1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by the replacement of the application plans with plans by Illya Sender Design (Drawings TP-001 - TP-011 dated 16.10.14).
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application GE/PP-25943/2013 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2 Wilks Street, Caulfield North. The permit allows the construction of a three story building over a basement for four dwellings and a waiver of the required visitor car space in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Mr Phil Bissett, Solicitor of Minter Ellison Solicitors.

The proposal is to construct a three story building over a basement for four dwellings

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision to refuse a permit

The subject land is located at the north end of Wilks Street in Caulfield North. The land is a regular lot located on the east side of the street. The land has a frontage of 25.25 m and an area of 555 m².

1. This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to refuse permission for four dwellings in three level building, at

2 Wilks Street, Caulfield North. The responsible authority issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the reasons set out in appendix B. 2. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Bisset applied to amend the permit application by the substitution of amending plans as foreshadowed by notice given in accordance with the Tribunal's practice requirements. No person opposed the amendment of the permit application in this way, and the Tribunal ordered the amendment of the permit application in accordance with Mr Bisset's request. 3. The Council considers that the outstanding issues remaining are: * Non compliance with local policy, particularly more than 2 dwellings on the lot * Inconsistent with preferred character, particularly the three storey element * Inadequate setbacks from the rear boundary * Unacceptable secluded open space and in particular solar access because of the extent of overshadowing from the building itself and from existing fences. 4. For the reasons are set out below I ultimately concluded that because of the particular characteristics of the immediate environs of the site, in particular the presence of large two and three-storey buildings, existing and proposed, and their relationship to the subject land that the proposed development was an appropriate proposal for development of the land. 5. The parties and the witnesses at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. The Tribunal inspected the subject land and its locality.

1. The subject land is located at the north end of Wilks Street in Caulfield North. The land is a regular lot located on the east side of the street. The land has a frontage of 25.25 m and an area of 555 m². The land falls by approximately 2.4 m from its north-east corner to its south west corner reflecting its topographical relationship with adjoining properties. The land is presently occupied by a single story dwelling.
2. At present Wilks Street contains an eclectic mix of one and two story dwellings. The cadastral pattern in immediate environs of the land is somewhat complex. In this case, it is the character of the surrounding development in the immediate environs of the subject land which is important in the resolution of the application.

1. To the south of the land in Wilks Street is a substantial two story dwelling at 2 Wilks Street.
2. South-east of the land is a modern two story dwelling at 9A Waiora Road on a lot presumably created by the subdivision of 9 Waiora Road.
3. To the rear of the subject land is an elevated two story, block of apartments developed in the 1960s, which are approximately three stories high when viewed from the subject land.
4. North of the land is a modern, two story dwelling at 13A Waiora Road elevated above the subject land, again this is a lot presumably created by the subdivision of 13 Waiora Road.
5. Opposite the land at 1 Wilks Street is a large site formerly occupied by the Alma Club. There is a current permit[2] for this land permitting the construction of 69 dwellings in two and three-storey buildings. This land is within the general residential zone.

1. The proposal is to construct a three story building over a basement for four dwellings[3].
2. The 2nd floor level is smaller than the levels below and is partly contained within a pitched roof form although the level will be substantially more prominent than might be expected with a more conventional attic form. The basement is designed to provide a car spaces, bicycle parking, a bin store, the lift lobby and private storage. Access to the basement is via a ramp at the south eastern corner of the land.

1. The subject land is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ1). The rezoning of the land from Residential 1 Zone occurred after the permit application had been submitted to Council. The application is therefore the beneficiary of the transitional provisions in respect of two prescriptive elements of the zone provisions, clause 32.09-3, Number of dwellings on a lot and clause 32.09-8 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building.
2. This approach to implementing transitional provisions, that is, exempting a transitional application from only part of the new zone provision, has led to extensive debate before the Tribunal. There are now a significant number of decisions dealing with the application of these transitional provisions. The consensus is that transitional applications are subject to greater constraint than would have been the case under the Residential 1 Zone notwithstanding the stated intent of Amendment VC104 that these applications would not be disadvantaged by the introduction of the new residential zones.
3. The debate has essentially focused on the proper application of the zone purposes in particular the purposes in respect of neighbourhood character and the third purpose in respect of limiting opportunities for increased residential development. The zone purposes is set out below:

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

To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other nonresidential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

1. I have found that the decision of Senior Member Baird and Member Carew in 360 New Street Brighton Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1322 provides a particularly helpful summary of the approach adopted by the Tribunal to date:
   1. Our attention was drawn to various Tribunal cases and the approach taken with respect to permit applications relying on the transitional provisions of Clause 32.09. We do not believe it to be contentious that:
      • An application must respond to its physical and strategic contexts.
      • The Zone purpose must be considered in assessing an application.
      • Compared with the former Residential 1 Zone, the language of the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone with respect to neighbourhood character has raised the obligation to respond positively to, and implement, the preferred character.
      • Different outcomes can be contemplated for proposals relying on the transitional provisions (because they are not bound by the mandatory limitations such as the number and height of dwellings) but the response to the preferred neighbourhood character is an important consideration in an assessment of the merits.

1. However, there continues to be debate about the proper application of the third purpose of the NRZ, which seeks:

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

1. Unusually, this purpose is achieved very directly under the zone provisions and does not rely on conventional discretionary decision making seeking to balance competing policy objectives. The tools used to achieve this purpose are the mandatory requirements of clause 32.09-3, Number of dwellings on a lot and of clause 32.09-8 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building. These clauses absolutely limit opportunities for increased residential development.
2. However, these mandatory clauses to not apply to transitional applications. It is my opinion that this fact is very relevant to the proper application of the third purpose in transitional applications. It would not be correct in transitional cases to conclude that the maximum number of dwellings you might get on a particular parcel of land must be equal to or be close to some theoretical maximum potential for development under the NRZ as if the transitional provisions did not exist.
3. In Whitefeather Group Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1193 Members Diedun and Nelthorpe observed that:
   1. Having regard to these mechanisms, and the preferred contextual approach, our thoughts are that a proposal that has the benefit of the transitional provisions can be assessed against this third purpose having regard to:

1. The size of the review site compared to the prevailing lot size in the surrounding neighbourhood, and therefore the extent to which it could be capable of being subdivided; 2. Whether medium density development of a similar intensity already exists in the surrounding neighbourhood;

1. The extent to which a proposed development is consistent with the height of surrounding development; and,

1. Whether a proposal complies with any varied standards to Rescode, and in the absence of any varied standards, Clause 55.

I find these observations helpful. In essence these observations are an elaboration of the emphasis on context and preferred neighbourhood character found in Senior Member Baird's summation.

1. A variety of transitional cases have been brought to my attention, it is interesting to do a simple comparison of the outcomes in each of these cases. The variety of the outcomes evident are what should expect given the contextual approach which has emerged from the Tribunal decisions to date. Table 1 below compares the proposed dwelling number, site areas and the outcome of a number of the cases that have come to my attention.

Steward v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 441

Bayside Property Projects PL v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 958

Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 967

360 New Street Brighton PL v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1322

Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1193

1. The series of tribunal decisions dealing with transitional cases all emphasise the need for a contextual assessment of any such application. This is true for this application, it is the characteristics of the land and its immediate environs, its context, which is decisive.
2. The subject land is within a minimal change area and is subject to the minimal change area policy found at clause 22.08. Within the minimal change area there is a preference for one and two dwellings developments of land.
3. Clause 22.08-3.1 recognises that there may be circumstances where a development for more than two dwellings is appropriate. Examples of circumstances where such development may be appropriate as specified in clause include, an area that is characterised by larger than conventional lot's, a significantly larger lot or an existing neighbourhood character characterised by multi-unit development. It is apparent to me that the clause advocates a contextual approach.
4. In this case it is the scale of the proposed building relative to its neighbours and the character of surrounding development which satisfies me that the proposal will be a comfortable fit in its immediate environs.

Figure 3 - A Sectional View of Neighbouring Development Viewed From the West

1. The immediate neighbours of the subject land are:
   1. Two large, modern, two storey dwellings built in what was the rear garden of larger lots;
   2. A 1960s apartment building that is three stories high to its rear;
   3. A very substantial dwelling (perhaps a 1980s building) to the south on Wilks Street;
   4. Opposite across Wilks Street a permitted redevelopment for 69 dwellings in two and three-storey buildings.

In part figure 3 above illustrates this scale relationship.

1. I acknowledge that the inclusion of a 3rd story is a more problematic aspect of the proposal. On balance I have decided that the 3rd level is acceptable because of the presence of other three-storey development within the neighbourhood and because of the way in which the mass of the 3rd level has been managed in the amending plans.

1. The scheduled to the zone specifies a minimum rear setback of 4 m. Clause 22.08-3.1 specifies compliance with this setback as being a criteria for the possibility of more than two dwellings. The rear setback in this case is less than 4 m.
2. The Caulfield North character area is described as having an interwar garden suburban base with modern overbuilding. It is my observation that in the immediate environs of the subject land "modern overbuilding" has substantially modified the rear garden character which this rear setback is designed to protect. Indeed, to the rear of the subject land is a 1960s apartment building which has, between it and the subject land, a large concrete area for car parking and car parking access.
3. In this context I do not think it unacceptable that the preferred rear setback is not achieved.

1. The respondents who appeared at the hearing, Mr Zolotarev and Mr Brick reside at 9A Waiora Road and 13A Waiora Road respectively. Their dwellings are the two large, modern, two storey dwellings built in what was the rear garden of larger lots referred to earlier in these reasons. Both argue that the proposed development will result in an unacceptable interface between neighbouring dwellings.

1. Figures 4 and 5 in appendix C illustrate the relationship between the subject proposal and 9A Waiora Road at 1st floor level. It is the relationship between the living spaces at 9A at 1st floor level and proposed dwelling U1.01 which is the most sensitive relationship. Mr Zolotarev was concerned about the impact of the proposed development on his family's outlook and privacy.
2. In many respects the relatively close relationship between the buildings is a consequence of the quite recent development of the Zolotarev dwelling. It is this development which created the quite urban relationship between buildings at this corner of the subject land. At this interface the proposed building is a two story building, a not unreasonable scale of development in this location.
3. In relation to dwelling U1.01 on the subject land, the proposed balcony is surrounded by a 1.7 m high privacy screening and the south facing kitchen window is proposed to be obscure glazing. Further to the west there is a small study with 3 windows, one facing east and to facing south. In relation to this room I consider that it would be appropriate for the east facing window to also have obscure glazing, but because of the orientation of the south facing windows I see no reason to require obscure glazing or privacy screening on these windows.

1. Figures 6 and 7 in appendix C illustrate the relationship between the subject proposal and 13A Waiora Road. As consequence of the topography the dwelling at 13A and its large area of our outdoor decking is significantly elevated above the subject land. The proposed ground floor level on the subject building is in the order of 2 m below ground floor level of the dwelling at 13A Waiora Road
2. The consequence of this is that while the proposed development results in a cross boundary relationship to a new two story building[5], replacing a single story dwelling, the visual impact of the relationship is significantly less than it would have been had both sites being at a similar level. While a proposal for a two story building on land significantly changes the outlook currently enjoyed by the Brick dwelling is a change which both predictable and acceptable in a suburban context such as this. The proposed building does include a 3rd level, however, the 3rd level is setback almost 9 m from the common boundary and will not unreasonably intrude into the outlook from either the main windows or outdoor decks of the Brick dwelling.
3. The only north facing window which is not adequately screened in accordance with Rescode standards is a trapezoidal window in the north face of the 3rd story. This window is basically a highlight window but because of its unusual shape part of the window is less than 1.7 m above floor level. The applicants indicated that they would accept a condition requiring the window to be screened to 1.7 m. Screening the window in this way would produce an acceptable outcome.
4. Mr Brick argued that the 1.7 m screening standard was in adequate and I should require balcony screens and highlight windows et cetera to be at least 1.8 m above floor level. There is no real basis for me to apply anything other than the standard requirement in this case.

1. At ground floor level the proposed building is cut into the slope the site. However, based on the survey plan I estimate that the proposed ground floor level is nevertheless higher than that of the existing dwelling on the land.
2. The consequence of this is that the north facing bedroom and bedroom/study windows of ground floor dwelling U.01 sits in part below boundary fence height as does the private open space of ground floor dwelling U.02. The amenity issue is the extent to which the amenity of these bedrooms and the private open space is compromised by extent of overshadowing. Mr O'Leary pointed out that for the private open space the extent of overshadowing is also exacerbated by the large overhanging eave above this space.
3. In relation to the bedrooms, it is likely that the subject bedrooms located towards the east of the site will not get direct sunlight during the winter period. However, it is not uncommon for there to be south facing rooms in dwellings the amenity of the subject bedrooms will be better than that and the solar amenity that they will enjoy cannot be said to be unacceptable.
4. In relation to the private space of dwelling U.02 Mr O'Leary submission forced the applicant to undertake a more detailed overshadowing analysis of this private open space. The subject private upper space is basically oriented north east in the ordinary course this would be a good orientation for private open space, with good morning sunlight with the potentiality for some overshadowing during the afternoon.
5. Because of the excavation of the land, the elevated fencing cast longer shadows than would ordinarily be the case and the proposed eave overhang further compromises overshadowing in the afternoon. The effect is to overshadow between 20 and 30% of that part of the open space which otherwise would be in sunlight. However, I do not consider that the extent of overshadowing of this proposed open space is so extensive that it produces an unacceptable outcome.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit granted.
2. In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit the Tribunal has had regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

The construction of a three story building over a basement for four dwellings and a waiver of the required visitor car space.

1. Before the commencement of development, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must generally accord with the plans considered by VCAT by Illya Sender Design (Drawings TP-001 - TP-011 dated 16.10.14):
   • (a) Fixed obscure glazing (or some other privacy screening satisfactory to the responsible authority) to a height of 1.7 m above floor level for:
     • (i) the north and south facing the second floor windows; and
     • (ii) the east facing window of the study of dwelling U1.01.
   • (b) The front fence having an average height in the order of 1.5 m.
   • (c) The car park vehicle access and layout to comply with Clause 52.06 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (d) The design, location and screening of any plant equipment and services (such as sub-stations and air conditioning units) to minimise its impact on the public realm and adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (e) The maximum building height above natural ground level to be clearly dimensioned on each elevation.
   • (f) Revised pedestrian access from Wilks Street to the main pedestrian entry.
   • (g) A landscape plan in accordance in Condition 9.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.

1. The layout of the site and size, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to the exemptions specified in Clause 62 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Note: This does not obviate the need for a permit where one is required.

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

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the time referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within six (6) months after the expiry date if the use/development has not commenced. If the development has commenced, the Responsible Authority may extend the time referred to if a request is made in writing within twelve (12) months of the expiry date.

1. No buildings or works are to be constructed over any easement or other restriction on the land or any sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables under the control of a public authority without the prior written consent of the relevant authority and the Responsible Authority
2. Disabled access to the building from within the site must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of garbage, bottles and other solid wastes in bins or receptacles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All bins and receptacles used for the storage and collection of garbage, bottles and other solid wastes must be kept in a storage area screened from view, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All bins and receptacles must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition and free from offensive odour, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the occupation of the approved development, the owner/permit holder must prepare and have approved in writing by the Responsible Authority a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for the site with respect to the collection and disposal of waste and recyclables associated with the proposed uses on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must provide for the following:
   • (a) The collection of waste associated with the uses on the land, including the provision of bulk waste collection bins or approved alternative, recycling bins, the storage of other refuse and solid wastes in bins or receptacles within suitable screened and accessible areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Commercial waste bins being placed or allowed to remain not in view of the public, and receptacles not emitting any adverse odours.
   • (b) Designation of methods of collection including the need to provide for private services or utilisation of council services. If private collection is used, this method must incorporate recycling services and must comply with the relevant EPA noise guideline relating to the time of collection.
   • (c) Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas of waste bin storage on collection days.
   • (d) Details for best practice waste management once operating.

Once approved the WMP will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must not be varied except with the written approval of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any site works including demolition and excavation, the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works including demolition and excavation are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must provide details of the following:
   • (a) delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (b) a liaison officer for contact by owners / residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
   • (c) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (d) any requirements outlined within this permit as required by the relevant referral authorities;
   • (e) hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
   • (f) measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
   • (g) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;
   • (h) any construction lighting to be baffled to minimise intrusion on adjoining lots.
2. No plant, equipment, services and substations other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority
3. Before the commencement of buildings and works, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will become an endorsed plan forming part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan by Urbis (LA-01 dated 14.11.2014) and must incorporate:
   • (a) A survey, including botanical names, of all existing vegetation to be retained.
   • (b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within 3 metres of the boundary.
   • (c) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation including botanical names; common names; pot sizes; sizes at maturity; quantities of each plant; and details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
   • (d) Landscaping and planting within all open space areas of the site.

Trees are not to be sited over easements. All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the occupation of the development and/or the commencement of the use or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.
2. The landscaping as shown the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the buildings and works (including demolition), a Tree Protection Management Plan in respect of Tree #1 (Galbraith and Associates report 7 October 2014) and the two street trees to the front of the land (including Tree #4 (Galbraith and Associates report 7 October 2014)), must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.

The management plan must set out the measures to be implemented by the owner to ensure the protection of the health and appearance of the specified trees. As appropriate the management plan must include measures relating to:

(a) the specification of tree protection zones;

(b) the type, installation and maintenance of tree protection fencing;

(c) vehicular or pedestrian access within a tree protection zone;

(d) the protection of the canopies of the specified trees;

(e) excavation within or near a tree protection zone;

(f) mulching and watering missing tree protection zones.

The management plan must include a program for the implementation of the proposed measures before, during and on completion of construction (including demolition).

The tree protection measures set out in the Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The plan must not be revised without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
   • (a) constructed;
   • (b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
   • (d) drained;
   • (e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
   • (f) clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways;

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

1. Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the completion of the basement floor construction, written confirmation by a Licensed Land Surveyor must be provided to the Responsible Authority verifying that the basement floor has been constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans (prior to the construction of the levels above being commenced.)
3. Prior to the completion of the ramp to the basement, written confirmation by a Licensed Land Surveyor must be provided to the Responsible Authority verifying that the basement ramp has been constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans.
4. Prior to the occupation of the approved development, a permanent sign must be erected by the applicable planning permit holder in a prominent position in the car park and in any foyer/s stating that "Residents of this development will not be issued Residential Parking Permits (including visitor parking permits)". The sign must measure approximately 0.2 square metres in area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the Minimal Change Area Policy as stated at clause 22.08 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme as:
   • The bulk, scale and intensity of the development is excessive and is inconsistent with the existing and preferred character.
   • The development will impose excessive and unreasonable visual bulk and amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.
   • The provision of secluded private open space and rear setbacks are unsatisfactory.
2. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and does not satisfy the following objectives of the Clause 55 (Res Code) of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme:
   • Clause 55,02-1 (Neighbourhood character - height, scale, massing, lack of transition, lack of landscaping opportunity)
   • Clause 55.02-2 (Residential Policy - not respectful of prevailing mass and scale of adjacent properties, rear setbacks, private open space provision, landscaping)
   • Clause 55.03-1 (Street setbacks - Standard B6 not met)
   • Clause 55.03-2 (Building height - Standard B7 not met)
   • Clause 55.03-8 (Landscaping- limited landscaping opportunities around the site)
   • Clause 55.04-1 (Side and rear setbacks- Standard B17 not met)
   • Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking - a number of windows need to be screened)
   • Clause 55.05-3 (Daylight to new windows - two habitable rooms do not have access to direct light or ventilation)
   • Clause 55.05-4 (Private open space - Schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone not met)
   • Clause 55.06-1 (Detail design - standard not met)

Figure 4 - Relationship between 9A Waiora Road and Subject Land at 1st Floor Level

Showing Relationship Building to Southeast Corner of the Land.

Figure 6 - North Elevation Of The Proposed Building

Figure 7 - Photo from Subject Land Showing South Facade of the Dwelling at

13a Waiora Road and Its Relationship to the Dwelling on the Subject Land

[1] The properties of the two respondents who appeared at the hearing are identified with red stars.

[3] Permission is also sought for a waiver of the required visitor car space.

[4] Figure 2 and other elevations shown below are taken from the amended application plans, although I have simplified the drawing by deleting design detail not required for the purpose of these reasons.