1. Any application for an order for costs in this appeal is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 21 days. In the event that no application is filed the order of the Tribunal is that each party bear their own costs.

Environment and planning - Planning appeal - Extension of existing dwelling - Whether unreasonable loss of residential amenity - How amenity is to be assessed

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993;

Hobart City Council v Rich Tapestry Pty Ltd (ACN 667 999 055) [2024] TASSC 54;

Dunn v Central Coast Council [2018] TASRMPAT 27; Hall v Hobart City Council [2024] TASCAT 155;

Mamic v Hobart City Council [2018] TASRMPAT 5;

Tabart v Central Coast Council [2024] TASCAT 178; Hall v Hobart City Council [2024] TASCAT 155; Hutchens & Anor v City of Holdfast Bay & Anor [2007] SASC 2038;

Boland v Clarence City Council [2021] TASFC 5; Wilderness Society (Tasmania) Inc. v Wild Drake Pty Ltd [2021] TASFC;

Saltwater Lagoon Pty Ltd v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council [2022] TASFC 5;

Director of Housing v Lefevre [2021] TASSC 33.

1. The appellants have appealed a decision by the Tasman Council to grant a permit for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single dwelling at Stewarts Bay.
2. The sole ground of appeal asserts that the proposal fails to meet both the acceptable solution A2 and the performance criterion P2 of cl 10.4.3 of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Tasman (the Scheme). Clause 10.4.3 A2 and P2 provide:

That the siting of dwellings is compatible with the streetscape and does not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity for adjoining properties.

Dwellings, excluding outbuildings with a building height of not more than 2.4m and protrusions that extend not more than 0.9m horizontally from the building, must have a setback from side and rear boundaries of not less than 5m.

The siting of a dwelling must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining properties, having regard to;

(a) the topography of the site;

(b) the size, shape and orientation of the site;

(c) the setbacks of surrounding buildings;

(d) the height, bulk and for of existing and proposed buildings;

(e) the existing buildings and private open space areas on the site;

(f) sunlight to private open space and windows of habitable rooms on adjoining properties; and

(g) the character of development existing on established properties in the area.

1. The proposal is for an extension to a single residential dwelling. Residential use for a single dwelling is a no permit required use in table 10.2 of the Scheme, however pursuant to cl 6.4.1(a) and cl 6.6.1 of the Scheme a permit will be required if the use or development relies on a performance criterion to comply with an applicable standard.
2. The single ground of appeal is:

The Development Application fails to satisfy Clause 10.4.3 A2/P2 in that:

(a) Acceptable Solution A2 is not met as there is no setback provided to the rear or side boundary of the property;

(b) Performance Criteria P2 is not met as the siting of the addition to the dwelling causes an unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining properties at 4A Illawong Drive, 6 Illawong Drive, Port Arthur, and the adjoining Stewarts Bay State Reserve.

Particulars

(i) Sightlines to Stewarts Bay from private open space at 4A Illawong Drive on the northern aspect will be compromised by the height, bulk, and location of the dwelling addition;

(ii) Sightlines to Stewarts Bay from the southerly aspect of the dwelling at 6 Illawong Drive will be compromised by the height, bulk, and location of the dwelling addition;

(iii) The site is flat and there are no topographical features that necessitate the location of the proposed dwelling addition on the rear boundary with no setback;

(iv) The size, shape and orientation of the site provides numerous other options for the location of the dwelling addition within the Acceptable Solution A2;

(v) There are no other buildings in the surrounding area with zero setbacks to the rear boundary as it adjoins the Stewarts Bay State Reserve, other than the current dwelling;

(vi) The height, bulk, and location of the dwelling addition intensifies the domination of the boundary with the Stewarts Bay State Reserve adjacent to the treeline, and provides the impression that the foreshore reserve forms part of the private property;

(vii) The proposal is inconsistent with the character of development on established properties in the area, all of which have setbacks in compliance with A2 in respect of the Stewarts Bay State Reserve.

1. It was common ground that the proposal would not satisfy the acceptable solution in A2 and the issue on the appeal was whether it would satisfy the performance criterion in P2.

1. The site of the proposal is located within the Low Density Residential Zone in cl 10 of the Scheme. The site is an internal lot and is generally flat. It has an area of 979m².
2. There is an existing two-storey dwelling built to the rear boundary of the site. The dwelling has a deck which runs the length of the dwelling on the upper level facing Stewarts Bay and has a zero metre setback from the boundary with the Stewarts Bay Beach Reserve. A detached outbuilding used as a boatshed is located to the southwest of the dwelling.
3. Vehicular access to the site is from Illawong Drive via an access strip. The access strip has a frontage of 6m and runs along the northern end of the lot.
4. The northern boundary of the site runs west to east from Illawong Drive to the coastal reserve and has a length of 50.9m.
5. The southern boundary of the access strip has an initial length of 21m and deviates to the southeast forming a truncation which joins the western boundary of the lot. The truncation has a length of 17.01m and the western boundary has a length of 20.9m. Between the western boundary and the reserve the southern boundary has a length of 20.94m.
6. The eastern boundary with the coastal reserve has a length of 37.11m.
7. There are four properties adjoining the site:
   • The coastal reserve.
   • 6 Illawong Drive, which is a standard rectangular lot with an area of 945.7m² to the north of the site. It contains a single dwelling set back approximately 9.2m from the coastal reserve.
   • 4A Illawong Drive is an irregular shaped lot with an area of 1001m² situated between the site and Illawong Drive. It contains a single dwelling.
   • 19 Stewarts Bay Road is an irregular shaped lot of 1317m² to the south of the site. It contains a dwelling set back 12.9m from the coastal reserve.
8. The site is located within a small coastal residential node of 28 residential lots with a single access road. All but one lot contains a dwelling.

1. The proposal is for an extension of the existing double storey dwelling located on the site. The proposal will extend the first floor and the existing first floor deck along the eastern elevation towards the north. The addition will extend over a proposed new covered parking area on the ground floor which will be walled on the northern elevation with the eastern and western elevations remaining open. The proposed addition will have a building area of approximately 63.5m² and a maximum building height 6.3m. The addition will match the profile of the existing dwelling.

1. The test in cl 10.4.3 P2 is that the siting of a dwelling must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining properties. In considering that test the Tribunal is directed to have regard to the matters listed (a) through (g) in P2.
2. Amenity is defined in table 3.1 of the Scheme as:

Means, in relation to a locality, place or building, any quality, condition or factor that makes or contributes to making the locality, place or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable.

3. Adjoining is defined in table 3.1 as meaning "next to, or having a common boundary with". As noted above, the adjoining properties are:
   • The coastal reserve.
   • 6 Illawong Drive.
   • 4A Illawong Drive.
   • 19 Stewarts Bay Road.
4. The elements that the Tribunal is required to have regard to in P2 do not constitute separate standards, but are matters that we are required to take into account as a fundamental element of our decision making: Hobart City Council v Rich Tapestry Pty Ltd (ACN 667 999 055) [2024] TASSC 54 at [36].
5. P2 does not prohibit any loss of amenity, nor a complete loss of amenity, but rather an unreasonable loss. A loss of amenity will be unreasonable if it is immoderate or exorbitant: Dunn v Central Coast Council [2018] TASRMPAT 27 at [49], as applied for example in Hall v Hobart City Council [2024] TASCAT 155 at [53].
6. The assessment of loss of amenity requires a comparative analysis between the existing level of amenity and the level of amenity that will exist after development: Mamic v Hobart City Council [2018] TASRMPAT 5 at [61] and Tabart v Central Coast Council [2024] TASCAT 178 at [33]. A qualitative approach is to be taken: Hall v Hobart City Council [2024] TASCAT 155 at [50].
7. The significant aspect of amenity raised on the appeal is visual amenity arising in connection with views towards Stewarts Bay. P2 does not specifically provide for the protection of views, but a standard directed at the protection of amenity may require that regard be had to views, including coastal views, which might be obstructed by a proposed development: Hutchens & Anor v City of Holdfast Bay & Anor [2007] SASC 2038 at [25].
8. The appellants contend that care should be taken in assessing loss of amenity where the loss is incremental. The increment identified by the appellants is the proposal as an extension to the existing effect on amenity from the existing dwelling. The effect of the proposal on any already diminished amenity is taken into account by consideration of what might be an unreasonable loss of amenity in all the circumstances and the qualitative rather than quantitative approach to the assessment.
9. In considering unreasonable loss of amenity the acceptable solution in A2 does not constitute a benchmark, but development which the scheme contemplates as permitted may provide context to inform the level of amenity considered reasonable by the scheme: Boland v Clarence City Council [2021] TASFC 5 at [22].

Is the assessment limited to site-based amenity

1. The appellants contended that because P2 establishes a standard in respect to the effect of the siting of the dwelling on amenity the only relevant amenity consideration in respect to the adjoining properties is that component of amenity which might be affected by siting, which they referred to as site-based amenity, and not amenity which might arise from the locality. The appellants did not provide any authority for that proposition.
2. The approach to interpretation of a planning scheme is well settled: See Wilderness Society (Tasmania) Inc. v Wild Drake Pty Ltd [2021] TASFC 12 at [112] to [114] and Saltwater Lagoon Pty Ltd v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council [2022] TASFC 5 at [18] to [20]. A planning scheme should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, starting with the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the text considered in the context of the surrounding provisions, the scheme as a whole and its purpose.
3. P2 establishes a standard in respect to loss of amenity to adjoining properties as a result of the siting of a dwelling. The relevance of siting in the standard is the siting of the proposed dwelling. It does not specifically relate to the siting of dwellings on adjoining properties, although that might be relevant to the amenity enjoyed by those properties. It does not expressly limit relevant loss of amenity to amenity which might be affected by the siting of a dwelling. P2(g) requires consideration of established properties in the area, an assessment that is likely to extend beyond the concept of site amenity advanced by the appellants. The provision is to prevent unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining properties.
4. The appellants' interpretation would mean that amenity in P2 has a more restricted meaning than elsewhere in the Scheme. Generally a word is to be given a consistent meaning in a statute: Director of Housing v Lefevre [2021] TASSC 33 [49].
5. There is no basis for reading amenity in P2 as having a more limited definition than that set out in table 3.1, nor to read into P2 words limiting the consideration of amenity. Even if there were, in this case while the location of properties within the residential node and the coastal reserve were identified as contributing to amenity, aspects contributing to amenity extending beyond the immediate surrounding area, for example proximity to attractions in that general area of the Tasman Peninsula, were not presented on the evidence as being of particular significance in the assessment of amenity.

1. The ground of appeal only raised loss of amenity in respect to 4A Illawong Drive, 6 Illawong Drive and the Stewarts Bay Reserve. No issue was raised on the appeal in respect to loss of amenity to a fourth adjoining property at 19 Stewarts Bay Road.
2. Expert planning evidence was called by each party, Mr Frazer Read for the appellants, Mr George Walker for the Council and Ms Caroline Lindus for the second respondent.
3. Mr Read assessed the proposal against the standard, but did not undertake a separate assessment of the existing amenity of the relevant properties. Mr Walker and Ms Lindus each undertook a discrete assessment of existing amenity.
4. In respect to the coastal reserve Mr Walker identified factors that contributed to its amenity, including its location adjacent to Stewarts Bay Beach, its proximity to the residential node, the established native coastal vegetation, the interface between the coastal vegetation and adjacent buildings on private lots and the lack of a distinguishable boundary between the coastal reserve and those private lots. He observed that the strip of coastal reserve adjoining the relevant properties is rarely used by the public, with no public walking paths or trails through that area.
5. Ms Lindus observed that it is unusual to consider amenity factors as they relate to a public reserve, but noted that factors influencing amenity of the reserve include the proximity to the beach, the outlook to the beach and Stewarts Bay, access to sunlight and usability of space, and a sense of openness in relation to the adjacent buildings.
6. In respect to 6 Illawong Drive, Mr Walker identified the factors contributing to its amenity as its location and setting adjacent to the coastal reserve and Stewarts Bay and the outlook to the predominantly natural setting, the general tranquil coastal and natural ambiance of the residential node, which has limited opportunity to significantly expand, and the established separation distances between existing buildings. He also observed the open views into the property from the coastal reserve and dwellings on adjoining properties, its position within a row of 5 lots which contain double storey dwellings and the position of the area within the state reserve. Ms Lindus considered that the factors contributing to amenity for 6 Illawong Drive included its proximity to the coastal reserve, outlook across Stewarts Bay and access to sunlight, together with a sense of openness.
7. Mr Walker did not initially assess the amenity of 4a Illawong Drive, on the basis that setback distance in the acceptable solution would be satisfied in respect to that property. As the acceptable solution is not met and the proposal falls for assessment against the performance criteria, assessment against 4a Illawong Drive is required notwithstanding that in isolation the proposal would meet the acceptable solution as regards to that property. Mr Walker addressed amenity in his supplementary proof and identified the relevant factors as its location and setting within the discreet residential node adjacent to Stewarts Bay, including its remaining outlook towards the bay and landscape to the northeast between 4 Illawong Drive and 6 Illawong Drive, its position generally within the residential node, a sense of openness towards the north and northeast, the presence of and outlook towards vegetation around the perimeter of the residential node. He noted that the outlook towards Stewarts Bay is primarily from a recently constructed elevated deck on the northern side of the dwelling and not from the eastern elevation of the dwelling, or the eastern private open space area, which is an elevated area with a glass fence.
8. Ms Lindus identified factors contributing to amenity as including sunlight, proximity to the coastal reserve and Stewarts Bay and a sense of openness. Ms Lindus also commented on the use of 4a Illawong Drive for visitor accommodation, observing that the emphasis on promotion of the property as accommodation focused on its proximity to the Port Arthur Historic Site and Stewarts Bay Beach rather than views.

1. We must have regard to the seven matters set out in P2(a)-(g). The appellants conceded that elements (a), the topography of the site, and (f) solar access, had no relevance having regard to the facts of the case, which reflected the opinions of the experts.
2. In respect to element (b), the size, shape and orientation of the site, both Ms Lindus and Mr Walker considered that those elements restricted the siting of the proposed addition. Mr Read accepted that the factors encouraged building to be sited at the rear portion of the lot towards the reserve, but he considered that the area of the site, other than the access strip, would enable a reasonably sized building to be sited without unreasonable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. While that is a salient point in respect to the construction of a new dwelling, the proposal is an extension to the existing dwelling, the siting of which is constrained by the existing development. Both Mr Walker and Ms Lindus considered that there was no reasonable alternative for siting the addition. Mr Read did not suggest any alternative. Mr Walker noted that the addition would be located at the furthest practicable position away from 4a Illawong Drive, but still provide for separation from 6 Illawong Drive.
3. In respect to (c), the setbacks of surrounding buildings, Mr Walker provided a table setting out side and rear boundary setbacks of buildings in the surrounding area. He provided an analysis of the total range of existing surrounding setbacks and a statistical range. He had regard to 2, 4a, 4, 6, 8 and 10 Illawong Drive and 19 Stewarts Bay Road, comprising, with the exception of 4a Illawong Drive, the properties adjoining the coastal reserve. The surrounding buildings all have a greater setback from the eastern boundary which adjoins the coastal reserve, but the setback of the addition will be the same as the setback of the existing dwelling. Mr Walker observed that the setback of buildings adjoining the coastal reserve is not apparent due to the blurring of the boundary. He considered that the proposed addition would be seen as consistent with the setback of buildings from the coastal reserve. The proposed addition would have setbacks that are greater than the northern boundary setback of four of the identified properties and greater than the minimum southern and western boundary setbacks of all those properties.
4. Ms Lindus also undertook an assessment of the varying setbacks and concluded that in respect to both side and rear boundary setbacks the addition would be consistent with the surrounding development.
5. Mr Read considered the established pattern of development of existing buildings in the surrounding area, including 4a, 8 and 10 Illawong Drive, and concluded that there were no examples of buildings that are sited within 5m of both the foreshore reserve boundary and the side boundaries. He concluded that the existing neighbouring properties do not significantly encroach on the outlook to the foreshore reserve. He excluded the existing dwelling on the site from his assessment of setbacks.
6. The significant difference between the experts is whether or not to include the existing dwelling on 4 Illawong Drive in the assessment. The element is to have regard to the setbacks of surrounding buildings. Table 3.1 of the scheme provides that building has the meaning defined in the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). The definition of building in LUPAA is inclusive, and includes a part of a building. The element does not refer to surrounding buildings on adjoining properties, but simply surrounding buildings. Although at first blush it may seem strange that the building to which the addition may be made is a surrounding building, including it is consistent with the definition of buildings, and it would be artificial to ignore the contribution of the setback of the existing building to the existing pattern.
7. The element in (d) is the height, bulk and form of existing and proposed buildings. Mr Read considered that the existing building has an imposing height, bulk and form as viewed from the foreshore reserve and that the extension of the building by a further 7m along the boundary with the foreshore reserve would exacerbate that visual dominance. He considered that members of the public would be likely to feel uncomfortable using the public grassed areas of land adjacent to the site. In respect to 4a Illawong Drive, Mr Read considered that the height, bulk and form of the existing and proposed building and existing boat shed will have a significant cumulative impact on amenity. The existing boat shed dominates the outlook from the living area of 4a and the extension will, in Mr Read's view, substantially block the pleasant outlook from the deck at 4a. Mr Read considered that outlook as a significant factor contributing to the amenity of 4a. He considered that the extended two-storey building would result in a significant visual intrusion to the pleasant outlook from 6 Illawong Drive.
8. Ms Lindus noted that the height of buildings varied in the immediate area. 6 Illawong Drive is single storey but is elevated. 4a Illawong Drive is also single storey and elevated. The proposed extension would be consistent in height and form with the existing dwelling at 4 Illawong Drive. In respect to 6 Illawong Drive, Ms Lindus observed that the addition would be at the far right of the view line from a deck assessable to the living area. The development would reduce the view by 7 degrees from 156 degrees to 149 degrees. The dominant view towards Stewarts Bay would remain unimpeded. In respect to 4a Illawong Drive Ms Lindus noted that the addition would be setback 11m at its closest point from the property boundary with 4a. For much of the outdoor living space at 4a, the existing dwelling at 4 Illawong Drive would be a visual barrier to the addition.
9. Mr Walker considered that the cumulative impact of the bulk and scale of the proposed addition will be minimalised by the eastern and western ground floor elevations being open and the addition retaining the same building line, form, roof profile, materiality and height as the existing dwelling. He also noted that the proposed addition would be at least 18m from the private open space at 6 Illawong Drive, which will minimise visual impact, and that it would not obscure the primary outlook from that property, which is predominantly east towards Stewarts Bay, with the proposal on the periphery of that outlook. He did not consider that the existing amenity of 4a Illawong Drive would be significantly changed. He accepted that the addition would reduce the span of an existing view field, but did not consider that the resultant loss of amenity would be unreasonable. He considered that the effect on the view from 4a Illawong Drive would be no worse than from a building compliant with the acceptable solution for setback from the boundary with 4a Illawong Drive.
10. In respect to (e), the existing buildings and private open space areas on the site, Mr Walker considered that the location of the existing building has a direct influence on the siting of the proposal as the addition will follow the floor plan and building line of the dwelling. The addition will be located over an area of the site that is used for vehicle access, circulation and parking and which is not used as private open space. The addition would in fact increase the private open space by extending the deck on the eastern elevation.
11. Ms Lindus observed that the site is constrained by it being an internal lot with much of the land area not usable for development, and that the existing development informs the location for the addition. She considered that the location of the boat shed and the siting of the dwelling, together with the internal layout of the existing dwelling, limits any extension to being located to the north.
12. Mr Read did not provide any significant analysis in respect to (e).
13. In respect to (g), the character of the development existing on established properties in the area, Mr Walker considered that the relevant area is the entire residential node. He noted that there are approximately 11 double storey buildings within the area and that all but one of the buildings on lots that adjoin the coastal reserve are double storey. He accepted that the separation distance between the existing dwelling and 6 Illawong Drive would reduce as a result of the addition, but that the resulting separation distance would still be in keeping with the separation distances between existing buildings on established properties surrounding the site.
14. Mr Walker described the residential node as characterised by relatively high density development with a compact built form within the context of the Low Density Residential Zone which is typical of early coastal settlements. He observed that all the lots of an area are less than the minimum lot size required by the acceptable solution in the relevant standard in the zone, cl 10.6.1 A1, and all but one have an area less than the minimum lot size permitted by the performance criteria P1 in that clause. His evidence was that, with the exception of one developed lot and a vacant lot, all the lots contain development outside the building area established by acceptable solutions for frontage, side and rear boundary setbacks. He observed that development on the lots in the residential node is compressed due to requirements for onsite wastewater and stormwater management systems. As a result of these matters dwellings are often double storey to minimise the overall building area while maximising gross floor area.
15. Ms Lindus noted that there is a difference in dwelling character between the dwellings with frontage to the coastal reserve and the rest of the residential node. The rest of the node is a mixture of single and two storey dwellings as well as dwellings that have been elevated to capture views. On the eastern side of Illawong Drive facing the coastal reserve the character of the dwellings changes. All but one dwelling is two storey. All of the dwellings are sited to maximise views towards Stewarts Bay.
16. Mr Read described the character of the area in the vicinity of the site as single dwellings on landscaped sites orientated towards Stewarts Bay and the foreshore reserve. He noted that buildings on the properties that adjoin the foreshore reserve are set back from the boundary and include generous grassed or landscaped areas between the building and the boundary. He noted that the site is an exception to that pattern, being sited directly on and overlooking the reserve.

1. The factual evidence of the three experts was largely consistent. They varied in their approach to assessment against the standard in that Mr Walker and Ms Lindus each usefully undertook a discrete assessment of the existing amenity of the adjoining properties against which the relevant effects on those properties by the proposal could be compared, while Mr Read focussed on the effects. Mr Walker and Ms Lindus were essentially in agreement in their opinions that the proposal would comply with the standard, while Mr Read reached a different view. The assessment is to be undertaken objectively, but it is a qualitative rather than quantitative one and reasonable minds might differ on the conclusion. Ultimately it is a matter for us and our conclusion accords with the opinions of Mr Walker and Ms Lindus.
2. In respect to the foreshore reserve, the amenity elements are the views and outlook to Stewarts Bay, the trees and vegetation, accessibility and the safe beach. If the addition is built the views to the residential node from the beach and the majority of the reserve will remain largely the same as they are currently. The foreshore reserve extends well beyond the residential node. The addition would add minimally to the area and proportion of the reserve and beach overlooked, both by residences generally and by the existing dwelling on the site specifically. Public road access to the beach is located at the southern end of the residential node. There was no evidence that the area of the reserve between the site and the beach was used by the public for any purpose other than access to the beach. Tracks exist leading from the beach to the area in front of the dwellings facing the beach, but they likely predominantly serve the occupants of the dwellings. Mr Walker's evidence was that this was the only obvious pedestrian use of the reserve. There was no evidence that the public used the grassed areas of the reserve adjacent to the site. The vegetation within the coastal reserve will continue to provide screening of the residential node, including the site, from the beach. The qualities contributing to the amenity of the coastal reserve will not experience an unreasonable loss as a result of the addition.
3. In respect to 6 Illawong Drive, the only significant amenity impact identified in the evidence is a small reduction in the view field, which Ms Lindus assessed as a 7 degree reduction from 156 degrees to 149 degrees. That loss would be at the periphery of the view from the existing dwelling. 6 Illawong Drive will therefore experience some impact on amenity, but it will not suffer an unreasonable loss.
4. The most significant effect will be on 4a Illawong Drive. The amenity enjoyed by that property in so far as it is contributed to by views and visual amenity is already significantly impacted by the existing dwelling and boat shed on the site. The primary impact on amenity will be in relation to the outdoor area to the north of the dwelling on 4a Illawong Drive and a recently constructed deck which adjoins the dwelling and is accessible from the interior of the dwelling, but not directly from the living area.
5. We may have regard to the nature and level of development contemplated by the Scheme, to provide context to inform the level of amenity considered reasonable by the Scheme: Boland v Clarence City Council at [22]. A permitted or no permit required development complying with the acceptable solution A2 of cl 10.4.3 could be constructed within 5m of the boundary with 4a, rather than 11m for the proposed addition, and at a height of 8.5m rather than the 6.36m height of the proposed addition, and without the open ground floor elevations. Such a development would result in a significantly greater loss of amenity to 4a.
6. The siting of the proposed addition is a consequence of the location and layout of the existing dwelling and the restrictions on the site. It will match the height, scale and bulk of the existing dwelling on the site and will be consistent with the mostly double storey buildings along the coastal reserve, and the surrounding area generally, which includes double storey and elevated single storey dwellings.
7. The dominant view from the living spaces in 4a and the private open space on the eastern elevation will continue to largely be to the rear of the existing dwelling at the site. The deck area to the north of the dwelling will experience some reduction in its already restricted view, but that view is currently so restricted in both view field and viewpoints from 4a that its contribution to the amenity of 4a is modest. It will maintain the greater contributions toward amenity provided by its location and setting within the residential node, proximity to Stewarts Bay, a sense of openness towards the north and northeast, outlook towards vegetation and access to sunlight. 4a will experience some loss, but in the context of its overall amenity and assessed on a qualitative basis, the reduction will not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity.

1. We are satisfied that the proposal will comply with the standard in cl 10.4.3 P2 and that the ground of appeal is not made out. Accordingly:
   1. The decision of the Tasman Council to grant a permit for development application DA56/2024 subject to conditions is affirmed.
   2. Any application for an order for costs in this appeal is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 21 days. In the event that no application is filed the order of the Tribunal is that each party bear their own costs.