[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions

You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions >> 2005 >> [2005] SAERDC 109

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

James Street Property Trust v City of Mount Gambier [2005] SAERDC 109 (20 October 2005)

Last Updated: 28 October 2005

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

JAMES STREET PROPERTY TRUST v CITY OF MOUNT GAMBIER

Judgment of Commissioner Mosel

20 October 2005

LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TOWN PLANNING

Development application for four dwellings - City Centre Zone - consent refused by the Council - intent of the Zone, suitability of the site for the proposed development and the appropriateness of access, and design the principal planning issues - City Centre Zone contemplates residential development - proposed form of development not specifically envisaged - overarching purpose of the Zone considered - surrounding land uses a factor for consideration - design standards for residential zone are a relevant consideration - potential for the site to be exposed to deleterious externalities from adjoining centre type uses - several design shortcomings identified - appeal dismissed.
Development Act 1993, referred to.

JAMES STREET PROPERTY TRUST v CITY OF MOUNT GAMBIER
[2005] SAERDC 109

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1 Development Application No. 381/0758/2004 was submitted to the City of Mount Gambier ("the Council") by Mr Zobel (acting on behalf of the James Street Property Trust) on 26 November 2004. The application sought Provisional Development Plan Consent for the construction of four dwellings at 100 (Lot 7) Commercial Street East, Mount Gambier ("the site"). The Council dealt with the proposal as a Category 2 development. In due course the Council notified the James Street Property Trust that it had, on 19 January 2005, refused consent.
2 The proposed development was received by the Court as Exhibit A1. The proposal was amended during the proceedings. The amendments were received as Exhibit A5. Exhibits A1 and A5 propose a style and arrangement of buildings different from that first considered by the Council. I glean from Exhibits R1 and A1 that the proposed development put to the Court is essentially that which was considered by the Council in response to an initiative by the appellant to settle the dispute. Although the access arrangements and the design and configuration of the proposed dwellings have changed, the essential features of the development are the same. After hearing the parties on the effect of the amendments I found that there are no jurisdictional barriers that stand in the way of the Court dealing with the action.
3 However, I hasten to add that the handling of the proposed development from its inception to the amendments and the lead up to the hearing leaves much to be desired. The assessment report prepared for the consideration of the matter by the Council’s Development Assessment Panel provided little in the way of professional analysis. The plans upon which the decision was based were not included in the Council’s book of documents received by the Court as Exhibit R1. The amended proposal received as Exhibit A5 contain no details on the nature of a proposed right-of-way and its functional and operational relationship with the recently constructed carpark. The site plan prepared for the proposal when first put to the Council and the amended proposal in Exhibit A1 were based on an erroneous delineation of the eastern boundary and were missing important aspects of the existing development adjacent the western boundary.
4 Curious also is the decision of the Council to grant Provisional Development Plan Consent to a land division; the intention of which is to sever portion of the site (the new car park) and amalgamate it with the adjoining office. In so doing, Lot 12 (having an area of 1252 square metres) has, as its sole access to Krummel Street a laneway about 3.66 metre wide and 40 metres long. Lot 12 is intended to accommodate the proposed development except for the (future) right-of-way to Commercial Street East. The consent was granted prior to the decision of the Council to refuse consent to the proposed development. The right-of-way mentioned earlier becomes necessary to serve the access needs of the dwellings.
5 In these proceedings Mr Botten and Mr Beamond appeared for the appellant and the Council respectively. Mr S Grose, gave expert planning evidence in the case for the appellant and Mrs Tzioutziouklaris gave expert planning evidence in the case for the Council. The Court also heard evidence from Mr R Chuck who is a real estate agent.

The Site and Locality

6 The site is situated on the southern side of Commercial Street East. It is within the City Centre Zone ("the Zone") of the Mount Gambier (City) Development Plan ("the Plan"). It has a frontage of 20.07 metres to Commercial Street East and a depth of about 74 metres. As mentioned previously it has a narrow corridor, 3.66 metres wide and about 40 metres, in the nature of a laneway leading in a westerly direction from the main part of the site to Krummel Street.
7 The site has a total area of 1619 square metres. According to Exhibit A5 the proposed development will occupy about 1118 square metres of that area. The remainder is occupied by the recently constructed carpark (associated with the adjoining office) through which will pass the right-of-way intended to service the dwellings. Although it is not clear, I think the proposed development is to occupy all of Lot 12 (Folio 45 Exhibit R1) in which case the area upon which the dwellings are to be sited is 1252 square metres. An easement to the Minister of Infrastructure crosses the land.
8 Mrs Tzioutziouklaris prepared a land use and locality plan (Exhibit R2). Retail, commerce and warehousing are the predominant land uses to the north, east and west of the site. Exceptions to this pattern of development are the dwellings on the north side of Commercial Street East and the dwelling to the rear of the shops immediately adjacent the western boundary of the site. A large caravan park is on adjacent land to the south of the site.
9 The appropriate locality for the purposes of the assessment is generally that which is defined and described by Mrs Tzioutziouklaris but would not include the properties south of the caravan park.
10 In my view, amenity is average occasioned mainly by the presence of commercial development and associated facilities and the volume of and subsequent nuisance from high volume traffic movement.

The Development Proposed

11 Four two storey dwellings are proposed. Two dwellings are in separate buildings and two are adjoined. Each dwelling has an area allocated as private open space ranging in area from 42 to 82 square metres. Access to the dwellings is intended to be a one-way system (in only from Commercial Street East through the recently constructed car park associated with the adjoining offices via the right-of-way and out only to Krummel Street via the laneway).
12 A general impression of the proposal is provided in the plans attached to this judgment.

The Development Plan

13 The Plan relevant in these proceedings is dated 28 August 2003. The site is depicted on Map MtG(C)/8. It is not within any of the policy areas depicted on Map MtG(C)17.

The Evidence and Assessment

14 The planners, in their statements of evidence, identified many provisions of the Plan they consider relevant in the assessment of the proposal. I have read and considered them all. I will refer to those that go to the heart of the matter.
15 Reduced to the essentials, there are two related planning issues to be addressed. The first revolves around the question of whether the form of residential development proposed is contemplated in the part of the Zone in which it is intended to be situated. The second is whether, by virtue of its location (in a "centre" and adjacent commercial land uses) and its design, the expected amenity outcomes are appropriate for residential development.
16 Objectives 1 and 2 for the Zone are relevant in the assessment. They are expressed as follows:

Objective 1: A compact city centre providing a range of attractive retail, commercial, administration, cultural, entertainment and community facilities.
Objective 2: An attractive townscape that emphasises the importance of the city centre as a regional and city focus and as a destination for tourists and other visitors.

17 These provisions are supported by explanatory texts. Under Objective 1, certain parts of the Zone are identified as being expressly intended for retail, commercial and office uses. The site is not within the part of the Zone so identified. The text then refers to the remainder of the Zone in the following terms:

The remainder of the zone is intended for less intensive uses, (particularly commercial uses) which will not create a division in the main focus of shopping facilities. Residential uses may be considered in appropriate locations where there is low fire risk from commercial premises in the centre. (emphasis added)

18 An understanding of the intent of Objective 2 is assisted by the text that follows:

The centre of Mount Gambier has a number of natural and man-made attributes. The Cave Gardens, the steep land to the north, the arrangement of the streets, new and other buildings such as the Civic Centre, Jen’s Hotel and the facades along Commercial Street, Bay Road and Penola Road together give the centre a pleasant and urbane character.
All new development should be arranged to enhance this character based, as far as practicable, on an urban design analysis of the area. (emphasis added)

19 The character sought in the Zone would also be influenced by the list of complying development in Principle 4. Included in the list are the following land uses: office and dwelling, residential club and shop and dwelling.
20 Mrs Tzioutziouklaris referred to these and other provisions when assessing the proposed development against the purpose and intent of the Zone. In her view the Plan "clearly envisages that the City Centre Zone should be developed for activities associated with working and recreation" (Exhibit R2, p9). Related to this view is a concern that "... the construction of residential dwellings upon a vacant allotment within the City Centre will have a detrimental impact upon the requirement to create a compact city centre providing a range of attractive retail, commercial, administration, cultural, entertainment and community facilities. The zone is intended for non residential purposes, should it be developed as residential, therefore new commercial developments will need to be developed elsewhere." (Exhibit R2, p13). Furthermore, Mrs Tzioutziouklaris opined that the presence, on all boundaries, of commercial type uses renders the proposed development vulnerable to detrimental impacts. Among the other provisions of the Plan cited in her assessment in this aspect of the assessment are the following Council Wide Provisions:

Objective 2: A rational distribution of zones to avoid incompatibility between land uses.
...
Objective 18: Shopping, administration, cultural, community, entertainment, educational, religious and recreational, facilities located in integrated centres.

3 New housing and other urban development should:
...
(c) create a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which to live.

5 Land zoned or proposed for living, working and recreational activities should be used only for those purposes.
...
10 The design and siting of new development should have regard to the nature and possible impacts arising from adjoining land uses.

21 Mrs Tzioutziouklaris was critical of several design aspects of the proposal. The potential for non-residential traffic to pass through the proposed development, the way in which the buildings addressed Commercial Street East, the limited area for landscaping, the degree of acoustic privacy, overshadowing and the relationship between the private open space of each dwelling to their habitable rooms were among the aspects identified by her as being in conflict with particular provisions of the Plan. Mrs Tzioutziouklaris expressed these views after an assessment mainly against those provisions which, although under the heading of "Residential Development", appear to apply expressly to development within a residential zone.
22 Mr Grose had no such concerns. He opined that the Plan, by virtue of the text supporting Objective 1 for the Zone, rendered the site suitable for residential purposes. It was in that part of the Zone that, in his opinion, is intended for less intensive land uses and where "there is no obvious fire risk" (Exhibit A3, p4). As to the design of the proposed development and its external impact, Mr Grose concluded that its scale, appearance and presentation to Commercial Street East, one way access arrangements, private open space, car parking and other functional requirements all satisfied the relevant provisions of the Plan to the necessary extent. He acknowledged that some parts of the proposed development may be deprived of sunlight during winter. Like Mrs Tzioutziouklaris, Mr Grose had regard to several provisions expressly applying to residential zones.
23 On face value, the terms of Objective 1 and its supporting text, and Principle 4 supports the proposition that the Plan contemplates residential development within certain parts of the zone. The site is situated within the area identified. The question to be resolved is whether the site is appropriate and the proposed development is in accord with the relevant provisions for the layout, design and access arrangements for the dwellings.
24 A factor not to be forgotten is the overarching purpose of the Zone. It is to accommodate retail, commercial, administration, cultural, entertainment and community land uses (Objective 1). This objective is reinforced by Council Wide Objective 18 and its supporting text. With few exceptions, the externalities associated with centre type uses are not likely to be regarded as benign. I say this having due regard to the text following Objective 1 which assigns as a preference to this part of the Zone "less intensive uses". In my view a "less intensive use" does not necessarily mean it is compatible with residential development.
25 The text following Objective 1 is not well expressed. However, the use of the term "appropriate" leads me to conclude that the suitability of a site for residential purposes within the Zone will depend on several factors in addition to those related to the risk of fire. In these proceedings the circumstances bring forth a consideration of Council Wide Principles 3(c) and 10 in making an assessment about the suitability of the site for the intended purpose. Among the factors to be considered are the existing land uses and those that may be expected in a fully developed district centre.
26 When these factors are carefully weighed, the site emerges as one not suited to the form of residential development proposed. It is quite different from a dwelling attached to a shop or office or a residential club; which uses are complying developments. In my experience the aforementioned land uses have particular aspects about their design, character, density and purpose that make them more adaptable and suited to a centre environment. The proposed development can be distinguished from the foregoing. It intends to place four dwellings having a design, capacity and nature of occupancy more suited to a conventional residential zone than a pocket of land surrounded, in effect, by commercial land uses. Granted there is a small dwelling to the rear of the adjacent land and a caravan park to the rear of the site. However, this aspect of the locality must be weighed against the existing land uses immediately adjacent the site and the potential for the proposed development to be exposed, over time, to the deleterious externalities of a vast range of centre type land uses, the likes of which are listed in Objective 21. I do not regard these circumstances as sufficient to satisfy Council Wide Principles 3(a) and 10 and, to the extent that it is applicable, Council Wide Objective 9.
27 The Plan contains little guidance on the appropriate standards for residential development not within a Residential Zone. However, I think the general thrust of the provisions contained in Council Wide Principles 15 to 77 inclusive have some relevance. Having examined these provisions and the evidence of the planners in some detail I have reached the conclusion that there are particular design features of the proposed development which are in conflict with several of the provisions for residential development, Council Wide provisions and good urban design and town planning practice. However, it must be first acknowledged that the density of the development would appear to accord with that which would be envisaged for the form of residential development which is listed as complying development in the Zone. Second, it would appear that the area and dimensions of the private open space associated with each dwelling is in accord with that envisaged in the Plan.
28 These aspects, however, are outweighed by several shortcomings in the design which give rise to an inappropriate environment in which to live. First, the right-of-way through the car park and the use of the car park itself for commercial purpose is likely to create conflicting traffic movement. The separation between the access for residential areas and access for centre facilities envisaged in Council Wide Principle 80(j) cannot be implemented in the proposed development. Second, the private open space for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 are located such as to be exposed to the (incompatible) adjoining land uses to the extent that the utility of these spaces will be unreasonably compromised. In this respect the proposed development is at odds with Council Wide Principles 3(c), 10 and Performance Criteria 60. Mr Grose’s solution to construct higher walls along the boundaries to separate the development from the adjoining uses is not appropriate in the circumstances. Third, the design of Dwellings 1 and 2 (in particular the position and appearance of the garages and the extent of paving within the northern sector of the proposed development) will detract from the amenity of the shop/dwelling to the west and provide a poor visual appearance from Commercial Street East. Unacceptable conflict with Performance Criteria 15, 41, 42, 45, 49 and 51 arises.
29 For these reasons I confirm the decision of the Council to refuse Provisional Development Plan Consent. In so concluding I have placed little weight on that aspect of the Council’s case that urged the Court to consider the effect of the proposed development on the future availability of land for commercial or like land uses. I am in little doubt that the evidence of Mrs Tzioutziouklaris was coloured by her involvement in and the findings of a draft report entitled "City of Mount Gambier Commercial Strategy Draft June 2005" (Exhibit R6). The findings in that report may find its way into a future version of the Plan. At this point it has little or no relevance in the assessment.
30 The appeal is dismissed. There will be an order to that effect.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAERDC/2005/109.html

1	Development Application No. 381/0758/2004 was submitted to the City of Mount Gambier ("the Council") by Mr Zobel (acting on behalf of the James Street Property Trust) on 26 November 2004. The application sought Provisional Development Plan Consent for the construction of four dwellings at 100 (Lot 7) Commercial Street East, Mount Gambier ("the site"). The Council dealt with the proposal as a Category 2 development. In due course the Council notified the James Street Property Trust that it had, on 19 January 2005, refused consent.
2	The proposed development was received by the Court as Exhibit A1. The proposal was amended during the proceedings. The amendments were received as Exhibit A5. Exhibits A1 and A5 propose a style and arrangement of buildings different from that first considered by the Council. I glean from Exhibits R1 and A1 that the proposed development put to the Court is essentially that which was considered by the Council in response to an initiative by the appellant to settle the dispute. Although the access arrangements and the design and configuration of the proposed dwellings have changed, the essential features of the development are the same. After hearing the parties on the effect of the amendments I found that there are no jurisdictional barriers that stand in the way of the Court dealing with the action.
3	However, I hasten to add that the handling of the proposed development from its inception to the amendments and the lead up to the hearing leaves much to be desired. The assessment report prepared for the consideration of the matter by the Council’s Development Assessment Panel provided little in the way of professional analysis. The plans upon which the decision was based were not included in the Council’s book of documents received by the Court as Exhibit R1. The amended proposal received as Exhibit A5 contain no details on the nature of a proposed right-of-way and its functional and operational relationship with the recently constructed carpark. The site plan prepared for the proposal when first put to the Council and the amended proposal in Exhibit A1 were based on an erroneous delineation of the eastern boundary and were missing important aspects of the existing development adjacent the western boundary.
4	Curious also is the decision of the Council to grant Provisional Development Plan Consent to a land division; the intention of which is to sever portion of the site (the new car park) and amalgamate it with the adjoining office. In so doing, Lot 12 (having an area of 1252 square metres) has, as its sole access to Krummel Street a laneway about 3.66 metre wide and 40 metres long. Lot 12 is intended to accommodate the proposed development except for the (future) right-of-way to Commercial Street East. The consent was granted prior to the decision of the Council to refuse consent to the proposed development. The right-of-way mentioned earlier becomes necessary to serve the access needs of the dwellings.
5	In these proceedings Mr Botten and Mr Beamond appeared for the appellant and the Council respectively. Mr S Grose, gave expert planning evidence in the case for the appellant and Mrs Tzioutziouklaris gave expert planning evidence in the case for the Council. The Court also heard evidence from Mr R Chuck who is a real estate agent.

6	The site is situated on the southern side of Commercial Street East. It is within the City Centre Zone ("the Zone") of the Mount Gambier (City) Development Plan ("the Plan"). It has a frontage of 20.07 metres to Commercial Street East and a depth of about 74 metres. As mentioned previously it has a narrow corridor, 3.66 metres wide and about 40 metres, in the nature of a laneway leading in a westerly direction from the main part of the site to Krummel Street.
7	The site has a total area of 1619 square metres. According to Exhibit A5 the proposed development will occupy about 1118 square metres of that area. The remainder is occupied by the recently constructed carpark (associated with the adjoining office) through which will pass the right-of-way intended to service the dwellings. Although it is not clear, I think the proposed development is to occupy all of Lot 12 (Folio 45 Exhibit R1) in which case the area upon which the dwellings are to be sited is 1252 square metres. An easement to the Minister of Infrastructure crosses the land.
8	Mrs Tzioutziouklaris prepared a land use and locality plan (Exhibit R2). Retail, commerce and warehousing are the predominant land uses to the north, east and west of the site. Exceptions to this pattern of development are the dwellings on the north side of Commercial Street East and the dwelling to the rear of the shops immediately adjacent the western boundary of the site. A large caravan park is on adjacent land to the south of the site.
9	The appropriate locality for the purposes of the assessment is generally that which is defined and described by Mrs Tzioutziouklaris but would not include the properties south of the caravan park.
10	In my view, amenity is average occasioned mainly by the presence of commercial development and associated facilities and the volume of and subsequent nuisance from high volume traffic movement.

14	The planners, in their statements of evidence, identified many provisions of the Plan they consider relevant in the assessment of the proposal. I have read and considered them all. I will refer to those that go to the heart of the matter.
15	Reduced to the essentials, there are two related planning issues to be addressed. The first revolves around the question of whether the form of residential development proposed is contemplated in the part of the Zone in which it is intended to be situated. The second is whether, by virtue of its location (in a "centre" and adjacent commercial land uses) and its design, the expected amenity outcomes are appropriate for residential development.
16	Objectives 1 and 2 for the Zone are relevant in the assessment. They are expressed as follows:

21	Mrs Tzioutziouklaris was critical of several design aspects of the proposal. The potential for non-residential traffic to pass through the proposed development, the way in which the buildings addressed Commercial Street East, the limited area for landscaping, the degree of acoustic privacy, overshadowing and the relationship between the private open space of each dwelling to their habitable rooms were among the aspects identified by her as being in conflict with particular provisions of the Plan. Mrs Tzioutziouklaris expressed these views after an assessment mainly against those provisions which, although under the heading of "Residential Development", appear to apply expressly to development within a residential zone.
22	Mr Grose had no such concerns. He opined that the Plan, by virtue of the text supporting Objective 1 for the Zone, rendered the site suitable for residential purposes. It was in that part of the Zone that, in his opinion, is intended for less intensive land uses and where "there is no obvious fire risk" (Exhibit A3, p4). As to the design of the proposed development and its external impact, Mr Grose concluded that its scale, appearance and presentation to Commercial Street East, one way access arrangements, private open space, car parking and other functional requirements all satisfied the relevant provisions of the Plan to the necessary extent. He acknowledged that some parts of the proposed development may be deprived of sunlight during winter. Like Mrs Tzioutziouklaris, Mr Grose had regard to several provisions expressly applying to residential zones.
23	On face value, the terms of Objective 1 and its supporting text, and Principle 4 supports the proposition that the Plan contemplates residential development within certain parts of the zone. The site is situated within the area identified. The question to be resolved is whether the site is appropriate and the proposed development is in accord with the relevant provisions for the layout, design and access arrangements for the dwellings.
24	A factor not to be forgotten is the overarching purpose of the Zone. It is to accommodate retail, commercial, administration, cultural, entertainment and community land uses (Objective 1). This objective is reinforced by Council Wide Objective 18 and its supporting text. With few exceptions, the externalities associated with centre type uses are not likely to be regarded as benign. I say this having due regard to the text following Objective 1 which assigns as a preference to this part of the Zone "less intensive uses". In my view a "less intensive use" does not necessarily mean it is compatible with residential development.
25	The text following Objective 1 is not well expressed. However, the use of the term "appropriate" leads me to conclude that the suitability of a site for residential purposes within the Zone will depend on several factors in addition to those related to the risk of fire. In these proceedings the circumstances bring forth a consideration of Council Wide Principles 3(c) and 10 in making an assessment about the suitability of the site for the intended purpose. Among the factors to be considered are the existing land uses and those that may be expected in a fully developed district centre.
26	When these factors are carefully weighed, the site emerges as one not suited to the form of residential development proposed. It is quite different from a dwelling attached to a shop or office or a residential club; which uses are complying developments. In my experience the aforementioned land uses have particular aspects about their design, character, density and purpose that make them more adaptable and suited to a centre environment. The proposed development can be distinguished from the foregoing. It intends to place four dwellings having a design, capacity and nature of occupancy more suited to a conventional residential zone than a pocket of land surrounded, in effect, by commercial land uses. Granted there is a small dwelling to the rear of the adjacent land and a caravan park to the rear of the site. However, this aspect of the locality must be weighed against the existing land uses immediately adjacent the site and the potential for the proposed development to be exposed, over time, to the deleterious externalities of a vast range of centre type land uses, the likes of which are listed in Objective 21. I do not regard these circumstances as sufficient to satisfy Council Wide Principles 3(a) and 10 and, to the extent that it is applicable, Council Wide Objective 9.
27	The Plan contains little guidance on the appropriate standards for residential development not within a Residential Zone. However, I think the general thrust of the provisions contained in Council Wide Principles 15 to 77 inclusive have some relevance. Having examined these provisions and the evidence of the planners in some detail I have reached the conclusion that there are particular design features of the proposed development which are in conflict with several of the provisions for residential development, Council Wide provisions and good urban design and town planning practice. However, it must be first acknowledged that the density of the development would appear to accord with that which would be envisaged for the form of residential development which is listed as complying development in the Zone. Second, it would appear that the area and dimensions of the private open space associated with each dwelling is in accord with that envisaged in the Plan.
28	These aspects, however, are outweighed by several shortcomings in the design which give rise to an inappropriate environment in which to live. First, the right-of-way through the car park and the use of the car park itself for commercial purpose is likely to create conflicting traffic movement. The separation between the access for residential areas and access for centre facilities envisaged in Council Wide Principle 80(j) cannot be implemented in the proposed development. Second, the private open space for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 are located such as to be exposed to the (incompatible) adjoining land uses to the extent that the utility of these spaces will be unreasonably compromised. In this respect the proposed development is at odds with Council Wide Principles 3(c), 10 and Performance Criteria 60. Mr Grose’s solution to construct higher walls along the boundaries to separate the development from the adjoining uses is not appropriate in the circumstances. Third, the design of Dwellings 1 and 2 (in particular the position and appearance of the garages and the extent of paving within the northern sector of the proposed development) will detract from the amenity of the shop/dwelling to the west and provide a poor visual appearance from Commercial Street East. Unacceptable conflict with Performance Criteria 15, 41, 42, 45, 49 and 51 arises.
29	For these reasons I confirm the decision of the Council to refuse Provisional Development Plan Consent. In so concluding I have placed little weight on that aspect of the Council’s case that urged the Court to consider the effect of the proposed development on the future availability of land for commercial or like land uses. I am in little doubt that the evidence of Mrs Tzioutziouklaris was coloured by her involvement in and the findings of a draft report entitled "City of Mount Gambier Commercial Strategy Draft June 2005" (Exhibit R6). The findings in that report may find its way into a future version of the Plan. At this point it has little or no relevance in the assessment.
30	The appeal is dismissed. There will be an order to that effect.