to any topographical constraints.

1. The Scheme defines several of these terms. Relevantly:
   • Frontage "means a boundary of a lot which abuts a road"; and
   • Setback "means the distance from any lot boundary to a building on the lot".
2. Streetscape is defined as:

[T]he visual quality of a street depicted by road by road width, street planting, characteristics and features, public utilities constructed within the road reserve, the setback of buildings and structures from the property boundaries, the quality, scale, bulk and design of buildings and structures fronting the road reserve. > > For the purposes of determining streetscape for a particular site, the above matters are relevant when viewed from either side of the same street within 100m of each side boundary of the site, unless for a local heritage precinct or local historic landscape precinct listed in the relevant Local Provisions Schedule, > > where the extent of the streetscape may be determined by the relevant precinct provisions.

3. The site is not within a local heritage precinct or local historic landscape precinct.
4. In G Palmese v Hobart City Council and J Connolly [2022] TASCAT 137, the Tribunal said at [19]:

Setback is a quantitative element determined by the measurement of distance from the building to the lot boundary. Compatibility of the setback with the streetscape is a broad aspirational concept involving an evaluative judgment.

5. Compatibility is "aspirational and conceptual", requiring "an overall assessment of how two things relate to each other". It is "concerned with the ultimate result" and needs "a qualitative comparison and assessment": Clarence City Council v Drury [2021] TASSC 5 at [22].
6. We accept the council's submission that the test is whether the distance of the proposal to the boundary is in broad correspondence or harmony with the streetscape. This requires us to quantify the distance and qualitatively assess the compatibility. This is consistent with the appellants' characterisation of the test (see particularly the appellants' written submissions at [8] and [13]).

1. Having regard to the parties' joint position and our conclusion regarding parking, it is unnecessary to further consider the engineering evidence.
2. Three town planners gave evidence: George Walker (for the developer), Rachael Huby (for the council), and Kate Heckelmann (for the appellants). Each made a primary statement of evidence and a response statement of evidence (and, in Mr Walker's case, a supplementary response statement of evidence) and was cross-examined.
3. The parties provided a statement of agreed facts (exhibit C1) and, helpfully, a joint statement of evidence made by the three town planners (exhibit C2).
4. Much was agreed between the three witnesses. Based primarily on matters agreed between them, we find that:
   • The proposal's setback from the Frederick Street frontage is less than the acceptable solution of 3 metres. More particularly, the proposed setback is generally between 2 metres and 2.18 metres. Adopting the lower figure, the setback is 2 metres.
   • The proposal is split level rather than two-storey but appears from certain viewing points (particularly the Stone Street end of Frederick Street) as a two-storey dwelling on account of the proposal's height.
   • The Frederick Street frontage is a non-primary frontage
   • The streetscape comprises 100 metres to the northeast on Frederick Street and is truncated by the termination of Frederick Street to the southwest where it meets Reserve Street.
   • The proposed setback from Frederick Street is within the numerical or quantitative range of existing buildings on lots in the Frederick Street streetscape.
5. Although each witness' evidence was broadly similar, there were some differences in their approaches to defining and quantifying the streetscape and in assessing the compatibility of the setback with that streetscape.
6. Overall, we found Mr Walker's evidence to be the most thorough and convincing. His primary statement of evidence was detailed and took a step-by-step approach to the Scheme's requirements. His analysis included data on the existing buildings' setbacks (particularly the tables, photographs, and building footprint diagrams in figures 25 and 26, some of which we have set out below), as well as a qualitative analysis of the streetscape's visual quality. We accept his conclusions at paragraph 6.3.7 of his primary statement of evidence.
7. It is necessary to briefly explain why we prefer Mr Walker's evidence to that of Ms Huby or Ms Heckelmann. We consider Ms Huby to have been incorrect in identifying the dwellings on Reserve Street. Moreover, we found Mr Walker's evidence to be clearer and more thorough in identifying his reasoning.
8. We consider Ms Heckelmann to have placed too much emphasis on the design characteristics and qualities of the proposal and the streetscape. We consider that P1 is directed to the setback, not design characteristics more generally.
9. Accordingly, we find that the streetscape extends to the lower end of Frederick Street. It follows that the streetscape of the lower end of Frederick Street is relevant in informing compatibility for the purposes of P1. However, that is not the end of the matter.
10. Mr Walker considered that there was a physical continuation of the Frederick Street streetscape below Stone Street, but not a visual continuation owing to the pedestrian walkway.
11. Ms Huby considered the upper end of Frederick Street to be the "most important" in assessing the streetscape, with the middle and lower sections having "somewhat different characteristics". We accept that evidence.
12. In contrast, we consider Ms Heckelmann not to have adequately considered the entire length of the streetscape. Under cross-examination, Ms Heckelmann agreed there to be some shared characteristics between the proposal and other frontages within the streetscape. She maintained that although the "broad characteristics ... have some similarities", some elements of the proposal detracted from a broad compatibility.
13. Based primarily on Mr Walker's evidence, we find that:
    • Frederick Street is bisected by Stone Street, with the site being on the upper side. There is a "clear connectivity" between lower and upper sections.
    • 11 Reserve Street does not have frontage to Frederick Street.
    • It is appropriate to consider setbacks on both sides of Frederick Street.
    • To the extent that the proposal has the appearance of 'stepping out', that is primarily due to the configuration of the lot (the road reservation being adhered to 22 Stone Street to alter the lot boundary) rather than the setback itself.
    • 11A Reserve Street similarly steps into the road reservation. It also has the potential for a future dwelling, owing to the cadastre.
    • While the proposal's design is relatively modern, design itself is not the focus of P1. Instead, the standard is focused on the scale, height, and design in the context of the graduation of other buildings in the streetscape.
    • The streetscape comprises three distinct zones, each of which has different visual features and topographies. There are 11 buildings which are relevant in assessing the streetscape:
    • 77 Frederick Street - 0 metres;
    • 13 Reserve Street - 0.5 metres;
    • 28 Bourke Street - 1.25 metres;
    • 85 Frederick Street - 1.93 metres;
    • 24 Stone Street - 1.99 metres;
    • 22 Stone Street - 2 metres;
    • 114 Frederick Street - 2.5 metres;
    • 59 Bourke Street - 3.295 metres;
    • 11A Reserve Street - 8.03 metres;
    • 83 Frederick Street - 8.84 metres; and
    • 120 Frederick Street - 17.8 metres.
    • While topography is a distinctive feature on the site and in the surrounding area, we cannot find that it is a constraint to the proposal's siting.

1. P1's focus is on compatibility. Broadly put, the enquiry is whether the distance of the proposal to the boundary is in broad correspondence or harmony with the streetscape. The enquiry is not focused on the proposal's visual compatibility more generally. Rather, the focus must be on the distance to the boundary and the compatibility of that.
2. Put differently, the focus is on the setback's compatibility with the streetscape, not the built form's compatibility with the streetscape. However, compatibility cannot be reduced to a purely quantitative assessment: Pain v Clarence City Council [2021] TASRMPAT 28.
3. We accept the developer's submission that the test imposed by P1 is relatively narrow. It does not invite a broad analysis of visual compatibility. Rather, it is focused on setback. That is the flaw in the appellants' case and, with respect, Ms Heckelmann's evidence.
4. It is necessary to first identity what is the relevant streetscape. The appellants contend that the streetscape does not extend beyond Stone Street and Frederick Street because the Stone Street car park interrupts the streetscape. We reject that contention. It is based on an overly literal interpretation of the definition of streetscape. It is inconsistent with cl 8.4.2's objective. (See also our findings above.) We accept the developer's submission.
5. The appellants contend that the streetscape has a sense of openness because there is a substantial setback from the property boundaries. We accept that there is some openness, although that is not dispositive of the issue.
6. We accept the appellants' contention that it is important "to have regard to not only what the existing setbacks are of the other buildings in the street, but where in the street those setbacks occur". However, it is a matter of degree. We do not accept the appellants' contention that the southern aside of the street - which features relatively close setbacks - are so visually disconnected as to be of little relevance in assessing compatibility.
7. Put differently, we reject the appellants' contention that the proposed setback "breaks [the] pattern of development on the northern side of Frederick Street, with the result being that it is not compatible with the streetscape".
8. Rather, we consider there to be significant visual diversity in the streetscape. These features include the width of the road, street planting, various public utilities, dwelling styles and characteristics, and those dwellings' setbacks. This visual diversity affords a significant degree of latitude in assessing compliance with P1 in the sense of the ambit of compatibility.
9. Overall, we are persuaded largely by Mr Walker's evidence, but also by the evidence of Ms Huby, about compatibility. While the 2-metre setback is relatively low for the upper section of the streetscape, it is not incompatible when considering the streetscape as a whole, even when affording more weight to the upper section in which the site is located.

1. We consider the proposal's setback to be compatible with the streetscape.
2. The proposal complies with P1. The correct and preferable decision is for a permit to be granted, albeit subject to amended conditions to reflect the parties' agreement about parking.

1. The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (TASCAT Act), s 78(1)(b) allows us to vary the council's decision to grant a permit. We will vary that decision by substituting the conditions at Annexure A for the conditions imposed by the council.

1. The presumption is that each party is to bear their own costs: TASCAT Act, Sch 2, Pt 8, cl 12(1). We will afford the parties and opportunity to make any application for costs.

1. We make the following orders:
   1. Vary the first respondent's decision to grant a permit by substituting the conditions at Annexure A for the conditions and restrictions attached to permit number DA0245/2024.
   2. The first respondent is to issue an amended permit in accordance with annexure A within 14 days.
   3. Any application for costs, together with written submissions, be filed and served within 21 days. In the absence of any such application, each party bear their own costs.

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 22 Stone Street, West Launceston

DEVELOPMENT/USE: Residential - Construction of an additional dwelling and an additional crossoverZONE: General Residential

The use and development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed plans and documents to the satisfaction of the Council unless modified by a condition of the Permit:

1. Cover Page, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 1/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
2. Site Survey Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 2/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
3. Site Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 3/15, Dated 13/5/2024. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED
4. Strata Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 4/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
5. Landscape Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 5/15, Dated 13/5/2024. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED
6. Parking and Turning Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 6/15, Dated 13/5/2024. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED
7. Upper Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 7/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
8. Lower Floor Plan, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 8/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
9. External Services, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 9/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
10. Elevations NW/SE, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 10/15, Dated 13/5/2024. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED
11. Elevations NE/SW, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 11/15, Dated 13/5/2024. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED
12. Building Envelope Diagrams, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 12/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
13. Building Envelope Diagrams, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 13/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
14. Shadow Diagrams, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 14/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
15. Perspectives, Prepared by Design to Live, Project name: Proposed Multiple Dwellings 22 Stone Street, West Launceston, Project Job Number: STNS22, Revision No. R3, Page No 12/15, Dated 13/5/2024.
16. Planning Report - Multiple Dwellings (2) 22 Stone Steet, West Launceston, Prepared by 6ty, Project Number: 24.135, dated 12 June 2024.

Prior to the commencement of any work, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager City Development to replace plans annotated as "Amended Plans Required" and attached to the Permit. Once approved, these amended plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The amended plans must show:

1. the surface finish and gradient of the nominated private open space (POS) for Unit 2; and
2. remove the guest parking from the Parking and Turning Plan

Amended plans should include identification information such as updated revision numbers, revision date and revision description. The changes are to be highlighted in red clouds or a format agreed with the planning officer.

1. AMENDED PLANS REQUIRED - VEHICLULAR CROSSING AND DOMESTIC DRIVEWAY

Prior to the commencement of any work, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager City Development to replace plans annotated as "Amended Plans Required" and attached to the Permit.

1. The gradients, grade transitions and crossfalls for the full length of the access and driveway between the centreline of the street and a point not less than 5 metres inside the garage (the location of the vehicle wheels furthest from the garage opening).
2. That the ground clearance requirements for a B85 vehicle as specified in Appendix C of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 are met.

The Amended Plans must be accompanied by statement from a suitably qualified and experienced person that the design of the driveway satisfies the requirements of AS2890.1 in relation to domestic driveways or, where compliance with the standard cannot be achieved, the proposed design is safe.

Amended plans should include identification information such as updated revision numbers, revision date and revision description. The changes are to be highlighted in red clouds or a format agreed with the planning officer.

Once approved, these amended plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit.

All development and use associated with the proposal must be confined to the legal title of the subject land except construction of access from the street.

Exterior and security lighting must be designed, baffled and located so that no direct light is emitted outside the property boundaries.

The development must comply with the requirements of TasWater as detailed in the form Submission to Planning Authority Notice, Reference No. TWDA 2024/00724-LCC, dated 26/06/2024 and attached to the permit.

1. HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION
   1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Manager Health and Compliance construction activities must only be carried out between the hours of:
      1. Monday to Friday - 7 am to 6 pm; and
      2. Saturday - 8 am to 6 pm.
   2. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, construction activities must not be carried out on public holidays that are observed state-wide (Easter Tuesday excepted).

The existing fence within 4.5m of the frontage must maintain a uniform transparency of at least 30% (excluding any posts or uprights) and not exceed a height of 1.8m.

A 1.7m high privacy screen must be erected along the north-western elevation of the deck area of Unit 2 to ensure reasonable privacy for the adjoining existing dwelling on the site.

Before the use commences, areas set aside for parking vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must:

1. be properly constructed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
2. be surfaced with an impervious all weather seal;
3. be adequately drained to prevent stormwater being discharged to neighbouring property;
4. be line-marked or otherwise delineated to indicate each car space and access lanes.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained for the life of the development.

1. ON-SITE DETENTION (TASWATER ADVICE TO DRAINAGE AUTHORITY)

Where required as a result of Advice to the Drainage Authority provided on a TasWater Submission to Planning Authority Notice (SPAN), issued for the development, On-site detention storage must be provided to limit the peak rate of piped stormwater discharge and overland flows, from the site to that generated by the site at its current level of development for a 1 in 5 storm event of 1 hour duration. The volume of the detention structure must be the difference between the above discharge (pre-development) and the discharge from the site post development.

Prior to the commencement of works, the plans and calculations must be submitted to the General Manager, Infrastructure & Assets Network for approval. On completion, an "as constructed" plan complete with levels, must be submitted, complete with a certification that the storage and adjacent floor levels have been constructed in accordance with the approved design.

The developer is liable for all costs associated with the repair of damage to Council infrastructure resulting from non-compliance with the conditions of the Planning Permit and any by-law or legislation relevant to the development activity on the site. Damage may also include the undertaking of unauthorised works to Council infrastructure such as driveways, footpaths and stormwater infrastructure. The developer will also be liable for all reasonable costs associated with the enforcement of compliance with the conditions, by-laws and legislation relevant to the development activity on the site.

1. WORKS WITHIN/OCCUPATION OF THE ROAD RESERVE

All works in (or requiring the occupation of) the road reserve must be carried out in accordance with a detailed Traffic Management Plan prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS1742. A copy of such plan is to be maintained on site and available for inspection upon request by an Authorised Officer.

The explicit permission of General Manager - Infrastructure & Assets Network is required prior to undertaking works where the works:

1. require a road or lane closure;
2. require occupation of the road reserve for more than one week at a particular location;
3. are in nominated high traffic locations; or
4. involve opening or breaking trafficable surfaces.

Where the work is associated with the installation, removal or modification of a driveway or a stormwater connection, the approval of a permit for such works shall form the explicit approval.

All proposed new pipelines must be connected to the existing internal drainage network for the property. It is not permitted to have multiple connections to Council's stormwater mains.

An application must be made using the Council's eServices web portal, or on the approved form, and accompanied by the prescribed fee to install a new connection, or physically remove/relocate or alter an existing service connection.

All work must be carried out by a suitably experienced contractor and in accordance with Council standards. All costs associated with these contractors are to be borne by the applicant.

1. VEHICULAR CROSSINGS (& ASSOCIATED FOOTPATH WORKS)

No works to install, remove or modify a vehicular crossing, are to be undertaken without the issue of a Vehicular Crossing Permit for the works. Modification of a vehicular crossing includes any widening of the kerb layback or the driveway apron, in any form whatsoever.

An application for such work must be lodged electronically via the Council eServices web portal or on the approved hard copy form.

All new works must be constructed to Council standards and include all necessary alterations to other services including lowering/raising pit levels, upgrading non trafficable trenches to a trafficable standard and/or relocation of services. Permission to alter such services must be obtained from the relevant authority (eg TasWater, Telstra and TasNetworks, etc.). Where applicable, any redundant crossovers and driveways must be removed once the new driveway and/or crossover works have been completed and use has commenced.

The construction of the new crossover and driveway and removal of the unused crossover and driveway will be at the applicant's expense. Where the driveway crossing works result in changes to existing parking restrictions (bay markings, linemarking and/or signage) these works must be undertaken by Council under an approved Traffic Facilities Plan with the cost of these works to be invoiced to the applicant/developer for payment.

Prior to the commencement of the development works the applicant must install all necessary silt fences and cut-off drains to prevent the soil, gravel and other debris from escaping the site. Additional works may be required on complex sites. No material or debris is to be transported onto the road reserve (including the nature strip, footpath and road pavement). Any material that is deposited on the road reserve as a result of the development activity is to be removed by the applicant. The silt fencing, cut off drains and other works to minimise erosion are to be maintained on the site until such time as the site has revegetated sufficiently to mitigate erosion and sediment transport.

Prior to the placement of any skip bin, security fencing, hoarding, shipping containers, site offices or amenities within a local highway, the person, corporation or other legal entity must seek and have issued a permit pursuant to the Facilities and Highways By-Law (No. 1 of 2021). The payment of the scheduled Occupation Fee (comprising a minimum base fee and a square metre weekly rate) is required prior to the occupation commencing. No occupation of the road reserve is permitted without approval.

1. STRATA LOT NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES FOR DWELLINGS

The following number and addressing is to be assigned to the development consistent with the residential addressing standard: Australian Standard AS4819:

The above addresses are to be adhered to when identifying the dwellings and their associated letterboxes.

An "as constructed" plan must be provided in accordance with Council's standard requirements for as constructed drawings. A separate copy of the requirements is available from the Infrastructure & Assets Network.

The construction of the development permitted by this permit must not adversely affect the amenity of the site and the locality by reason of the processes carried on; the transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; the presence of vermin, or otherwise.

No burning of any waste materials, including removed vegetation, generated by the development to be undertaken on-site. Any such waste materials are to be removed to a licensed waste disposal facility (e.g. Launceston Waste Centre), reclaimed or recycled.

1. BUILDING ACT 2016 REQUIREMENTS

Prior to acting on this permit, it is recommended that an architect, a licensed building practitioner such as a building surveyor or a building designer be consulted to determine the requirements for any associated building, plumbing or demolition work under the Building Act 2016.

This permit was issued based on the proposal documents submitted for DA0245/2024. You should contact Council with any other use or developments, as they may require the separate approval of Council. Council's planning staff can be contacted on 03 6323 3000.

1. Any appeal to the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Appeal Tribunal (TASCAT) is withdrawn or determined; or

1. Any agreement that is required by this permit pursuant to Part V of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is executed; or

1. Any other required approvals under this or any other Act are granted.

The permit lapses after a period of two (2) years if the development or use has not substantially commenced within that period. An extension may be granted subject to the provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 as amended, by request to Council.

The granting of this permit takes no account of any covenants applicable to the land. The permit holder and any other interested party, should make their own enquiries as to whether the proposed development is affected, restricted or prohibited by any such covenant.

If the proposal is non-compliant with any restrictive covenants, those restrictive covenants should be removed from the title prior to construction commencing or the owner will carry the liability of potential legal action in the future.