Evidence
37Expert landscape evidence was heard from Mr Ray Fuggle for the applicant and Ms Narelle Sonter for the Council.
38The landscape experts agree that the proposal will not require the removal of any existing trees on the site and that the band of indigenous canopy trees on the western side of Remembrance Drive, specifically the Broad-leaved paperbark street trees located in the wide verge in front of 25 Remembrance Drive, will be retained.
39Ms Sonter notes, in her Statement of Evidence (Exhibit 5), that there are no details provided of the driveway design to provide assurance to the Council that the driveway will not impact on the existing tree root zones adjacent to the proposed driveway and crossover and that the configuration of the driveway is shown differently on the architectural plans (Exhibit A Site Plan and Ground Floor Plan) and the landscape plan (Exhibit B). Mr Fuggle agrees with Ms Sonter that the driveway configuration shown on the architectural plans may have an adverse impact on the street trees and that the driveway configuration shown on the landscape plan, which curves gently between the trees and is a single car width for the portion of the crossover, should prevail over that shown on the architectural plans. In the Joint Expert Statement - Landscape (Exhibit 6), Ms Sonter agrees with Mr Fuggle that the configuration of the driveway as shown on the landscape plan should be followed in order to retain the street trees at the northern end of the verge.
40The landscape experts agree that there are no existing canopy trees located on the site. The landscape experts disagree as to whether there is sufficient deep soil area to plant trees that will, upon maturity, contribute to the open bushland canopy that forms a backdrop to the dwellings along Remembrance Drive, in accordance with the desired character statement (Wamberal 5, DCP 159). According to Ms Sonter, an uninterrupted margin of 8 m is required at the rear of Lot 1 to provide for 3 canopy trees. The future development of Lot 1, with a front setback of 6 m (as required by clause 9.2.2 of DCP 155) would leave insufficient area at the rear of the allotment for the planting of canopy trees.
41According to Mr Fuggle, canopy trees could be planted at the rear of Lot 1 given the location of the existing dwelling directly adjacent to the Ocean View Drive boundary with a rear setback to the shared boundary of 7 m and additional deep soil under the uncovered section of the deck. If the allotment is redeveloped in the future, as demonstrated by the 'possible' scenario (Exhibit 3), canopy trees could be planted in the 6 m front setback.
42The applicant amended the proposal during the proceedings, with the agreement of the respondent, to delete a proposed retaining wall along the boundary between the allotments and to provide a L shaped retaining wall to the south-western corner of the proposed dwelling, which is setback from the shared boundary by 2 m and is 4 m long on the north-south axis and 3 m long on the east-west axis.