Mr Ian Pitt, SC of Best Hooper Solicitors. He called the following witnesses:

• Mr Rob McGauren, mgs Architecture, Architect.
• Ms Kate Partenio, GTA consultants, Traffic Engineer.
• Mr Tim Biles, Message Consultants, Urban Designer.

Mr Terry Montebello, Solicitor of Maddocks. He called the following witness:

• Mr David Barnes, Hansen consultants, Town Planning consultant.

• 1 x 5 storey apartment building located in the south east corner of the site. This building accommodates a retail tenancy in the south west interface at ground level. Parking for this building is a total of 43 designated resident spaces and 12 visitor spaces.
• 20 x 2 storey townhouses along Thomas Brunton Parade;
• 3 x 2 storey townhouses at the eastern end of the site,
• 8 x 2 bedroom dwellings at the corner of David Munroe Drive and Cleeland Court.

Vehicle access is provided via two access points from Cleeland Court that create an internal 2-way loop road.

A linear park/communal open space area of 2000 square metres is to be located in the centre of the development.

Application under Section 77 & 149(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.04-5 A permit is required for the construction and extension of two or more dwellings on a lot, dwellings on common property and residential buildings and also for the construction of a fence within 3 metres of a street is associated with two or more dwellings on a lot.

Clause 32.04-1 Use of shop is a Section 2 use.

Clause 43.04 A permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land ,construct a building or construct or carry out works until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The site is located within Roxburgh Park, which is within the Hume Growth Corridor.

The subject land is irregularly shaped lot with an overall site area of 1.954 hectares.

Access to the lot is achieved form the southern road to the Roxburgh Park shopping centre, Thomas Brunton Parade.

The site has a slope of 4 metres over its east-west axis.

To the south of the site is the Roxburgh Park major activity centre. Planning approval has recently been granted to take the retail space to 36,000 square metres. The site is also adjoined to the south east by the Roxburgh Park public transport providing train and bus services.

The site is adjoined to the north by Cleeland Court which has 10 dwellings that sit directly opposite the subject site.

Clauses 11.01, 11.03, 11.04-2, 15.01, 16, 18, 21.02-1, 21.02-2, 21,05-5, 21.06-2, 21.07, 21.08 and 65.

Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (Crime Prevention Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005).

Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005).

I inspected the site and surrounds on 13 February 2011.

1. There are two proceedings before me today including:

P283/2011 is an application to review Council's failure to determine whether it is satisfied that the development plans submitted under the Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 7) is to their satisfaction within the prescribed time. Council is not satisfied with the proposal outlined in the submitted site specific development plan. In order for development to occur on the site, it must be consistent with an approved development plan[2].

The Shire of Bulla approved a document titled The Roxburgh Park Local Structure Plan, dated November 1994. It was the view of Mr Montebello that this document is the existing approved development plan for the purposes of the DPO7 and that this plan that has guided the development of the estate.

He further submitted that although Council has been acting on the basis that there is an approved development plan, a 'signed' copy of the development plan was unable to be provided. Council therefore supported the preparation of a site specific development plan for the site under DPO 7.

I therefore have a development plan before me for my consideration against clause 43.04 for approval.

• P3514/2009 is an application for review against Council's refusal to grant a planning permit.

Council refused the application for permit on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with the state and local planning policy framework, fails to comply with clause 52.35 and the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, is deficient on a built form and urban design basis, access arrangements are inappropriate and the open space is not consistent with Council requirements.

1. The Tribunal must firstly must decide if the development plan has been prepared to my satisfaction and secondly whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. In this case, the proposed site area development plan reflects the plans for the permit application. I therefore intend to deal with the matters as one. With the development plan being so specific and reflecting the proposed development, the permit applicant runs the risk that if there is a change to the form of development, it will potentially be inconsistent with the development plan and a new one will be required to be sought. This is the permit applicant's risk.
2. Mr Barnes on behalf of Council identified a number of key issues in dispute. I agree with his assessment and note the following issues for consideration:
   1. Underutilisation of the land predominately due to the provision of open space and the density of development proposed.
   2. 'Sense of place' and 'place making' and the impact of the location of the 5 storey apartment building on views to the railway station and the degree to which the station contributes to the 'sense of place' of the area.
   3. The land is almost exclusively residential despite the mixed use zoning.
   4. Vehicle access to the site being predominantly from Murchison Drive and Cleeland Court.
3. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Hume Planning Scheme, I have decided to approve the development plan under clause 43.04 and grant a permit subject to conditions for the development of the site residential development including a retail/cafe tenancy. My reasons follow.

1. The subject land is currently vacant and covers a total area of 1.94ha. The site is bound by Murchison Drive to the west, Thomas Brunton Parade to the south and Cleeland Court to the north. The Roxburgh Park Train Station is located within walking distance to the site.
2. The site is identified in the Roxburgh Park Local Structure Plan 1994 and the Roxburgh Park Comprehensive Development Plan August 2001 as a location for housing and medium density housing.

1. The plans provided detail the outline of residential development including details of heights and open space, location and provision of open space, pedestrian paths, on site car parking, vehicle access, easement, public transport link and commercial connectivity. The plans outline the residential blocks including a five storey apartment building located in the south east corner of the lot, two storey attached town house development to Thomas Brunton Parade, two storey apartment style building fronting Murchison Drive and two storey town houses in the eastern section of the site. The northern central area of the site is designated future single storey detached dwellings.

1. I agree with Mr Montebello that the fundamental tenet of the state planning policy is to avoid the continuing expansion of residential growth into greenfield areas and ensure efficient use of infrastructure. This site is a strategic redevelopment site. It is located within easy walking distance of a major activity centre, abuts a train network and is able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to a major activity centre served by public transport.
2. There are numerous planning policy statements[3] and objectives that lead this site to higher density development. This was not in question. What was in dispute is the level of intensity of development. Mr Montebello submitted that the proposed development is a missed opportunity and underutilizes the site by devoting the vast majority of the site to two storey townhouse dwellings or open space.
3. If reference is made to the Roxburgh Park Structure Plan 1994, it was submitted that the plan identifies the following:
   • The site for housing and medium density housing. Mr Montebello submits that it is assumed that medium density housing is at least 30 or 40 dwellings per hectare.
   • Potential higher densities in the vicinity of railway stations and at Roxburgh Park Town Centre and each of the neighbourhood centres. Mr Montebello further submitted that what was envisaged in the reference to medium density housing in the Roxburgh Park Structure Plan 1994 has changed as our thinking and expectations of how we define medium and high density development has shifted since 1994. I agree with this submission however, there is no later defined expectation for the site within the planning scheme.
4. I agree with the submission that policy should be exploited in this case where the site is on or adjacent to a major activity centre, a train station and other facilities. What direction then does planning policy give us for the site? As stated above, there are numerous generic planning policy statements which guide the site to high density development. However, there is only one reference to density at clause 11.02-3[4]:

Encourage average overall residential densities in the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare.

1. Mr Pitt submitted that the proposed density is 65 dwellings per net developable hectare.
2. The raft of planning policies seek to increase dwellings, ensure efficient use of infrastructure, housing diversity and more affordable housing on site that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. There is no doubt that contemporary activity centre policy seeks a robust development of the site. What is proposed is a development of 111[5] dwellings including:
   • 48 one bedroom apartments and 32 two bedroom apartments contained in a 5 storey apartment building,
   • 8 up and over dwellings consisting of 2 bedrooms,
   • 3 two storey dwellings fronting the Council reserve to the east.
   • 19 two storey three bedroom terrace dwellings and 1 four bedroom terrace and
   • 12 lots not included in this proposal identified for single storey detached dwellings.
3. In considering the appropriateness of this proposal and the submission that the proposal underutilises the site, I make the following observations.
   • Planning policy encourages intensive development of the site due to its location adjacent to the activity centre, train station and other facilities.
   • The surrounding area is developed and defined generally by single detached dwellings. There is some evidence of medium density dwelling, but it is limited.
   • The proposed development incorporates a five storey building providing an alternate level of accommodation for the area albeit apartments. This is an appropriate response.
   • The town house attached dwellings incorporating a home office space at the ground level also offers an alternate form of housing not found in the area. Again, this is an appropriate response.
   • The sensitive interface to Cleeland Court is identified for single dwelling development at a later stage. This is an appropriate transition to the adjoining more traditional form of housing that currently exists on the north side of Cleeland Court.
   • I am persuaded by Mr McGauran that the built form provided has been configured to mediate the transitions in scale and associated opportunities for variance in intensity of development and scale between the primarily one and two storey nature of housing in the site and Murchison Drive.
   • The proposal offers a variety of housing types targeting the needs of smaller households within the environs of the major activity centre. This proposal provides family housing, live work housing and apartment style housing.
4. The proposal offers a transition from the conventional single detached housing in the surrounding area to attached dwellings to a 5 storey apartment building. I am persuaded that the mix of dwellings achieves the goal of policy to encourage higher density development on sites such as this, achieves policy to provide a mix of dwelling types and will create a sense of place. Arguably, the site could be developed with a higher density, however, the density as proposed is not fatal to this proposal. This proposal will allow the different stages of the community to be accommodated and for the community to 'age in place'.

1. The development includes an open space area centrally located within the site. The site is adjoined to the south by an internal road and to the north the rear of future lots to be developed. The space measures 300 metres in length and varies in width from 30 metres at its widest point, 15 metres at its narrowest.
2. Mr Montebello submitted that the proposed open space is of a size and standard that is not consistent with Council's requirements and results in further underutilisation of the land. Council made it clear that it had no intention of taking this open space as public land and if it were to take the land, it would not receive the same level of upkeep that other spaces receive. I do not have a subdivision application before me so will make no comment as to whether or not the land should be 'handed over to Council'. Council's response to the proposed open space appeared to be based on the fact that Council do not want to take ownership of the land
3. The issue is if the space is an appropriate one on the site. I can see that ideally the space would have houses fronting it which is consistent with planning policy. In this case, it is bound by an internal street on two sides and houses on the other two.
4. In addressing how the space will work, Mr Biles described the space as one whose fundamental purpose is not to serve the wider community, but to primarily serve the immediate precinct. He described the space as being small enough to have an intimacy that will make residents of the development feel a sense of ownership.
5. Despite its shortfalls, I am persuaded by Mr McGauran and Mr Biles that the space is appropriate. There are a number of balconies from the surrounding development that provide the necessary informal surveillance of the space in conjunction with the permeable street and pathway network that will ensure convenient access to the station and town centre.

The land is almost exclusively residential despite the mixed use zoning.

1. In his evidence for the Council, Mr Barnes was critical that the overall use of the land submitting that the proposed development fails to respond to the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone. In particular, it was his view that the development along Thomas Brunton Parade whilst providing for small office/home office type dwellings, is not an adequate design response given the zoning and location opposite the adjacent shopping centre.
2. The Mixed Use Zoning is a residential zone that seeks to provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.
3. I was advised that the Roxburgh Park activity centre is to be further developed taking the retail space to exceed 36,000 square metres. This site sits directly opposite the subject site. I question therefore, with the proposed extent of commercial development that is to occur within the Roxburgh Park shopping centre directly opposite the site, what type of development is Council seeking to achieve in the subject site?
4. What is proposed is a row of housing that provides a small office/home office space at the ground level fronting Thomas Brunton Parade. It allows for a range of home office uses to occur. It provides both a residential and semi commercial interface on Thomas Brunton Parade. In the event that a home office use grows to a viable business, there is opportunity to seek permission to allow for this to grow.
5. I further note that the 5 storey apartment building provides a retail/café tenancy at the ground level in the south west corner of the building. This use anchors the building to the site, provides a non residential use and will provide a sense of place to the subject site.
6. I do not share Councils concern regarding the proposed uses and zoning of the land. I find the proposed development consistent with the zoning of the land.

1. There was quite a debate regarding the positioning of the apartment building. As it is currently located in the south east corner of the site, the building limits the views and vista along Thomas Brunton Parade. The current location will limit the view to the existing railway station when travelling south east along Thomas Brunton Parade.
2. Mr Barnes submitted that the station is newly constructed and has design elements which seek to establish it as a local focal point or landmark structure: its location terminating the view along Thomas Brunton Parade. Put more simply, Mr Montebello submitted that apart from common sense involved, the proposed location of the apartment building would be contrary to clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework which seeks to protect landmarks and views and vistas. The urban design principle at clause 15 reads:
   • Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhance or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment.
3. I agree that the railway station is an important public facility however I disagree with the identification of it as a landmark. It is a public structure accommodating an elevated railway platform that due to its height and lack of surrounding development is currently highly visible. I agree with Mr Biles that while the railway station is an important destination to the wider community it does not have to be seen from a long distance over essentially flat topographic conditions. The visibility of the station will change with not only this proposal but also the recently permitted expansion of the Roxburgh Park shopping centre. The railway station structure can not be identified as a landmark in the same way iconic buildings of Melbourne are.
4. The concept of 'place making' was also discussed by all parties. Council was of the view that the railway station is the important landmark to assist in 'place making and way finding' to this significant transport interchange.
5. 'Place making and way finding' is about making mental maps and making a journey interesting and safe. We all make our own mental maps when planning our journey. I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Biles that 'markers' change over time as our environment changes, particularly in an area such as this that is largely undeveloped. The location of the apartment building will offer a 'marker' for the railway station. The shopping centre will also offer a 'marker' for some people and to others the railway station will be located 'behind the shopping centre'.
6. I do not believe that it is the railway station that creates a sense of place. The sense of place will be created by the community that forms within the site and as part of the broader Roxburgh Park area.

Vehicle access to the site being predominantly from Murchison Drive and Cleeland Court.

1. It is proposed that all vehicle access to the site is via Murchison Drive[6] and Cleeland Court. Council submitted that the impact on the adjoining residential dwellings is unreasonable and that vehicle access to the apartment building should be via Thomas Brunton Parade. I do not agree with this concern.
2. Firstly, Cleeland Court is defined as an Access Place under the Hume Planning Scheme which allows a maximum daily traffic volume of 300-1000 vehicles per day. Council has its own definitions of roads, which would categorise Cleeland Court as an Access Street due to its length (being over 100 metres). An Access Street can carry a maximum volume of 2,000 vehicles per day.
3. Ten dwellings presently have direct access to Cleeland Court. The road currently carries in the order of 130 vehicles per day. It is proposed to provide a new road forming a loop or crescent through the site running off Cleeland Court. It is anticipated that Cleeland Court, post development, at the intersection with Murchison Drive will carry 610 vehicles per day or 740 vehicles per day being the ultimate development. This is below what an Access Place or Access Street can carry.
4. There is no doubt that the ten dwellings on Cleeland Court will notice an increase in traffic on Cleeland Court. However, this is to be expected. The street can carry the anticipated number of vehicles. The planning scheme allows for 740 vehicles per day and the Cleeland Court is adjoining a mixed use zone that sits adjacent a major activity centre. There was always going to be change, in fact it is encouraged by the planning scheme.
5. Mr Montebello submitted that the cars associated with the apartment building traffic should use Thomas Brunton Parade. In my opinion this would result in a poor response. This option would compromise the urban public space that is being created between the apartment building, the site and beyond. It would create pedestrian and vehicle conflict which we generally seek to avoid.
6. Cleeland Court can accommodate the increase in vehicles and it is appropriate that it is used as access to the site.
7. I note that Council had no concern with the level of parking provided on site.

1. I raised a concern during the hearing regarding the number of apartments that relied on 'borrowed light'. Mr Pitt informed me that it is an issue that will be dealt with at the building permit approval stage and the apartments comply. Mr McGauran submitted that in his mind it is acceptable for 20 to 25% of apartments to rely on borrowed light whilst Mr Barnes informed me that he hadn't turned his mind to it.
2. I am comfortable that the one bedroom apartments offer a studio environment where the bedroom will be opened or closed depending on how the space is to be used. However, I have concerns with the internal two bedroom apartments with the reliance on one bedroom on borrowed light. I do not find that the level of amenity of this two bedroom apartment is acceptable. The bedroom relying on borrowed light is central to the kitchen and living area. I will require that two bedroom apartments are reconfigured to ensure that each bedroom receives access to an external light and ventilation source.

1. Having regard to the above, I will order that the development plan be approved as complying with the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay.
2. I will also order that the decision of the responsible authority will be set aside and a permit issued subject to conditions.

• The development of a five storey apartment building consisting of a ground floor car park and retail/cafe premise, 20 two storey townhouses, 8 up and over dwellings consisting of 2 bedrooms and 3 three bedroom dwellings and dispensation of car parking

1. Before the development commences, amended plans (three copies) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted but modified to show:
   • (a) each bedroom within the two bedroom apartments within the 5 storey apartment building to ensure that both bedrooms have access to an external light and ventilation source;
   • (b) the internal roadway to meet ResCode standards including lighting and footpaths;
   • (c) a schedule showing the materials, finishes and colours of all external finishes, including colour swatches;
   • (d) the provision of bicycle parking in accordance with Clause 52.34 of the Hume Planning Scheme;
   • (e) a minimum headroom of 2.2 metres above each car parking space in the apartment building;
   • (f) the location and height of a single communal antenna for the apartment building so that it is not readily visible from the nearby street network;
   • (g) fire hydrants, substations or similar to be designed into the architecture of the building;
   • (h) location of mail boxes for the apartment building;
   • (i) all constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting etc;
   • (j) a Parking Management Plan specifying the assignment of each individual parking space in the apartment buildings car park;
   • (k) a landscape Plan that must incorporate a planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants; details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel); and street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property to Council satisfaction.
2. Finished floor levels shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. All boundary walls must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority detailing the construction activity proposed. The plan must include, but not limited to:
   • (a) hours of construction;
   • (b) dust and litter management;
   • (c) traffic management measures to comply with the provisions of AS1742.3-2002 manual for uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads;
   • (d) parking and traffic movements of all workers vehicles and construction vehicles;
   • (e) works timetable;
   • (f) any impacts upon adjacent roads and pedestrian walkways and providing for adequate movement and circulation of vehicles and pedestrians adjacent to the land during the construction phase;
   • (g) access routes for construction vehicles;
   • (h) temporary fencing works;
   • (i) details regarding the method by which the public can register complaints and the details for investigating, action taken and method of response to those complaints;
   • (j) the method by which the public will be informed about the progress of works associated with the construction;
   • (k) where stockpiling or materials will occur;
   • (l) clean up measures and corrective action for materials split off-site specifying sweeping and or collection for disposal, but not hosing or sweeping of any materials down the stormwater drain.

The Construction Management Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once submitted and endorsed by Council the plan shall form part of the permit and must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All buildings must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Any plant and equipment on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to compliment the appearance of the building and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The materials, colours, decoration and/or finishes to be applied to the exterior of the building as described in the drawings or schedules endorsed to form part of this permit must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Car and bicycle spaces must not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, together with associated access lanes as delineated on the endorsed plan/s must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) be provided and completed prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted;
   • (b) thereafter be maintained;
   • (c) be made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose;
   • (d) be drained and sealed with an all-weather seal coat.
6. The car parking area must be lit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all lights must be designed to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
7. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all landscaping must be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained hereafter to Council satisfaction.
8. Before the occupation of the five storey development hereby permitted, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the land. The Plan must include, but not be limited to the following:
   • (a) a description of the location in the context of alternative modes of transport and objectives for the Green Travel Plan;
   • (b) outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, occupant welcome packs (public transport timetables relevant to the local area), bicycle parking and facilities available on the land and monitoring and review mechanisms.
9. Before the development commences, a Waste/Recycling Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved the Plan must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. A stormwater discharge permit is required from Council.
11. All bins and receptacles must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in a clean and tidy condition and free from offensive odour(s).
12. Before the apartment dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to the car parking, pedestrian walkways and entry must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13. With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15. The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure that no loss of amenity is caused to adjoining or nearby land.
16. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.
17. Provision of litter control at stormwater inlet points within the carpark and paved areas is required. All stormwater pits must be Channel Grated or Grated as per Council's Standard Drawing SD210/215 or SC225 respectively.
18. Stormwater from all paved areas must be retained within the property and drained to the sites underground stormwater system, including pavement over the easement area.
19. Any cut or fill must not interfere with the natural overland stormwater flow.
20. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during construction.

1. Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to the satisfaction of CFA. The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart. Hydrants must be identified as specified in 'Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting Purposes' available under publications on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au).

1. Roads must be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 14 tonnes of the trafficable road width. The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 metres. Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1 degree) entry and exit angle.

1. This permit will expire if the development hereby permitted is not:
   • (a) commenced within two years from the date of issue of this permit, or
   • (b) completed within four years of the date of the issue of this permit.
2. Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards, the owner or occupier of the land may in writing, request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] Clause 43.04 of the Hume Planning Scheme.

[4] Clause 11.02-2 Planning for growth areas.

[5] 123 dwellings does not include the 12 lots designated for single dwelling development at a later date.

[6] I note that Council's concern primarily related to the use of Cleeland Court, not Murchison Drive.