1. The Tribunal in principle supports the proposed two lot subdivision, and in due course will be issuing final orders allowing the two lot subdivision. However before I do this, I wish to progress the other two more difficult proceedings.

Combined Orders for P23/2007 (Section 87 Application) and P3008/2006 (Application for Enforcement Order)

1. The Tribunal's in-principle finding regarding the contentious western besa brick fence are as follows.
   • (a) The Tribunal is not in a position to make any ruling regarding the "boundary dispute" aspect of the "as built" fence. If either party wish to definitively resolve any encroachment/adverse possession type legal issues, this will need to be separately done in the court system;
   • (b) However, having assessed the planning merits of the "as built" western fence, the Tribunal is (with one proviso) satisfied that the "as built" fence is an acceptable planning outcome. The proviso is that the Tribunal considers it fair and reasonable that the owner of the appeal site Kadil Pty Ltd meet the full cost of the rendering of both sides of this fence (the neighbouring side of this fence is yet to be rendered), with this rendering to be completed within a reasonable period.
   • (c) Given my findings in sub-clause (b) above, the Tribunal declines to make any enforcement order requiring the removal and/or rebuilding of the contentious western fence, but is satisfied on the planning merits (ie without making any finding on the "encroachment/adverse possession issues") that the existing endorsed plans should be amended to show the western fence in its "as built" position.
   • (d) Bearing in mind that I will be overseas all of September and the first week of October 2007, I will only be able to make final orders in this matter before I leave if there are revised plans produced by Kadil Pty Ltd fairly promptly, with the Council and western neighbour then having a reasonable period to review same and provide any comments to me. Alternatively, if Kadil Pty Ltd advises me that it considers the timeframe too short (and assuming I am satisfied this is a bona fide position), then I will review the timeframe and advise the parties of a more generous timeframe which will involve me making final orders sometime after I return from overseas in the second week of October 2007.
   • (e) For the reasons set out above, I accordingly require Kadil Pty Ltd (with one proviso) to by the COB Monday 20 August 2007 file with the Tribunal and circulate to the other parties a revised version of FP2 Revision A plan prepared by Nicholas Murray & Associates, which shows the contentious western wall in its "as built" position including the kink, and with the following notation inserted alongside "The permit holder will meet the full cost of rendering the top and both sides of this wall".
   • (f) The proviso is that if Kadil Pty Ltd considers that this timeframe cannot be met, it must confirm this in writing to the Tribunal (concurrently copying this correspondence to the other parties) as soon as practicable (in which case the Tribunal will re-consider the situation).
   • (g) Assuming the revised plans are duly circulated by 20 August 2007, then the other parties will have the opportunity to write to the Tribunal if they have any concerns about the preparation of the revised plans (any such correspondence must be concurrently copied to all of the other parties). Any such correspondence must be lodged with the Tribunal by no later than COB Monday 27 August 2007.
   • (h) Whilst I cannot provide any guarantees, if the above steps have been complied with and I am satisfied with the revised plans, then I will give a high priority to seeking to issue final orders by Friday 31 August 2007 (ie before I go overseas).
   • (i) As part of my final orders, I can indicate in-principle that I consider it appropriate to make a basic enforcement order, setting a deadline for the completion of the rendering on both sides of the contentious western fence. Subject to any final written submissions which any party wishes to make on the following logistics, I have in mind to require that the outstanding rendering be completed within 45 days of the date on which the revised plans are endorsed, with Kadil Pty Ltd to consult with Ms Naylor on the colour of the rendering on her side of the fence, but with the default position (in the absence of any such agreement) being that the colour of the rendering on the western side of the wall should be the same muted colour as has been used for the rendering of the rear of Ms Naylor's upper level house extension.

1. The Tribunal does not accept that it would be a fair and necessary planning outcome for all of the higher section of lattice on the contentious northern fence to be raised by an additional 600 mm, as (from my inspection) I am satisfied that the "as built" lattice provides adequate screening in relation to a significant proportion of the rear section of this side fence.
2. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are sufficient visual bulk impacts in relation to the upper level of the rear dwelling on the appeal site (when viewing this upper level from the back yard of the 127 Kooyong Road property) that it is appropriate that the section of lattice to the north of this upper level be raised by an additional 600 mm for greater visual bulk protection.
3. Accordingly, the Tribunal requires that the "preparation of revised plans" process set out above also incorporate the following additional amendments to the FP2 Revision A plans:
   • (a) the height of the lattice on the northern fence at the rear of the appeal site must be shown as raised by 600 mm in relation to that part of the existing lattice between the 2nd to last vertical metal support post on the western end of the existing trellising through to the 6th to last such support beam from the western end. For the avoidance of any doubt, the balance of the existing lattice can remain unchanged;
   • (b) this taller lattice must follow the same square rather than diamond style of the "as built" lattice, and appropriate notations/specifications must be included explaining in basic terms how the five relevant support beams will be raised to facilitate the extra 600 mm in height, how the top of the new lattice shall be capped, and how the extra lattice will be securely attached to the extended beams;
   • (c) the opportunity should also be taken to correctly show the support posts for the northern fence/lattice as being metal rather than timber. The simple correction suggested by Mr O'Farrell at the hearing regarding the correct description of the construction of the bottom of the fence should also be incorporated.
4. I also intend to make a basic enforcement order setting a timeframe for the construction of the extended lattice. As part of complying with the procedural requirements set out above, the parties are invited to put to me what might be a reasonable deadline, in terms of a deadline for this construction after the revised plans have been endorsed.
5. The process for the preparation of the amended plans shall otherwise be as per my orders set out above.

Mr Peter O'Farrell of Counsel, instructed by Best Hooper Lawyers

Mr Chris Taylor of Planning and Property Partners lawyers. Mr Taylor called expert arborist evidence from Mr Glenn Waters

1. This overall matter involves a single appeal site (125 Kooyong Road in Armadale) but three overlapping proceedings, being:
   • P3008/2006, being an Application for Enforcement Order brought by Council;
   • P23/2007, being an application under Section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("Act") in response to the enforcement proceedings, seeking certain amendments to the endorsed plans dated 2 August 2004 which were prepared pursuant to the existing planning permit No. 166/03 dated 2 December 2003. In particular, it is proposed that the existing endorsed plans be amended to reflect the "as built" situation with the contentious northern and western fences; and
   • P521/2007, being an otherwise uncontentious two lot subdivision of the two dwellings on the subject land, which I understand Council does not wish to finalise until the other two contentious proceedings are resolved.
2. At the hearing of this matter on 30 July 2007, I heard submissions from all of the parties listed above, plus I had the benefit of expert arborist evidence from Mr Glenn Water (called on behalf of the northern neighbour).
3. A day or two after the hearing, I carried out an inspection of the site, together with viewing the back yard of the neighbouring properties to the west and north.
4. In summary, the enforcement proceeding and the "application to amend the endorsed plans" application involve a planning judgement whether the western and northern fence in the rear of the appeal site are an acceptable outcome "as built", or whether either or both fences should be altered. It was common ground at the hearing that once this main issue has been resolved, the two lot subdivision can be finalised in an innocuous manner.
5. Given that the existing planning permit No. 166/03 dated 2 December 2003 involved not only a heritage overlay but a "dual occupancy" buildings and works permit trigger, I have approached my findings regarding the contentious fences on the basis that I can consider not only heritage issues but factors such as "privacy" and "visual bulk", that would have been part of the mix when the buildings and works approval was granted by way of the No. 166/03 permit.

1. The appeal site is formally located in Armadale, but I was urged to regard it as part of broader Toorak. This is an upmarket, established residential area, with many period houses. There are many existing dwellings in the locality that are double storey in the front section of their lot. However my impression is that double storey development in the rear section of lots is more unusual. All the lots in this locality are zoned Residential 1, and I was shown some useful aerial photos of the locality. Whilst the appeal site is also affected by a Heritage Overlay, I cannot see any heritage implications to the fencing matters before me. There are no particular policy considerations here either.
2. The appeal site involves an older dwelling closer to the Kooyong Road frontage, behind which has been built a contemporary second dwelling. The total site area is about 719 square metres. The new rear dwelling features a north-facing courtyard in the north-west corner of the site. The new rear dwelling is double storey, with the northern upper elevation featuring a fairly prominent rendered wall and highlight windows.
3. The neighbouring dwelling to the north of the appeal site (127 Kooyong Road) is also a generous sized block, featuring a period double storey dwelling in an attic style. In its back yard is a currently unused swimming pool on the south side of the yard. On the day I visited a tradesman was building what I understand to be a new rear deck next to the dwelling, more in the central area of the back yard. The development on the appeal site has involved constructing a new paling fence on the common side boundary with the back yard of the 127 Kooyong Road property, which is 1.8 metres high plus a 1 metre of lattice. It was common ground at the hearing that due to the slope of the land and the associated retaining wall on the side boundary, the floor level in the courtyard in the north-west corner of the appeal site is 600 mm lower than the 127 Kooyong Road back yard.
4. The neighbouring dwelling to the west of the appeal site (39 Glassford Street) is also a period dwelling and also features building works which have involved completely clearing the rear yard. It is a modest sized back yard, in which is being built an east-west lap pool. I understand there used to be a gas BBQ next to the side fence with the appeal site, and I could see what I presume are the foundations where the BBQ used to be located. The dwelling appears to have been extended relatively recently, with a new upper level on the western side of the dwelling, including a rendered finish at the rear.
5. As part of the construction of the new pool, a new besa brick fence has been built on the 39 Glassford Street rear boundary. In relation to the common boundary with the appeal site, the new fence section further to the south has been built in red brick, whereas the contentious fence section further north has been built in besa brick[1], currently without any rendering. Kadil Pty Ltd has agreed in principle that the western side of this besa brick fence will be rendered, although at the hearing there was some disagreement whether the western neighbour had agreed to contribution towards the cost involved.
6. This contentious western fence is not straight but has a kink in it, roughly half way along that section of the fence that can be seen from the rear courtyard in the appeal site. I understand that this fence was built while the western neighbour was away, and that the explanation for the kink from Kadil Pty Ltd was that this was necessary to accommodate the BBQ which existed at that time on the eastern side of the western neighbour's back yard.

1. There were various plans tabled and discussed at the hearing.
2. I was shown two survey plans. The survey plan by Land Development Consulting dated 30 August 1995 is helpful in being fairly easy to read and relating to an earlier and less contentious period. This 30 August 1995 plan indicates that:
   • in relation to the side boundaries of the 39 Glassford Street property, there is an usual situation here, in that these side boundaries do not run at 90 degrees to the Glassford Street front boundary, but angle slightly to west as the side boundaries extend north; and

• at the northern end of the 39 Glassford Street eastern side boundary, the previous fence noticeably encroached into the appeal site, relative to where the 30 August 1995 survey plan shows the correct side boundary to be. Hence this survey plan indicates that there was already a kink in the previous fence, alongside the appeal site.

1. I was also shown the existing endorsed plan dated 2 August 2004, being the FP2 plan prepared by Nicholas Murray & Associates, pursuant to the existing permit for the appeal site. These endorsed plans include some specifications for the rear courtyard new northern fence, set out in the bottom left hand side of the FP2 plans. These specifications include both an elevation and a cross-section of this new fence. The elevation plan shows the height of the new fence (1.8 metres) and the new lattice (1 metre). The cross-section shows the natural ground level on both sides of the fence (ie north and south) as level, although we know in reality that there is a 600 mm drop down to the north-western courtyard on the appeal site. Unhelpfully, there is no "RL" shown for the top of the new fence in the cross-section.
2. The hearing also involved discussion of the proposed revised version of the FP2 plan, being Revision A. The key difference here is that the Revision A plan correctly shows the 600 mm height difference in the natural surface level either side of the contentious northern fence. However the Revision A plan does not show any change to the "as built" height of the fence, being 1.8 metres of paling fence and a one metre high lattice on top. In addition, the Revision A plans reflects the "as built" square style of the lattice, as compared to the diagonal style of the lattice shown on the endorsed plans (I was told at the hearing that this difference is non-contentious).
3. Both versions of the FP2 plans show across the top of the plan a northern elevational view of the contentious northern fence and the north side of the new rear dwelling on the appeal site. There is only a very small change to the extent of the upper level of the new rear dwelling visible in the existing endorsed plans compared to the Revision A plans (ie in both plans, the majority of the upper northern elevation of the new rear dwelling is visible).

1. In a rather strange outcome, Council initially brought an enforcement action against Kadil Pty Ltd in relation to the contentious fences, but by the time of the hearing, Mr Clarke advised me that Council in fact supports the Section 87 request to amend the existing endorsed plans to reflect the "as built" situation with the two fences. It is not clear to me why Council has changed its position in this way and why this change has only occurred fairly late in the whole process, but that is the reality here. Council also supports the two lot subdivision in principle, but wishes to sort out all three proceedings concurrently.
2. In relation to Kadil Pty Ltd and its directors Mr and Mrs Luff, they seek the Tribunal's rejection of the enforcement application and its approval of the Revision A plan as the replacement endorsed plan under the existing dual occupancy permit, together with my approval of the two lot subdivision.
3. The northern neighbours Andrew Davis and Anita Wluka do not want the location of the contentious northern fence moved, but simply seek the higher existing lattice on the rear half of the northern side fence of the appeal site raised by an additional 600 mm. Following their line of thinking, this would reflect what they claim was the true position both privately agreed in writing with Mr and Mrs Luff, and as was truly intended as per the existing endorsed plans. The northern neighbours have no problem per se with the two lot subdivision. Mr Taylor also indicated that his clients are less concerned about privacy issues, but very concerned about visual bulk issues, in terms of the views of the rear of the appeal site from their back yard.
4. Whilst it was not exactly clear what the western neighbour Jacquie Naylor was seeking in practice, after some discussion with Ms Kirton, I understand that Ms Naylor's preferred outcome (despite the previous western fence apparently having had a kink in it) is that the contentious western besa brick fence be demolished and re-built in such a way that:
   • there is no kink in the fence;
   • ideally the new fence is built in red brick rather than rendered besa bricks; and
   • the precise location of the new fence matches the extent to which the previous fence encroached over what the survey plans indicate is the true side boundary (Ms Kirton advised that Ms Naylor would if necessary pursue adverse possession proceedings to protect her rights here).
5. Ms Kirton indicated that Ms Naylor does not object to the two lot subdivision.

Tribunal's findings regarding contentious western fence

1. As a preliminary point, it is not my role here to make any findings regarding "who owns what" in relation to the contentious side boundary. If for example Ms Naylor wants to establish her legal priority to any land to the east of the true side boundary based on the position of the previous fence and adverse possession principles, she will have to take this up in an appropriate court, on another day.
2. However, what I am in a position to do is make a decision regarding the planning merits of the "as built" fence compared to Ms Naylor's preferred position as I have set out above.
3. In this context, my finding has been that (with one proviso) I am satisfied that the "as built" fence is an acceptable planning outcome. The proviso is that I consider it fair and reasonable in all the circumstances that Kadil Pty Ltd meet the full cost of the rendering of the top and both sides of the contentious besa brick fence. I rely on the following factors in reaching this finding.
4. Firstly, there is a basic contradiction between:
   • Ms Naylor wanting a straight fence that effectively takes advantage of her possible adverse possession claim; and
   • the reality that the survey plans indicate that the previous fence had a kink in it.

This indicates to me that in this regard Ms Naylor is wanting to "have her cake and eat it too".

1. Secondly, I am unconvinced that it would be a fair and reasonable planning outcome to require the demolition of the contentious western besa brick fence, so as to facilitate a replacement double brick fence. While it is true that the existing endorsed plans do include a notation providing that the new western fence would be constructed from double brick, in my view the weight I should (in my discretion) give to this notation is cancelled out by:
   • the reality that Ms Naylor has herself constructed a new northern boundary fence using besa bricks, which presumably will be rendered in due course; and
   • the fact that the rear of Ms Naylor's property already features rendering, if one looks up to the rear of the upper level extension of her dwelling. Hence it has to be said that the use of rendering is already part of the character of the views available in Ms Naylor's back yard. Hence I am confident that once the contentious western fence is fully rendered using an appropriate colour, that this will be an acceptable visual outcome if one is standing in Ms Naylor's back yard.
2. Thirdly, to the extent that Ms Naylor has strong feelings against the kink in the "as built" contentious western fence, my conclusion based on my inspection is that this kink is only noticeable from quite limited viewing angles, and will be barely discernable as part of Ms Naylor's day to day use of her back yard. For example, when I stood on the western side of her back yard or even (closer to the contentious fence) in front of Ms Naylor's rear bay window, the kink in the fence is quite difficult to pick. Whilst I accept that the kink is more obvious when standing close by in Ms Naylor's eastern side walkway area, the reality is that this is more a service area, where one would hardly expect Ms Naylor or visitors to pause for a coffee or glass of wine. I would also expect the kink to be difficult to pick when standing in the new swimming pool. I have not pursued any potential use of "battening" the kink, given the indication from Mr Kirton that her client is luke-warm about this possibility.
3. Fourthly, in terms of general notions of "fairness", I have taken the following points into account:
   • if the contentious new western fence was built while Ms Naylor was away, it seems a plausible explanation that the practical reason for the kink is that Kadil Pty Ltd's tradesman was constructing the new fence so as to accommodate Ms Naylor's BBQ which the survey plans indicate encroached at that time over the true boundary;
   • the "Plan of Re-establishment Survey" provided to me indicates that the whole length of the new western wall has been entirely built on Kadil Pty Ltd's side of the true boundary, and that most of the new fence has been built to the east of the line of the old fence. This indicates that the reality of the situation is that the "as built" new western fence allows Ms Naylor more available space in her back yard, compared to the situation if the new western fence had been built along the true boundary.
4. For these reasons, I have made interim orders directing that fresh revised plans be prepared, showing the "as built" location of the contentious western fence including the kink, plus a new notation clarifying that Kadil Pty Ltd will meet all of the rendering costs. In terms of my jurisdiction to allow the existing endorsed plans to be amended pursuant to Section 87 of the Act, I am satisfied that the construction of the kink in the new western fence constitutes a "material change in circumstances" for the purposes of Section 87(1)(d) of the Act.

Tribunal's findings regarding contentious northern fence

1. In terms of my jurisdiction to potentially order changes to the existing endorsed plans pursuant to Section 87 of the Act, Mr O'Farrell sensibly did not contest[2] that the there was a "material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit"[3], when one focuses on the cross-section shown on the specifications in the existing endorsed plans. In other words, Mr O'Farrell conceded that it was a material mistake that the specifications in the existing endorsed plans dated 2 August 2004 do not show the 600 mm difference in height of the natural surface level on each side of the contentious northern fence.
2. Rather, Mr O'Farrell urged me to find that the "as built" northern fence is an acceptable planning outcome that does not justify any further changes, in terms of my:
   • ordinary discretion in considering the planning merits of the "as built" fence pursuant to the Section 87 application to amend the current endorsed plans; and
   • my inherent discretion whether to make any enforcement orders.
3. My O'Farrell urged me to give weight to the fact that when one compares the existing endorsed FP2 plan compared to the Revision A plan, in both cases approximately the same amount of the northern elevation of the new rear dwelling on the appeal site is visible. Mr O'Farrell used this as a launching pad for his broader argument that, on the general planning merits, the "as built" contentious northern fence and lattice already provides an acceptable level of visual softening of the upper section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site, when viewed from the back yard of 127 Kooyong Road. In this regard, Mr O'Farrell argued that in this type of upmarket location, there is a greater level of redevelopment of properties and it is therefore an acceptable (and not unexpected) outcome for the northern neighbours to have rear yard views which incorporate viewlines of the upper section of the rear dwelling on the subject land. In relation to the arborist evidence of Mr Glenn Waters presented at the hearing, Mr O'Farrell urged me to find that this evidence lacks credibility and should be given little weight.
4. Mr Taylor for the northern neighbours disputed this line of thinking, and argued that it would be fairer and a better planning outcome for the contentious lattice to be raised by an additional 600 mm. He submitted that on his instructions, the northern neighbours consider the existing viewlines of the rear dwelling on the appeal site to be overbearing when viewed from their back yard, and that the northern neighbours believe the extra 600 mm of lattice would constitute make a real improvement in this regard[4]. With respect to the evidence of Mr Waters that it would be impracticable to plant adequate trees in the narrow area of soil between the No. 127 swimming pool and the contentious fence, Mr Taylor invited me to accept this evidence, and to regard it as another argument for raising the lattice by 600 mm.
5. Surprisingly and unhelpfully, Council's written submission did not tackle these "visual bulk when the rear of the appeal site is viewed from the No. 127 back yard " issues, but simply concluded that there are no unacceptable privacy outcomes (which misses the main point in issue here).
6. This is one of those difficult situations where someone needs to make a judgement call whether or not the existing views of the upper northern section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site are acceptable or not, when looking from the back yard of the No. 127 Kooyong Road property. This is where a careful site inspection of this back yard has been invaluable. In particular, I made a point of inspecting the views of the rear dwelling on the subject land standing in different positions in the N o. 127 backyard.
7. My findings here are as follows:
   • on the one hand, I accept that the existing 1.8 metre northern paling fence and one metre of lattice provides an adequate level of visual screening in relation to much of the length of this fencing/lattice. I refer here in particular to the eastern and western most ends of this lattice, together with the views available from the No. 127 backyard of the roof of the single storey sections of the rear dwelling on the appeal site;
   • on the other hand, I am satisfied that in relation to that part of the contentious northern fence and lattice located to the north of the two storey section of the rear dwelling on the subject land, that it would be a fair and reasonable planning outcome for this section of lattice to be raised by an additional 600 mm. From my inspection of the No. 127 back yard, the area of existing lattice that I am focusing on here is the section between the second to last metal upright pole at the western end of the contentious northern fence, through to the sixth to last metal pole from the western end. From walking around different sections of the 127 Kooyong Road back yard, I am comfortable that adding the extra 600 mm lattice between these particular metal poles will provide noticeably better visual screening of the upper section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site. However my inspection also confirmed that in my view it would be an overkill and a poorer visual outcome for the entire length of the contentious existing lattice to be extended by 600 mm[5].
8. In considering the visual bulk implications of the upper section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site when viewed from the No. 127 back yard, I acknowledge that there are also more distant views of other two storey built form in the locality. However I consider the overriding factors here are that that the northern elevation of the rear dwelling on the appeal site is relatively close in proximity, it is quite imposing in height[6], and the northern elevation has minimal articulation or visual interest when viewed from the No. 127 back yard.
9. Accordingly, I am not surprised that Mr Taylor advised me that his clients are concerned about their back yard views of this upper northern elevation, which I consider to be visually dominant and uninspiring. Whilst the situation might have been different if the designer of the rear unit on the appeal site had made more effort in the presentation of the upper northern elevation of that unit, this seems a "lost opportunity" in terms of the very underwhelming design response we are dealing with.
10. In relation to Mr O'Farrell urging me to give weight to the very similar views of the upper section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site as shown in the northern elevation at the top of the existing endorsed plans compared to the top of the Revision A plan, I consider that this whole line of thinking drops away when you realise that the existing endorsed plans do not adequately show the difference in natural surface levels either side of the contentious northern fence. In other words, had this height difference been correctly dealt with right from the beginning, then there would have been flow-on consequences for how the northern elevation would have been presented at the top of the endorsed plan.
11. In terms of my findings regarding the evidence of Mr Waters, I consider that Mr O'Farrell through his cross-examination of Mr Waters demonstrated that the situation is not as simple as "nothing tall could be grown in the available soil". However on balance I accept that Mr Waters still gave credible evidence that it would be difficult (and possibly also quite expensive) for the northern neighbours to create an adequate soil area between the No. 127 pool and the contentious fence for there to be any substantial planting of taller trees to provide boundary screening. In terms of what is achievable with a reasonable budget, it seems likely that at best only a partial screening effect could be achieved, when viewing the upper section of the rear dwelling on the appeal site from the No. 127 back yard.

1. In summary, my overall findings have been that, for the reasons set out above:
   • subject to needing to deal with the cost of the outstanding rendering, I am satisfied that it would be an acceptable planning outcome for there to be fresh plans prepared for endorsement, which show the contentious western fence in its "as built" condition;
   • I do not accept Mr Taylor's submission that all of the contentious northern fence lattice should be raised by an additional 600 mm; but
   • in relation to that part of the contentious lattice situated to the north of the two storey section of the rear dwelling on the subject land, I accept it would be a better planning outcome for this lattice to be raised by 600 mm to provide additional visual screening. Hence I have required that the updated plans also show this section of the contentious lattice raised by an additional 600 mm.
2. As there are some logistical issues still to be sorted out, including the fact that I will be overseas for all of September and the first week in October, I have made interim rather than final orders. I await the provision of the revised plans from Kadil Pty Ltd within the timeframe I have specified.

[1] This is the external wall for the study in the rear dwelling in the appeal site

[2] For future reference, it may have expedited the hearing somewhat if Mr O'Farrell had made this concession early in the hearing, as Mr Taylor could then have then been more able to cut to the chase with his submissions.

[4] Mr Taylor indicated that in due course the northern neighbours intend to plant a creeper on the lattice, to reinforce the visual screening effect.

[5] In other words, my impression is that if the entire length of the existing one metre lattice was raised by an additional 600 mm, this would have the negative effect that what are currently fairly open/pleasant views of the western and eastern ends of this trellising from the No. 127 back yard would be unnecessarily cluttered by the additional 600 mm of lattice.

[6] The eave height of this northern elevation scales at just over five metres in height, with the top of the pitched roof being almost seven metres high.