34 There can be no doubt, given the size of the site that this is a tight design but it nevertheless works and all of the proposed operations can be conducted on site. The streetscape presentation will be satisfactory. The proposed building will be seen from surrounding residential properties but any impacts will be within reason, taking into account that this is an area that is, in response to its zoning, expected to be progressively developed for industrial purposes. I recognize that the site area is less than would be required if subdivision were involved however, I have concluded that it is not too small for this particular proposal and in these circumstances; the issue of site consolidation does not arise.
35 Concerns were expressed that should this air freight forwarder fail, an expectation would arise to the effect that the building would be able to be used for other industrial purposes without complying with relevantly applicable standards. In my opinion, this is not a reason for refusal because any use of the site and building for a different purpose would require a development application that must be determined on its merits. In this regard I expect that an application for the use of this proposed building and its parking/loading arrangements for more conventional industrial purposes would, most likely, be unsuccessful because of its failure to comply with the associated parking/loading requirements. This is a risk that the owner/applicant takes by proceeding with the subject proposal.
36 Concerns were also expressed that if the appeal were to be upheld this would set an inappropriate precedent. However having decided that, on its merits, this development warrants approval I do not accept that any adverse precedent arises.