76 It is my view that in consideration of the matters arising from cl 32(a)(i) of SEPP 53, the appreciation which is required is not that of a skilled or trained observer such as an architect or planner but that that which would be drawn by a reasonably observant lay person from within the broader community. That observation, in my assessment, is one which would be made by a person undertaking more than a casual or fleeting observation of the development but would not go so far as to be an observation made with intense scrutiny or, indeed, on a basis which might arise from being a neighbour of such development.
77 As noted earlier, such observation would need to be made on the assumption that Dwelling 1 was already there as part of the streetscape and contributing to the character and identity of the residential environment of the locality.
78 I accept that, to such a lay observer, in any examination of the development, when viewed from either side elevation displaying to Warwick Street, there would be many stylistic and architectural similarities - despite the differences which a more skilled or professional observer might note. This can, in my opinion, be observed from consideration of the two monochromatic elevations depicted earlier. Consideration of them, of course, must be done with caution as the views of them, contrary to their frontal depiction in elevation, will be oblique ones.
79 However each elevation shows, to a reasonable lay observer, strong elements of similarity. It is not as if, for example, the front dwelling had a "Tuscan Villa" styled house behind it with a "Tudor Manor" style one to the rear (these examples not being put as representing a satisfactory design outcome, merely as an example of stark differentiation - any future design of a rear development will obviously need to be assessed on its individual merits).
80 The view of the northern elevation shows strong similarity in the fenestration to the lower two levels of Dwellings 2 and 3 - fenestration not dissimilar to that assumed for the dwelling on the front allotment.
81 The view of the northern elevation also shows strong similarity in the roof form of Dwellings 2 and 3 (particularly as the rearward element of the roof of Dwelling 2 will be at least somewhat obscured from Warwick Street, if not hidden) - roof forms themselves not totally dissimilar to that assumed for the dwelling on the front allotment.
82 The view of the southern elevation shows strong similarity in the fenestration and garage door view of Dwellings 2 and 3 - the garage doors being the same in design to that of the dwelling on the front allotment.
83 The view of the southern elevation shows less similarity in the roof forms of Dwellings 2 and 3 as well as to that of the dwelling on the front allotment.
84 I also accept that the view of the southern elevations will be of much shorter duration (being, at most reasonably assumable, the time for an observer to stroll across the driveway on the site and that of 18 Warwick Street).
85 I am satisfied that, on the test pursuant to cl 32(a)(i) of SEPP 53 as I understand it, the reasonable lay observer would see three dwellings of sufficient uniformity to think that, in effect, they were out of the same mould with minor thematic variations. This is out of character with the character and identity of the present streetscape and would detract from rather than contribute to an attractive residential environment with clear character and identity as required from the clause. The view of the southern elevation would not support such a conclusion on its own but adds support to that to be drawn of the northern elevation. The presentation of the northern elevation warrants refusal in its own right.
86 In case I be wrong as to the test to be applied, I turn to a further consideration of Ms Gordon's views of the proposal.
87 First, I note that I am satisfied that the agreement between Ms Gordon and Mr Minto has brought about a driveway redesign (although not to the extent Ms Gordon originally proposed) which is acceptable.
88 I have set the relevant portions of her report out in full earlier so that there could be no doubt as the precise terms of them. The critical elements concerning the northern elevation, from paras 3.9 and 3.10 of her report, warrant repeating:
The north-western and north-eastern facades and setbacks of Dwellings 1, 2 and 3, are sufficiently different, subject to the use of different materials/colours to present as individual dwellings in a landscape setting, rather than as a series of regimentally located replicas of the same building. The facades, together with the proposed separation between dwellings and proposed landscaping, will present an attractive residential character and identity, providing for dwellings of appropriate bulk, located in a landscape setting.