36 Mr Sherry, environmental health and building surveyor, gave evidence both about the stop work direction he issued and his discussions with the respondents at that time. He gave details of other inspections, including his measurements of the enclosure (about 2.4 to 2.5m above ground with the timber cover about 45m2). Mr Sherry identified that Windermere was not only a heritage item, but also located within a foreshore scenic protection area. He considered the enclosure a significant intrusion into the natural environment and landscape when viewed from the reserve and the waterway. He did not think it appropriate to rely on planting as a total screen, rather than as a means to soften the appearance of visually acceptable development. He accepted that water conservation was highly desirable and encouraged by the Council. He agreed that it was desirable for the gardens that presently exist at Windermere to be maintained in the way they presently are being maintained. He acknowledged that he was not a landscape expert, but observed that lilly-pillies, while natives, were not indigenous to the Ferdinand Street reserve area. He thought the balustrade and associated supports would make the development more visually intrusive, but accepted that landscaping could soften its appearance. Mr Sherry also referred in his evidence to other planning controls (a development control plan and regional environmental plan), but I do not think it necessary to record the provisions of those instruments given the more specific terms of the LEP referred to above. Mr Sherry had other concerns about certain engineering matters. Having examined the engineering drawings in Mrs Fraser's evidence, I do not consider those concerns sustainable.