13 Mr Martin confirmed that there is nothing in the scheme or Respondent's policy TP-P 2.13 that would prevent the development being approved.
14 On the evidence the respondent's decision to refuse the application was based on the single objection of the adjoining neighbour who was concerned that there would be overlooking from the new development, and the bulk of which would have an adverse impact on their property.
15 The Tribunal had before it the plans of the development showing the placement and type of windows, and the evidence confirms that any overlooking would be minor, consistent with the requirements of the codes, and would have no unacceptable impact on the neighbour's amenity.
16 On the evidence there is nothing of an objective nature to suggest that the development would be contrary to the general provisions of the scheme or the specific standards of the Codes. In arriving at this conclusion I am mindful of the report to the respondent on this matter that recommended approval to the development and which shows that the development does in fact satisfy the "Acceptable Standards" of the Codes.
17 In the circumstances the application for planning approval dated 3 September 2004 and accompanying plans is approved subject to such conditions that the Respondent might reasonably apply to a development of this type.
18 If the parties cannot agree the conditions the matter will be determined by the Tribunal at a hearing at 10 am on 26 April 2005.
19 If the conditions are agreed the parties shall lodge a Minute of Consent Orders to that effect, without the need for further hearing.
I certify that this and the preceding five pages comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________
MR D BROWN
Member