Masterbuilt Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council

The Applicant's evidence (i) Bulk and scale of Lot 33 66 Mr Minto disagreed with the conclusions of Mr Moody. He stated that the proposal is acceptable as it is located within the subdivision and occupies a position close to its centre. Even though it is three storeys in height, the design addresses the adjoining development by providing a flat roof with increased setbacks at the upper level. When this is combined with the generous area available for landscaping around its perimeter and the Council approval of two-storey residential dwellings adjoining the buildings, Mr Minto concluded that the proposal is appropriate in relation to height, bulk and scale. Findings (i) Bulk and scale of Lot 33 67 While part of the Council's evidence includes a comparison of the proposed development and the Council's planning controls I cannot and do not apply these controls in my analysis. Rather I apply general planning principles as identified in Fodor and as required under s 79C(1). The issue between Mr Moody and Mr Minto centres on the appearance of the buildings from within the site. In balancing views of Mr Moody and Mr Minto I prefer the conclusions of Mr Moody. I accept Mr Moody's assessment that the upper level is inappropriate when considered in its context. There is a significant difference in the building form and bulk of two storey and three storey developments. Clearly, an upper level that does not impose on the more modest residential density of the surrounding development is more desirable. Even with the proposed setbacks on the upper level, I accept Mr Moody's evidence that it will still be clearly visible, read as a third level and consequently relate unacceptably to its adjoining development.