a) Criteria (a), (c), (e), (g), (h) and (i) are not relevant to this proposal. > > b) The setback will result in a disruption of the streetscape as the proposed carport/garage will be closer to the frontage and more prominent from the street than the carport/garage located in front of the dwelling on the adjoining property which is setback further from the frontage than the proposal lessening the impact on the streetscape. (Criterion b) > > c) The setback will not be more appropriate taking into account the prevailing setback within the street which varies between 18m and 75m. The applicants submitted that the widening of the street in front of their property to create a turning area for traffic means that the distance to the street is reduced. The setback proposed is a significant reduction to the prevailing setback, even if the street widening is considered. (Criterion d) > > d) The siting is not constrained by the shape and or dimensions of the allotment. The applicants submitted that access to the water tank and lack of side or rear access necessitate the proposed carport/garage being sited in front of the dwelling. Access to the rear of the property would appear to be possible if the carport/verandah was removed on the eastern boundary of the site to provide access to the rear of the property. (Criterion f)

6. As the proposal does not meet the decision guidelines in MG-12, I find that the Council's refusal of consent should be affirmed.