When viewed from the street, visible additions should be: of a lesser perceived volume or bulk than the original extent of the building; related in roof form and plan form to the original building; and recognisable as a separate element.

1. As noted earlier, side setbacks are a characteristic of the estate and a further design response calls for side setbacks to match those of adjacent buildings. The council submission noted that the construction of the proposed extension to the boundary was not consistent with the heritage significance of the area. Condition 1a, requiring a 3.0 metre setback from the front façade on the eastern side, was therefore placed on the permit with a view to improving the apparent spacing between dwellings, when viewed from the public realm.
2. Although Mr Barrett sought to differentiate the Prospect Hill Road portion from the quiet suburban streets of much of Hassett's Estate, his evidence was that:

Some alterations are proposed along the eastern elevation of the existing house, and these display a sympathetic approach to designing an addition to a period house. This addition is responsive to the adjoining existing house and the broader heritage precinct ... ... ...

The addition to the east elevation is setback sufficiently from the line of the north elevation of the existing house, so as to be a discrete element. The addition blends in with the existing dwelling by using similar materials and detailing. The hipped roof of the addition distinguishes it from the earlier building and sits comfortably under the end of the existing gable. The use of the same roof pitch as the existing house is another complementary element of the design.

1. In response to questions as to whether an increased setback of the east side additions beyond the 1.0 metre shown on the plans would reduce the visibility of the extension, Mr Barrett said increasing the setback will not really achieve any improved outlook and will not be any more recessive. He noted that the element of recession is assisted by the land sloping down from Prospect Hill Road and the addition will not be visible from most parts of the street.
2. While it is true that the façade of the house is substantially hidden by the unbroken line of the hedge from the driveway to the eastern boundary at present, the introduction of the proposed front fencing and gates, including the new lych gate opposite the front porch will open up the view. The 2.3 metre width of the extension ensures that it will be visible from the driveway, the lych gate and the eastern boundary, apart from the filtered views through the hedge. Contrary to Mr Barrett, in relation to this single issue, I am of the opinion that an increased setback will make the extension less visible from most points of view and more recessive in that it will start at a slightly lower point on the land. Rather than adopt the 3.0 metre setback called for by council, I am satisfied that a 2.0 metre setback from the line of the north façade will serve to increase the sense of recession and help maintain the perception of spacing between homes that is characteristic of this estate. Although it is not a determinative matter, it happens that such a setback would also reduce the length of wall on the boundary to 17.0 metres, in conformity with the standard, rather than the 18.0 metres proposed.

The east wing constructed with a flat parapeted obscured skillion roofline within a minimum of 9.0 metres of the bedroom 2 front façade wall

1. In this matter I have relied on the evidence of Mr Barrett that the hipped roof proposed is superior to the parapet and skillion roof prescribed by the council condition in that: it enables a lower wall height to be used on the boundary; it is more in keeping with the pitched roof on the subject dwelling and others in the street; and therefore more related to the roof form of the original building and character of the neighbourhood. Mr Barrett likened the condition proposed as being more akin to an extension that might have been built on the side of a house 30 years ago, which would lead to an awkward transition towards the south of the building. Accordingly, this condition has been deleted from the permit.

The proposed store located within the south drainage easement shown as a lean-to construction style supported by two (2) posts, with no walls or any permanent floor within the easement to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

1. It was put to me that rather than the skillion roof shelter on two posts, which would not provide all-weather, vermin-proof storage, a demountable (bolted together) shed composed of separate roof, walls and flooring that could be removed if required, along with the contents, should meet council's and the Tribunal's concerns. In response to a question as to who should bear the cost of such removal, Mr Sayer suggested the use of a written agreement between the owner and council in which the owner undertakes to bear the cost should removal be required. Mr Lewis made the further suggestion that access to easements is now rarely required due to the use of sophisticated internal pipe clearing and sealing devices and compounds.
2. I regard these proposals as an inadequate response to the issue. It would seem that the only way in which an agreement such as that proposed could run with the land is by way of a section 173 Agreement. It would seem unnecessary to resort to section when there is an easement already in place to provide the means of gaining the required access. Similarly, the argument that easements no longer need to be dug up, seems hardly tenable given the movement to encourage higher housing density, greater use of existing infrastructure assets and the need to accommodate changing forms of energy use and distribution.
3. There is sufficient space to extend the garage to the north in order to provide an equivalent storage space within the garage to house the items requiring enclosure, including the pool equipment. Items capable of being stored externally could take advantage of the shelter proposed in the council condition, which will remain part of the permit.

Removal of the water tanks and pool equipment from within the drainage easement along the south property boundary.

1. It follows from the foregoing that I support retention of the Council's condition regarding the water tanks. The task of draining and shifting them, if access were to be required, would not be easy in the confined spaces at the south end of the site. The proposal development is a significant extension of the dwelling, which already includes excavation to accommodate the pool and cellar. With the variety of water tanks and other water storage devices now available, it should not be difficult to incorporate water storage within the proposal without intruding on the easement. One obvious location identified by Mr Lewis, being under the courtyard.

1. The substituted fencing plans need to be specifically approved as the height of the brick piers exceeds 1.5 metres. The proposal involves extending the existing clinker brick fence by approximately 450mm, with brick piers to a height of 1.75 metres corresponding to the adjoining dwelling at 146 Prospect Hill Road. A new lych gate will be installed directly in line with the front porch and the new entrance steps on the north (street) side. The height of the lych gate will correspond to the height of the porch entrance and the wrought iron gates on both the driveway and the lych gate will be made to match the entrance door to the porch. The spaces between the brick piers will be filled by the existing hedge, which will have an aluminium mesh security fence behind. A condition of permit requiring the fence to be constructed in accordance with the substituted plan will form part of the permit.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal will direct that the decision of the responsible authority is varied.