Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2007

Subordinate

Legislation: The Territory Plan 2008

Case Law: Downer Community Association and ACT Planning and Land Authority & Anor [2007] ACTAAT 20

Walkington & Ors and ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 81

BDH Projects v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors (Administrative Review)[2010] ACAT 37

Hutchens and Anor v City of Holdfast Bay (2007) SASC 238

Edgar& Department of Environment, Land and Planning [1993] ACTAAT 59

1. The decision under review is varied by approving Development Application No 200916161 in accordance with the plans constituting exhibit 3 in ACAT proceedings AT10/75,76,77,78 and 80 and subject to the conditions in Attachment A of the decision being amended as follows:

(a) Conditions A1(a) and (b) are deleted.

(b) New Conditions A1 (a) (i)-(iv) are added as follows:

(i) Revised site plan, landscape plan and architectural drawings based on the drawings constituting exhibit 3 in ACAT proceedings AT10/75,76,77,77 and 80, showing modifications to the development to-

• Remove the steps and construct a ramp on the continuous pathway between units 9 and 10; and
• Cause, by construction of retaining walls, the private open space for units 1 and 2 to be level ground.

(ii) A revised exterior lighting plan showing requirements for compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.

(iii) A pre and post adaptable dwellings plan showing requirements for compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.

(iv) A noise management plan approved by the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.

1. The applicants have sought review of a decision made pursuant to Section 193 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 ("the Act") by the ACT Planning and Land Authority ("the respondent") on 6 August 2010, in reconsideration of its decision on Development Application ("DA") No 200916161. The applicants were all objectors to the proposal when it was advertised for public comment on 5 January 2010. The DA was initially refused on 7 May 2010.

2. The development proposal is for demolition of the existing buildings on Blocks 1, 3, 4 and 5 Section 267 Wanniassa ("the subject land") and the construction of 16 residential dwellings. The four blocks are to be consolidated and a new lease issued. The 16 units are contained in 6 separate buildings. Units 1 and 2 are in one building having frontage to McWhae Circuit whereas Units 7-16 are contained in 3 separate buildings which are parallel to the Sternberg Crescent boundary. Units 3, 4, 5 and 6 are internal to the site in two separate buildings. Units 5 and 6 are single storey and the remaining 14 are two storeys in height. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from the north in McWhae Circuit with a one way traffic flow exiting to the west, also into McWhae Circuit near its intersection with Sternberg Crescent.

3. The subject land is within the Residential RZ2 Zone in the Territory Plan and the proposal must be assessed against the provisions of the Residential Zones Multi Unit Housing Development Code ("the Code"), and in particular the RZ2 Zone Specific Controls. Section 50 of the Act prohibits the Tribunal from approving any development proposal that is inconsistent with the Territory Plan.

4. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 29 and 30 November 2010 and 1 and 2 December 2010. The Tribunal visited the subject land with the parties and their counsel on 29 November 2010. It was intended that the applicants be represented by Mr B.Clarke who had prepared initial documentation on their behalf, but he was unable to attend the hearings due to illness. One of the applicants, Mr A. Masters, took primary responsibility for presenting the applicants' case during the proceedings. The respondent was represented by Mr G McCarthy of Counsel. The party joined, Mr Hugh Gordon, was the architect who had applied for development approval on behalf of the lessees of the four blocks and was represented by Mr P.Walker of Counsel.

5. The Applicants did not call any witnesses. The respondent relied on two witnesses for evidence. Ms R.Jamaly has a Bachelors Degree in Architecture and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning. She is employed by the ACT Planning and Land Authority as Technical Co-ordinator - Merit Assessment (South) and has almost 10 years experience in development assessment with the respondent. Mr P. Isaks is a Transport Specialist in the Transport Planning Branch of the Transport and Infrastructure Division of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services. He has a Bachelors Degree in Applied Science and has 21 years experience in the ACT as a transport specialist including assessment of transport related aspects of development applications. The party joined relied on the evidence of two witnesses. Mr H. Gordon, the designer of the development, is a registered architect certified to practice in the ACT. Mr Cohen is a town planner of some 30 years experience and has a Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning and a Diploma of Technology (Public Administration). He is a director of Campbell Dion Pty Ltd, town planners and landscape architects.

6. The applicants based their application for review of the decision on a number of separate grounds which are addressed below under relevant headings.

7. The review by this Tribunal relates to the respondents reconsideration decision of 6 August 2010. It is not a review of the initial decision on the development application. In response to the applicants claims of inadequacies in the process followed by the respondent, Mr McCarthy referred the Tribunal to Downer Community Association and ACT Planning and Land Authority & Anor [2007] ACTAAT 20 in which the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") stated:

On the hearing of an application for review of decision the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision maker. It is not necessarily the Tribunal's concern to determine whether the respondent was right or wrong or whether it followed correct procedures or whether those procedures were flawed or deficient. Its principal function is to determine what, on the evidence before it, is the correct or preferable decision for it to make.

8. The Tribunal adopts that position in this case. The applicants were concerned that when the respondent reconsidered the original development application, it did so in relation to new plans submitted by the proponents. In their view only the plans which formed the original application should have been dealt with or alternatively the new plans should have been treated as a new application. Similarly the applicants queried the basis on which the proponent submitted new plans for the Tribunal's consideration and decision.

9. Section 193(6) of the Act requires that the respondent and therefore the Tribunal "standing in its shoes" :

(a) must consider any information available to the authority when it made its original decision and information given in the reconsideration application; and

(b) may consider any other relevant information.

10. The Tribunal's review is de novo and it is entitled to consider whatever information, including revised plans, the proponent may provide.

11. Both Mr McCarthy and Mr Walker made reference to a recent decision of this Tribunal in Walkington & Ors and ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review)[2010] ACAT 81. In that matter the Tribunal dealt at some length with the powers available to the respondent and the Tribunal to consider amended plans.

12. Mr McCarthy submitted that, having regard to its decision in Walkington, the Tribunal should consider the application now being considered as being an Application for Amendment of a DA under s 144 of the Act. However, the Tribunal rejects that proposition. In Walkington, the developer proposed to the Tribunal a quite different development from that which had originally been considered by the respondent, but in this case the proposal before us is only slightly different from that on which the decision under review was made.

13. Mr Walker referred to the comments of Crispin J in McKenzie v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2004]ACTSC 80 cited in Walkington that:

It was clearly open to the Tribunal [the AAT] to approve a development application subject to conditions which required some amendment of the plans for the proposed structure and the Tribunal should take into account any proposal put forward to meet concerns expressed by objectors, or indeed by the Tribunal itself.

14. The plans submitted to this Tribunal during the course of the proceedings contained amendments that (i) addressed the matters required by the respondent's conditions of approval on reconsideration; (ii) corrected errors in the original plans; and (iii) addressed issues of concern to the applicants. None of these changes affected the footprint or external dimensions of the buildings, or their height. We therefore accept Mr Walker's submission, that it is more appropriate to deal with it as a reconsideration under s193 of the Act, relying if necessary on s 165 to impose any conditions that might be required, should we decide to approve the proposal.

15. Nevertheless, the lack of clarity as to what constitutes an application for amendment to a DA under s 144 and what can reasonably be regarded as amendments to plans that satisfy imposed condition or meet objectors concerns is a matter of continuing uncertainty and could usefully be addressed when amendments to the Act are next being considered.

16. A matter of primary concern to the applicants was the "density" of the proposed development compared to that of the existing development in the surrounding neighbourhood, and in particular the neighbourhood of McWhae Circuit. It was stated that the site density of the proposal was 38 dwellings per hectare. The applicants gave no evidence about the density of existing development in the area, but Mr Cohen estimated it to be between 10 and 12 d/h depending on which Sections were included as constituting the neighbourhood.

17. The applicants cited the Spatial Plan for Canberra which defines Medium Density Housing as "generally between 25 - 60 dwellings per hectare". The applicants argued that as the density of the proposed development at 38d/h clearly fell within the range of medium density housing as defined in the Spatial Plan then it could not be regarded as low density. It was therefore, they contended, an inappropriate development in the RZ2 zone and the McWhae Circuit neighbourhood in particular.

18. The applicants referred to a document "Refinements to Garden City Provisions of the Territory Plan" published by the respondent in 2007. This document was of an explanatory nature, outlining the results of a review of the Territory Plan provisions related to Suburban and Residential Core areas now known as RZ1 and RZ2 zones. Among a series of changes the review led to an amendment of Objective (b) of what would become the RZ2 zone from:

Ensure development respects and contributes to the neighbourhood and landscape character of residential areas

Ensure that development addresses the street and existing neighbourhood characteristics in scale, form and site development.[1]

In describing this change the document stated that:

the intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure the scale and form of development in the RZ2 Suburban Core Zone reflects existing low density single residential dwellings.

19. The term "density" also occurs in the RZ2 Zone Specific Controls provisions of the Code in the Intent of "Element 1: Restrictions on Use" which states:

Intent: To allow a moderate level of flexibility to accommodate a variety of additional housing to meet community needs and preferences whilst ensuring development is of a density that respects adjoining development.

20. Mr Cohen outlined the history of the amendment of the Territory Plan in 2003 by Variation 200 which introduced what were known as A10 Residential Core areas within 200 metres of Local Centres. They were intended to increase residential densities close to the centres so as to increase life and vitality in the centres and minimise transport needs. They formed the underlying basis of the RZ2 provisions of the Territory Plan 2008.

21. The parties referred to an ACAT decision BDH Projects v ACT Planning and Land Authority &Ors (Administrative Review)[2010] ACAT 37. In that case the Tribunal also dealt with the question of appropriate density in RZ2 areas and noted that there is no definition of 'density' in the Territory Plan. It concluded that the RZ2 is a low density zone, albeit one that permits a higher level of density than the RZ1 zone. The decision in that case also records evidence about the number of dwellings per hectare both for the proposal (51 d/h) and for surrounding development(15-25 d/h). It also concluded that:

Whether one regards 51 dwellings per hectare at the high end of low density or the low end of medium density, the Tribunal's assessment is that the proposed development is out of character with the existing density in the neighbourhood.

We note that in this case at the proposed site density of 38 d/h is substantially less than in the BDH case.

22. Mr Cohen said that the term 'density' could have different meanings and in his opinion the use of dwellings per hectare as a measure to describe density was simplistic. He pointed out that this measure was not used in the Territory Plan; what the Code required was an assessment of different elements of a proposal including plot ratio, height, building envelopes, boundary setbacks, open space, car parking provision etc. The combination of the application of these controls determined what density might be achieved but more importantly controlled the impact on the existing adjoining development. Ms Jamaly echoed this opinion and said the measure of dwellings per hectare was not normally used by the Authority in development assessment. She indicated that in the BDH case, in which she was a witness, dwellings per hectare as a measure of density had been used as an additional indicator of the unsuitability of the proposal. It was Mr McCarthy's submission that it is not the number of dwellings that is important but rather any consequences or adverse impacts of them, and that is determined by assessment under the Code.

23. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of these two witnesses and affirms that the task before it is to determine whether the proposal meets either the Rules or the Criteria listed in the Code rather than some other measure of density. The Tribunal also accepts the submission of Mr McCarthy that while the Rules are specific, the Criteria require a measure of judgement to be exercised and in doing so they can be construed by reference to the Intent. The Intent is not to be seen as some separate or additional ground for consideration. The reference to "density" in the Intent should therefore be seen as an outcome derived by application of the controls.

24. As a consequence the number of dwellings per hectare is unhelpful for an assessment as to compliance with either the Objectives of the RZ2 zone of the Code or the Intent of Element 1 of the Zone Specific Controls. The Tribunal also notes that even though the Canberra Spatial Plan is taken to make up the planning strategy for the ACT ( s 440), s109(3)(a) indicates that it is not a relevant consideration for decisions on development approvals.

25. Assessment against the Objectives and the Code is addressed in the following sections.

26. The applicants expressed the view that Objective (b) of the RZ2 zone is not met. Objective (b) of the RZ2 zone is to:

Ensure that development addresses the street and existing neighbourhood characteristics in scale, form and site development.

27. The meaning of the expression "addresses" was canvassed by the applicants noting that the Intent of Element 1 for the RZ2 zone seeks to ensure development is of a density that "respects" adjoining development. Mr McCarthy submitted that an ordinary definition of 'addresses" such as that in the Macquarie Dictionary - "direct ones attention to" - might be used. In BDH Projects at [66] the Tribunal found that :

A new development in the RZ2 zone is not required to mimic or replicate the existing single dwelling development in the RZ1 or RZ2 zones, it is required to be sympathetic in scale, form and site development.

28. The applicants described their existing neighbourhood as being primarily contained in McWhae Circuit characterised by low density single residential dwellings of single storey. The Tribunal, while inspecting the neighbourhood, noted the high degree of similarity in scale of the dwellings with little intrusion of more modern structures or noticeable redevelopment in McWhae Circuit.

29. The applicants did not consider Sternberg Crescent to characterise their neighbourhood. Sternberg Crescent was described by Ms Jamaly as a wide, 4 lane, divided main road. It has high traffic volumes, and residences on and near the subject land do not have vehicular access to it. Residential development to the south of Sternberg Crescent opposite the subject land is a multi unit development, Malahide Gardens. The applicants contended that this development was not part of their neighbourhood as it did not face Sternberg Crescent and was visually quite separate. Neither the respondent nor the party joined disputed the applicant's characterisation of their neighbourhood.

30. The applicants also raised objection to the two storey nature of the proposed development in the midst of the existing single storey development. It is undisputed that in this respect it is different to the surrounding development. The applicants contended that the height of the buildings would restrict the views of those on the north side of McWhae Circuit and this is addressed below. Ms Jamaly in her evidence and Mr McCarthy in his submission highlighted the fact that in both RZ1 Suburban and RZ2 Suburban Core zones there is a right to build to two storeys. This arises from Rules 5 and 13 of the Code, where height is not to exceed two storeys. Since the Rule is met there is no basis for review by the Tribunal by virtue of the operation of s 121(2) of the Act which provides that a right of review only occurs where "the development proposal is subject to a rule and does not comply with the rule."

31. Ms Jamaly described the development as a group of separate buildings. She opined that the frontage to McWhae Circuit was a single building containing Units 1 and 2 for with a total width of 12.8 metres. This is less than the existing building on Block 3 which is approximately 18 metres with an additional carport abutting. She noted that the lower floor levels of units 1 and 2 were about 1 metre below kerb height in McWhae Circuit. Like the rest of the development it is proposed to have a low pitched roof and is to be set back 6 metres from the street boundary. Given that these were the only 2 units fronting McWhae Circuit, she considered that those characteristics, together with the spatial separation of the garages and the amount of landscaping, met the objective in relation to the neighbouring development in McWhae Circuit.

32. The land slopes down from north to south and therefore the buildings at the Sternberg Crescent end of the site have floor levels 1.5 to 2.3 metres lower than units 1 and 2. Ms Jamaly noted the different character at the Sternberg Crescent frontage. She drew attention to the fact that the 10 units on that frontage were broken into three separate buildings with significant gaps between them, rather than being a single continuous building. This was a characteristic of the development opposite to the south of Sternberg Crescent which also had detached groups of units. The applicants did not express concern at the form of the buildings on the Sternberg frontage.

33. Units 5 and 6, which are internal to the block and not facing a road, are contained in a single storey building and at that height are less intrusive than they might otherwise be to the surrounding development.

34. The calculation of Floor Space Ratio of 41.6% was significantly below the maximum permitted of 50%.

35. Mr Cohen considered that as a result of the low overall height of units 1 and 2, the conformity of the building line with that of other buildings in the street, the existing break in the street rhythm created by the driveways for Blocks 4 and 5 and the general lack of consistency in the streetscape detail, the proposed development will not adversely impact on the McWhae Circuit streetscape. He also contended that the scale, form and site development were prescribed by the Rules and Criteria of the Code and that the proposed development adequately addressed the existing neighbourhood.

36. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary the Tribunal accepts the assessment of the Ms Jamaly and Mr Cohen that objective (b) of the RZ2 Zone is met.

37. The applicants raised the issue of loss of views and Mr and Mrs de Vries considered that they were particularly affected. Mr and Mrs de Vries live on Block 17 on the northern side of McWhae Circuit opposite the subject land. Because of the slope of the land from north to south they are currently able to see over the roof of the house on Block 3 which is single storey. This is to be replaced by a 2 storey building comprising units 1 and 2. The Tribunal viewed the development site from Mr and Mrs de Vries front veranda but due to the weather was unable to see the full extent of the view which they say includes the distant Brindabella Ranges.

38. Ms Jamaly estimated that the proposed roof of units 1 and 2 would be about 2 metres higher than the roof of the existing dwelling on Block 3 but the roof would not be as wide. The roof line was well within the building envelope control of Rule 14. She acknowledged that the extent of the view would be diminished but said it would only restrict part of the view so that partial distant views would still be retained. Mr Cohen thought the difference in height of the roof would be about 2.6 metres. He noted that the views were already limited by existing vegetation to the east and south as well as by buildings. There was no clear evidence about the extent of the views that would be lost.

39. The applicants referred to Hutchens and Anor v City of Holdfast Bay (2007) SASC 238 as a basis for views being a matter to take into consideration. While that case carefully examined the issues of maintenance of views across various planning jurisdictions its conclusion provides no basis for consideration in this case. In Hutchens it was clear that the planning instrument which set development controls specifically included principles for preserving important views, which in that case were coastal views. Additionally Debelle. J found that "to all intents and purposes, they will lose their view to the west. It will be an extreme loss of view they currently enjoy". In this present case not only is there nothing in the Territory Plan to require the preservation of views, there was no evidence to suggest that anything more than a partial loss of view would eventuate.

40. Mr McCarthy referred to Edgar v Department of Environment, Land and Planning [1993] ACTAAT 59. The AAT in that case recognised that "views enjoyed from a site are regarded as part of the amenity of that site." However it came to the conclusion that "it is not so significant a loss of amenity to justify refusal". Mr Mc Carthy submitted that there was no common law right to a view, and that as the building is well within the building envelope, and the view would only partially be obstructed, there is no basis for refusal of the DA on that ground.

41. The Tribunal finds that there is no inconsistency with any identifiable provision of the Territory Plan in relation to loss of views.

42. The applicants contended that the additional traffic in McWhae Circuit arising from this development would not only create traffic problems in its own right, but as there would probably be further multi unit developments, these would lead to unacceptable volumes of traffic in the future. They pointed to the narrowness of the street and current difficulties in parking when residents have numbers of visitors.

43. The Code includes under element 4, Criterion 37 which reads:

C37 The existing road network can accommodate the amount of traffic that is likely to be generated by the development.

44. Mr Isaks provided estimates of traffic capacity and trip generation in the area. These estimates were based on the trip generation rates set out in Section 10 of the AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, modified to reflect current experience in the ACT where trip generation has been found to be a little less. Empirical studies are carried out from time to time in the ACT. The Residential Subdivision Code under the Territory Plan also classifies street type and traffic capacity and he considered this in his assessment.

45. Mr Isaks estimated that McWhae Circuit had a traffic capacity of 800 to 900 vehicles per day (vpd). He estimated the existing volume to be about 480 vpd and that the development would generate about 64 vpd, an increase of 13%. In his opinion, this increase to about 540-550 per day was well within the traffic capacity of McWhae Circuit. In relation to the proposed driveways, he considered that sight lines for pedestrians would be clear. He noted that the McWhae Circuit /Sternberg Crescent intersection had a low accident rate.

46. Mr Isaks acknowledged that if further redevelopment occurred in accordance with the RZ2 provisions then several more developments of the scale of this proposal could result in the street capacity of McWhae Circuit being exceeded. However he considered that would be an issue to be addressed by both his own organisation and the respondent, if and when it occurred. If on-street parking became a problem, it could be addressed by no parking signs, while any problems arising at the McWhae/Sternberg intersection could be dealt with if necessary by signalisation.

47. Mr Isaks' evidence leads the Tribunal to conclude that there are no unacceptable traffic problems arising from the proposed development and consequently the requirement of the Criteria is met. The question of the impact of future developments is a matter for determination at the time, together with remedial action which might be taken by the government of the day.

48. Mr Isaks noted that his organisation had omitted to comment on noise issues. He advised that the high volumes of traffic in Sternberg Crescent of over 10,000 vpd indicated that some level of noise suppression would be necessary in those parts of the buildings facing Sternberg Crescent. He suggested that, if the development was to be approved, conditions should be imposed requiring appropriate noise suppression measures

Other Multi Unit Housing Development Code Controls

49. The applicants raised a number of other matters where they considered the application did not meet the requirements of the Code. In addition to those dealt with above, they identified front setbacks, interfacing/loss of privacy, carparking provision, open space, the provisions of the Access and Mobility Code and waste management. It was the evidence of both Mr Cohen and Ms Jamaly, that the requirements of the Rules and the Criteria on these matters were met. At the conclusion of the proceedings, having regard to new information and amendments to plans submitted, together with acceptance of evidence by expert witnesses the applicants did not press these concerns. However, a couple of matters needing attention arose during the proceedings that can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

50. Mr and Mrs Raphael had expressed concerns about loss of privacy to their residence from a window in unit 6. Unit 6 had been two storeys in the original application but was reduced to single storey for the respondent's reconsideration and in the plans before the Tribunal. An external louvred screen was initially proposed to prevent any overlooking, but at hearing, the party joined agreed that it would be better for the window to be of opaque glass to a height of 1.7 metres rather than the external louvred screen originally proposed This solution was acceptable to Mr and Mrs Raphael.

51. While a final Waste Management Plan had not been submitted for approval, this was required as a condition of the respondent's decision.

52. Mr Masters submitted the proposal did not meet the requirement of Criterion

C94 because it had been described by ACTPLA's Executive Policy Committee as a "poor case in design" and especially because it cannot and does not ensure high levels of residential amenity of all dwellings. Mr Walker noted that while the Committee's approval might have been grudging it did in fact agree that it met the Territory Plan requirements. The Tribunal notes that the comment of the Committee seems to have been about the development in its totality. C94 is a specific criterion addressing the common areas within the site and there is no evidence that the Committee's comments related to this criterion.

53. The Tribunal recognises that re-development in RZ2 Zones of what has till then been predominantly a single-story separate dwelling neighbourhood causes many residents concern about the potential impacts on their amenity. In this case, the residents of McWhae Circuit and Sternberg Crescent who made representations about the original proposal were justified in doing so. As a consequence of their objections, numerous changes to the proposal have been made by the party joined that have significantly improved it and will reduce the impact that it otherwise might have had. The Tribunal concludes that as a result of these changes, either the Rules or the Criteria are met for all matters under the Code and consequently approval of the development, subject to some conditions, will not be inconsistent with the Territory Plan.

54. The Tribunal therefore will make the following Order:

The decision under review is varied by approving Development Application No 200916161 in accordance with the plans constituting exhibit 3 in ACAT proceedings AT10/75,76,77,78 and 80 and subject to the conditions in Attachment A of the decision being amended as follows:

(a) Conditions A1(a) and (b) are deleted.

(b) New Conditions A1 (a) (i)-(iv) are added as follows:

(i) Revised site plan, landscape plan and architectural drawings based on the drawings constituting exhibit 3 in ACAT proceedings AT10/75,76,77,77 and 80, showing modifications to the development to-

• Remove the steps and construct a ramp on the continuous pathway between units 9 and 10; and
• Cause, by construction of retaining walls, the private open space for units 1 and 2 to be level ground.

(ii) A revised exterior lighting plan showing requirements for compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.

(iii) A pre and post adaptable dwellings plan showing requirements for compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.

(iv) A noise management plan approved by the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.

TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S: Dr D McMichael, Senior Member

DATE/S OF HEARING: 29 Nov to 2 Dec 2010 PLACE: CANBERRA

DATE/S OF DECISION: 20 December 2010 PLACE: CANBERRA

FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )

[1] We note that in Draft Variation 303 to the Territory Plan, the respondent proposes to amend the Objectives of the RZ2 Zone, the first of which would then read "provide for the establishment and maintenance of residential areas where the housing is low rise (maximum two storeys) and contains a mix of single dwelling and multi-unit development that is low to medium density in character particularly in areas close to facilities and services in commercial centres". This Draft Variation is still under consideration.