To Condition 1, the following additional sub-clauses shall be included:

(h) The method of construction of the buildings must be by the use of screw piles and waffle pod slabs as described by Mr Russell Brown in his submission to the Tribunal.

(i) The driveway in front of the garages to Units 2 and 3 shall be redesigned to provide for the catchment and redirection of stormwater towards the large Southern Blue Gum in the adjacent property to the south to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

In Condition 4 in the first line the word "driveway" shall be deleted and substituted by the words "works hereby permitted".

Mr Mark Waldon, Planning Consultant, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.

Mr Peter English, of Peter English and Associates, Town Planning Consultants, appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Permit Applicant and called, as an expert witness, Mr Russell Brown, Civil Engineer.

Mr David Leggo, the Applicant/Objector, appeared in person.

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of a decision to grant a permit.

"The decision is flawed on the basis that whilst protection of the trees is required under Item 4, the application should have been refused as the protection of the trees required by the permit cannot be met."

1. This is an application for review of the decision by the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for three, single storey dwellings on the subject site.

2. The applicant, Mr David Leggo, had only one concern and that was for the protection of a very large and attractive Eucalyptus tree within his property but very close to the common boundary with the subject site and approximately 12m west of the rear boundary.

3. He submitted that Condition 4 of the Notice of Decision, which required that the tree be protected, could not be met. He tabled a report from an arborist, Mr R.G. Ashton of The Complete Tree and Garden Co which supported his submission. However, Mr Ashton was not called as a witness and his report was, therefore, not the subject of cross-examination.

4. There were no objections regarding the planning merits of the proposal raised whatsoever and the hearing dealt solely with the issue of the protection of the tree.

5. On the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal announced that the application for review would be disallowed and a permit would be granted for the development, generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Decision issued by Council on 13 February 2001 subject to some variations.

6. Oral reasons were given for this decision which are summarised as follows.

7. The Tribunal considers that the evidence put before it by Mr Russell Brown was convincing and that the method of construction outlined by him, that is the use of screw piles and a waffle pod slab, will minimise the effects of the development on the large tree on No. 10 John Street and will ensure that it will be possible to comply with Condition 4 which requires that an arborist be engaged to devise a satisfactory means of protecting the trees.

8. It is possible that a more conventional form of construction, such as a floating raft slab, may have made it very difficult to devise a method of protecting the tree, but it is the Tribunal's view that Mr Brown's evidence indicates that it should be well within the competence of a suitably qualified arborist to do so, providing his suggested method of construction is adopted.

9. The objector's submission that it is impossible to satisfactorily protect the tree is therefore not accepted and the application for review is disallowed.

10. It follows from what has been said that it is appropriate that a permit should issue for the proposed development and the Tribunal will so order.