14 The issue of reasonable expectations, and the longer term impacts of cumulative development are more complex in this case. The subject land is not within a Township Zone, rather it is within a Rural Zone. However, notwithstanding the zoning, I believe that some meaning has to be given to the fact that the land is affected by a restructure overlay and the purpose to be achieved by the restructure plan which forms part of the overlay.
15 The Pine Acres Estate was clearly a residential subdivision. The restructure plan produces a lower density outcome, but is nevertheless a plan for residential estate. I think it is reasonable to assume that the restructure plan was an attempt to reconcile the historic subdivision of the land, with then more current perceptions of orderly planning and land capability. It may be the case that if we were restructuring the Pine Acres Estate in 2005, the result would be an even lower density outcome having regard to our greater concern in respect of the density of development within water supply catchments. The fact of the matter is that this subdivision was restructured in the 1970's and that this planning process is reflected in the current planning scheme provisions.
16 The subject land originally comprised of lots 21 to 24 of the Pine Acres Estate. These lots were consolidated, in accordance with the structure plan, in October 2003. Notwithstanding the zoning of the land, I think that in this context the Park's could reasonably expect to be able to develop the land for the purpose of a dwelling.
17 This type of case raises very complex issues in relation to the balance which should be struck between the public interest, and that of individual land owners. I consider that an important factor in striking this balance, is a consideration of what it is the planning scheme can be said to imply about reasonable use of the land. In this case I think that the planning scheme implies that the land is to be used for a residential purpose, and this is a factor which favours the grant of a permit. I think that this fact distinguishes the circumstances of this case from that in the Leonard case[7].
18 Because we are concerned about a cumulative impact, another important consideration is that of precedent, and I accept Ms MacIndoe's submissions in this regard. It is with this purpose that I sought additional information in relation to the extent to which the Pine Acres Estate, affected by the restructure overlay, had been developed. If it was the case that the estate was largely undeveloped, then a very difficult question would have arisen. On one hand the restructure overlay would be creating an expectation that the estate would be developed for a low density residential purpose, while on the other hand the outcome would be the creation of a large number of new septic tank systems at an unacceptable density. However, I am satisfied that this is not the precedent which is being created here, the estate is largely developed, only a small number of restructure lots are available for development, some of which are not yet restructured.
19 It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit issued.
20 In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit I have had regard to the "draft" conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the water authorities and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from my reasons. In relation to the draft conditions I have decided: