31 Clearly the main planning issue as emerges from the evidence relates to streetscape. The respondent has prepared a number of policies, pursuant to its powers contained in cl 78 of TPS 4, that address the need to recognise the importance of protecting streetscapes whilst acknowledging the need for reasonable access to parking of private vehicles. Mr Maiorana in cross-examination agreed that it was appropriate for the respondent to prepare policies that were intended to improve the amenity of the locality, particularly in terms of rejuvenating degraded streetscapes. He also accepted that the Residential Car Parking Policy and the Streetscape Policy constituted local planning policies, which provided alternative requirements to those expressed in the Design Codes.
32 In assessing the streetscape of Kanimbla Road, the extent of the area under consideration differed between the parties. Mr Maiorana explained that his assessment related to the broader surrounding area (as can be seen from the photographs provided in evidence), rather than the area defined under the respondent's policies. Whereas the respondent, in determining the acceptable existing pattern of parking within the street setback area, considered the "immediate vicinity" being defined, under the Residential Car Parking Policy, as two to three houses either side or opposite the subject site. In relation to establishing setback patterns, the respondent examined the setback patterns of the nineteen residential lots in the subject street block fronting Kanimbla Road and further considered the development in the context of the definition of "surrounding development" as defined in the City's draft Streetscape Policy, that being the five properties on either side of the proposed development on both sides of the street and to the rear of the property.
33 In order to gain a full appreciation of the streetscape of Kanimbla Road, a view was held on 24 June 2005. Both the applicant and respondent were present through their representatives and the parties agreed that the observations were to be treated as evidence before the Tribunal.
34 The view confirmed, that in the broader context, there are a number of different forms of development within the street setback area in Kanimbla Road. These included carports within the front setback area of several lots on both sides of Kanimbla Road, including No 13 Kanimbla Road and No 27 Hardy Road, and a substantial solid front wall screening the private outdoor areas of a grouped dwelling development located on the opposite side Kanimbla Road to the subject land. As well, there were also at least four other hardstand car parking bays on lots within the street block on the same side of Kanimbla Road as the subject land.
35 Notwithstanding these intrusions, there was a defined setback pattern for lots with their primary street frontage onto Kanimbla Road, within the street block particularly to the original dwellings at No 3, No 7 and No 9, which, with the exception of No 13, was reflected in the new development.
36 The dwelling immediately to the north of the subject land (No 26 Hardy Road) has Kanimbla Road as its secondary street frontage and as such a significant portion of that dwelling was setback approximately 2.0 metres from Kanimbla Road. There was also a boundary wall that extended along the common boundary with the subject land, setback approximately 5.5 metres from Kanimbla Road, which was visually intrusive in the streetscape.
37 The right-of-way at the rear of the subject lot was paved and well utilised by other lots within the street block. A considerable number of dwellings on both sides of the right-of-way had carports/garage structures accessing off the right-of-way. The view also confirmed that additional car parking could be accommodated at the rear of the subject land.