Conclusions
35Having considered the evidence, submissions and undertaken a view, I am satisfied that the amended application now merits conditional consent. It seems to me that this amended plan substantially responds to the issues and that is confirmed by the overall agreement of the engineers and the planners.
36I rely on the engineers' agreement that the proposed OSD in the front setback area presents a satisfactory solution for stormwater management. I also accept Mr Smith's concerns that whilst this is not a common element in the streetscape, that is probably due to historical reasons where OSD systems were not required when the residential area was developed.
37According to Mr Smith an alternative OSD could be constructed under the large front paved driveway and therefore be less obtrusive. But it seems to me that the proposed wall for the OSD to be constructed along the road boundary has a maximum height of approximately 300 mm and it incorporates an internal garden, so that I do not consider it will have significant adverse visual impacts.
38In the circumstances, I do not consider that the bulk and scale of this OSD will significantly detract from the streetscape or the character of the area to an extent that would warrant a refusal of the application.
39The other concern raised by Mr Smith relates to the extent of hard paving in the front area which exceeds most neighbouring properties.
40In my assessment, the main difference is the accessible car space, (5.5 x 3.2) shown along the eastern boundary with house number 7.
41Considering the discussion between the planners, I consider that the various elements including the benefits of including the accessible space and taking into account the additional parking that occurs in the front of other properties along this street, then this represents a reasonable outcome in terms of the compatibility with the side boundary treatments. This should be improved by the provision of the 1.5 metre vegetative screen adjacent to this space and I am satisfied that the conditions of consent can adequately cover this.
42Another matter raised concerns the safety and amenity of the three motorcycle spaces alongside the southeastern side of the dwelling. In this regard I have considered the discussion between the planners and now accept this could be managed by inclusion in the plan of management for the caretaker to carefully manage this matter.
43The detailed condition offered by the applicant should cover this. I note that this condition is based on the requirement for the tenants of the boarding house to act in a good neighbour basis otherwise their lease will be terminated.
44Insofar as submissions were made about traffic parking impacts, the proposal complies with the AHSEPP provisions. Whilst this may lead to some additional parking on street, nevertheless the location of Koorong Street is such that it must experience a high level of parking because there is a two-hour parking restriction in the area near the subject property.
45In the circumstances, I do not consider any additional parking demands for the residents or visitors of the boarding house will materially affect the environmental capacity or amenity of Koorong Street.
46I also note that the area appears to be well serviced by buses, which should offset to some extent the reliance by boarding house residents on individual cars. I do not consider the application should be refused on the basis of traffic parking considerations.
47In summary then, I am satisfied this is a permissible development and the amended proposal demonstrates reasonable compliance with the relevant design standards to permit conditional consent. Whilst some objections were lodged about the change in character for this type of use, I again do not consider this reasonable grounds for refusal.
48I am also satisfied that this design is consistent with the character of the area, although it is to be expected that some changes to the elements could occur via different form of development such as boarding houses which are permitted in the area.
49If the local community wishes to restrict or limit this form of development, it should be done through a strategic review of the current controls and such review could consider the relative balance between the different public and private interests for relative to this development.