37 Under cross-examination, Mr Meggitt agreed that a number of aspects of the design of the proposal raised were compliant with the provisions of the Design Codes. These included: the boundary wall (ground floor south setback), the first floor east setback, the loft windows facing south, the outdoor living area (as it met the Performance Criteria specified in cl 3.4.2P2), overshadowing and the height of the building. Mr Meggitt also agreed that a number of the solutions agreed to by the applicant resulted in other aspects of the proposal complying with the Design Codes. These included the modification to the balcony area in accordance with "Line of Sight Diagram B" and the setting back of the upper floor" display and coverhead cupboard recess wall" to 1.8 metres.
38 In the context of non-compliant issues, the only outstanding issue between the parties involved the ground floor northern wall of the built in robes, which was conceded to be a minor variation.
39 Notwithstanding the above, Mr Meggitt continued to argue that it was the culmination of issues that compounded to adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties, and the locality and the design of the proposed dwelling failed to satisfy the respondent's policy requirements.
40 On the evidence, it would seem clear that the issues of moment are related to the setback of the first floor level to Hutt Street, overshadowing and height/bulk and scale. Privacy is no longer considered to be an issue as long as the balcony area is modified in accordance with "Line of Sight Diagram B".
41 The Tribunal is cognisant of the fact that the proposed "Single House" results from a subdivision of an original corner lot, which has frontage to the original secondary street. The respondent, in coding the area R40, has accepted that medium density development would occur within this locality. Evidence of this is the subdivision of the parent lot. Given the size and dimension of the subject land, development is likely to be two storey if it is to meet modern expectations for new housing. Therefore, to some extent any development on the lot would almost inevitably differ from existing housing stock in Hutt Street, at least in terms of height. While the Tribunal accepts that the predominant style of development in the locality is single storey, it does not agree that any policy framework applying to the subject land leads to the conclusion that only single storey development should be permitted. Relevantly, the respondent's Building Scale Policy acknowledges the inevitability of two storey houses. As evidenced by the photographs submitted by Ms Christian, the height of the proposed dwelling, although two storey with a loft, would not be out of harmony with other dwellings in the Alma Locality. The height of the dwelling is compliant with the provisions of the Design Codes and consistent with the Alma Locality Policy and the Building Scale Policy.
42 The proposed setback to Hutt Street complies with the Acceptable Development provisions contained in the Design Codes and although the Alma Locality policy advocates a greater street setback, it does not take into account situations where the original lot has been subdivided. Evidence was provided and Mr Meggitt conceded that there were instances in the Alma Locality where the respondent has been inconsistent in their approach to setbacks to secondary streets. The applicant has attempted to reduce the impact of the proposed dwelling on the streetscape by varying the setbacks of the ground and upper floor levels along the street frontage and varying the height of different elements in the elevation. These design features are intended to break the façade to provide visual relief and to soften the impact of the façade on the street and as such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the design of the eastern elevation would not adversely affect the amenity of the area.
43 In relation to overshadowing, Mr Meggitt conceded that the shadow cast by the proposal complied with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Design Codes but argued that the private open space of the adjoining property would be significantly affected. The applicant clearly demonstrated, through the use of a shadow diagram, that a significant portion of the outdoor living area is affected by the shadow cast by the existing 1.8 metre high boundary fence. The shadow diagram also shows that the majority of the shadow cast by the proposed dwelling will overlap the shadow cast by the existing fence and over the existing dwelling. There is a marginal increase in the area of the outdoor living area affect by shadow, which is to be expected given the orientation of the land. Mr Meggitt conceded in cross-examination that a wall of similar height and length to the wall on the northern boundary, setback 1.5 metres from the southern boundary, which is compliant with the Design Codes, could have a greater impact on the outdoor living area of the adjoining property.
44 On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development will not adversely affect the character of the locality or give rise to unacceptable impacts on the adjoining property to the south in terms of bulk and scale or overshadowing. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers the proposed development to be acceptable and worthy of conditional planning approval.