2. The appellants are to file and serve submissions in support of the application for costs within 14 days.

3. The respondent is to file and serve answering submissions within 14 days of receipt of the appellant's submissions.

4. There is liberty to apply in respect to directions (2) and(3).

Environment and planning - Planning appeal - Application to amend development application

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

A Wyminga v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council & Spring Bay (Tasmania) Pty Ltd [2022] TASCAT 41;

St Helens Area Landcare and Coast Care Group Inc v Break O'Day Council & Anor [2007] TASSC 15;

D & E Mulder & M Miteff v Glenorchy City Council and Telstra Corporation Limited [2015] TASRMPAT 8

Appeal and Application to amend development application

1. The appellants have appealed a decision by the Clarence City Council to grant a permit for a development application made by the second respondent. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing building and the development of two new multiple dwellings.
2. The grounds of appeal raise compliance with standards relating to the building envelope and raise consequential issues of overshadowing.
3. The second respondent has applied to amend the development application by revising the plans of the application.
4. Neither the Council nor the appellant oppose the proposed amendments.

1. The second respondent describes the aspects of the approved proposal relevant to the application to amend in the following terms:

(a) Units 1 and 2 are separated by approximately 6770mm.

(b) Unit 1 has a minimum setback of 6710mm to the southern boundary of the site and 3000mm to the northern boundary.

(c) Unit 2 has a minimum setback of 5160mm to the southern boundary of the site and 6725mm to the northern boundary.

(d) The finished floor level for the ground level is 4.650 for unit 1 and 5.6m for unit 2.

(e) A retaining wall is located within 1.5m of the eastern boundary.

1. The second respondent describes the effects of the proposed revised plans in the following terms:

(a) Adjustment to the underlying survey detail.

(b) The separation between units 1 and 2 is reduced to 6580mm.

(c) An increase in setback to the southern boundary to 5660mm.

(d) A decrease in the setback to the northern boundary to 6228mm.

(e) The finished floor level for the garage of unit 2 is reduced to 5.090m and associated change to driveway levels and grades.

(f) The length of the retaining wall along the eastern boundary is reduced.

1. Clause 9(7) of Pt 8 of Sch 2 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (the TASCAT Act) provides a power to amend a development application:

(7) If a person appeals, or makes an application, to the Tribunal and it appears to the Tribunal that - > > (a) the appeal or application relates to an application (the relevant application) made, by one party to the proceedings in relation to the appeal or application, to another party to the proceedings; and > > (b) the appeal or application could be resolved in a manner that is fair to all parties if certain modifications to the relevant application were made; and > > (c) it would be conducive to the expeditious administration of justice if the powers conferred by this clause were exercised - > > the Tribunal may, by order, amend the relevant application accordingly.

2. In order to grant the application to amend it must appear to me that each of the criteria (a) to (c) are satisfied.

1. Clause 9(7)(a) is satisfied as the development application was made by the second respondent to the Council.
2. In respect to cl 9(7)(b), the proposed amendments are certain modifications which are identifiable and can be assessed: A Wyminga v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council & Spring Bay (Tasmania) Pty Ltd [2022] TASCAT 41 [11]. None of the proposed changes apparently trigger any additional planning discretions.
3. The proposed changes address the grounds of appeal which arise in connection with the building envelope. The second respondent contends that the amendments will remove any uncertainty as to whether the building envelope is exceeded. The second respondent says that the reduced separation between the units reflects a minor adjustment to the location of the boundaries determined by survey, and that the change in floor level of the garage and driveway reflects site conditions and further development of the design.
4. I am satisfied that the amendments would not result in a substantially different development in either a qualitative or quantitative sense: St Helens Area Landcare and Coast Care Group Inc v Break O'Day Council & Anor [2007] TASSC 15 [17]-[19]. I am satisfied that the appeal could be resolved in a manner that is fair to all parties if the amendments are made.
5. In respect to cl 9(7)(c), as noted above the substantial elements of the amendments address the ground of appeal relating to the building envelope. It is likely that the proposed amendments would narrow the issues to be determined at the hearing, even if they do not resolve the appeal: D & E Mulder & M Miteff v Glenorchy City Council and Telstra Corporation Limited [2015] TASRMPAT 8. I am satisfied that it would be conducive to expeditious administration of justice if the power to amend is exercised.
6. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of cl 9(7) are apparently met and that the application should be amended as proposed by the second respondent.

1. The appellant has sought an order that the second respondent pay their costs of the application to amend. The second respondent reserved its position in respect to costs pending the outcome of the application. I will make directions in that respect.

1. I am satisfied that the application to amend should be granted and so order and direct:
   1. Development application PDPLANPMTD-2025/051992 is amended by substituting the plans for the proposal dated 3 June 2025 with the amended plans dated 26 May 2025 and annexed and marked AM-2 to the second respondent's application to amend dated 18 February 2026.
   2. The appellants are to file and serve submissions in support of the application for costs within 14 days.
   3. The respondent is to file and serve answering submissions within 14 days of receipt of the appellant's submissions.
   4. There is liberty to apply in respect to directions (2) and(3).