13 In Centrum Architects Pty Ltd v Surf Coast SC, Morling and Others (noted at 10 VPR 126), the Tribunal added another criterion. In that case, the owners of a number of single storey dwellings opposed the development of a two storey house on lower land. The Tribunal noted that, had the Objectors developed their properties to their maximum potential, they would have retained their panoramic views. Thus, the level to which the Objectors had developed their own properties was held to be a relevant consideration.
14 While the Tribunal accepts Mr Baulch's quantitative assessment that approximately 30% of the Healy's viewshed would be lost (viewed from the central point of the deck), it seems Mr Baulch did not give a great deal of consideration to making a qualitative assessment in which the value of the lost 30% was appraised. As both Mr Peeters and Mr Baulch conceded, the main viewshed of the Healy property is to Point Roadknight, across the picturesque cove of water, and taking in the sandy foreshore. That view will be almost totally lost. Views will still be available to the more distant hinterland, and to the deeper waters of Bass Strait, further to the south east. However, by comparison, the view that would remain is a secondary or ancillary view.
15 The Tribunal does not accept the proposition that the value of views can be assessed from peripheral points of the Objector's viewing areas. The most obvious and sensible starting point is to make that assessment from those positions that are most likely to be commonly utilised.
16 As earlier indicated, the Tribunal inspected the properties of both Mr White and Mr Orme whose properties lie on each side of the Healy residence. The Orme family also owns a vacant lot which lies to the rear of the review site. In each of these cases, although there would be a loss of view, it does not entail the removal or interference with the primary viewshed. Accordingly the Tribunal believes that neither of those two situations represents an unreasonable loss of view.
17 The Tribunal returns to the Healy situation. In its assessment, when viewed from the central portion of the deck, their loss would be both significant and dramatic. Moreover, their main living areas open directly onto the deck and enjoy similar views, views that would also be severely affected. It is perhaps unfortunate that the designer was not called to give evidence, as it may have been beneficial to explore whether the overall height of the building could be lowered while still leaving the basis of the design intact. It may also have been beneficial to explore whether a different and more modest roof profile could have achieved a better outcome. It seems to the Tribunal that other options do exist but it was not in a position to test the efficiency of alternative solutions.
18 It seems, from the submissions of the Objectors, that the Permit Applicant did not initiate a consultative process prior to lodging a formal application. There is, of course, no legal obligation to do so. However, in a situation such as this, where amenity is a key factor, it is regrettable that some prior discussion did not take place. Indeed, it is a key factor as to why the Permit Applicant now finds himself in his present position. The Tribunal has no doubt at all that the site can support an upward extension. It also accepts Mr Connor's submission that the site is ripe for redevelopment and an upgraded building would add to the ambience and appearance of the locality. However, it needs to be carried out with greater regard for the amenity of the Healy property.
19 In the Tribunal's view, the proposal fails to recognise the Planning Scheme directive that a reasonable sharing of views should take place.
20 This is not a situation where development of the "front row" will inevitably lead to an obliteration of views from the rows behind. With forethought and proper planning, most dwellings in the vicinity should be able to maintain good sea views, nor is this a case where the Objectors have failed to maximise their own opportunities. All three of the Objector's properties support substantial, two storey dwellings.
21 The Tribunal considers that the Tashouindis principles have now been refined to the extent that they should be re-stated as follows: