[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 >> 2008 >> [2008] SAERDC 7

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

WROBEL v CITY OF MITCHAM [2008] SAERDC 7 (7 February 2008)

Last Updated: 8 February 2008

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.

WROBEL v CITY OF MITCHAM

[2008] SAERDC 7

Judgment of Commissioner Green

7 February 2008

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Development Act 1993 - applicant appeal - refusal by the Council - carport structure over caravan - Residential (Hills) Zone - location/siting, design, appearance, landscaping and impacts to visual amenity and built form character considered - structure too close to front and side boundaries; insufficient space to accommodate screen landscaping, possible planting of road verge acknowledged; impact on visual amenity of streetscape and locality significant - proposal not acceptable in Zone, streetscape and locality contexts - insufficient compliance with the Development Plan - appeal dismissed - decision of the Council confirmed.
Development Act 1993, referred to.

WROBEL v CITY OF MITCHAM
[2008] SAERDC 7

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1 This matter is an applicant appeal against the decision of the City of Mitcham (the Council) to refuse to grant Development Plan Consent to Development Application No. 080/54/2007, made under the Development Act 1993, for a garage at Hawthorndene.

2 The Council provided the following reasons for its decision:

(1) The proposed development is considered at variance to Council Wide Principle of Development Control 18 in that the front setback is less than the prescribed setback, being set forward 20 metres of the main face of the existing dwelling.
(2) The proposed development is considered at variance to Council Wide Principle of Development Control 23 in that the proposed height and siting is considered visually intrusive with respect to the adjoining properties and the streetscape.

3 A summary of some of the relevant details in this matter is as follows:

Registration date of application:	15 January 2007
Subject land address:	10 Tallarook Road, Hawthorndene
Existing use:	Detached dwelling with associated double garage
Proposal:	Amended by Exhibit A2 post-the Council decision, an open sided carport, for the parking and protection of a caravan
Relevant authority:	City of Mitcham
Relevant/appropriate Development Plan:	Mitcham (City) consolidated version 22 September 2005
Relevant Zone/Area:	Residential (Hills) Zone – (RHZ hereafter)/Living
Date of decision:	2 May 2007
Appeal lodged:	23 May 2007
Conference concluded:	12 November 2007

4 The Court viewed the subject land and the locality on the morning of Tuesday, 15 January 2008 in the presence of the parties and the expert witness called.
5 Witnesses providing evidence to assist the Court and to which regard is given comprised, for the appellant, the male appellant (a lay person); and for the respondent Council, Mr D Batge, an experienced independent consultant town planner (refer Exhibit R2).

Subject Land

6 The subject land is an allotment on the southern side of Tallarook Road that has a slightly irregular road frontage of approximately 20 metres with a bend in that boundary, an average depth of some 44.7 metres and a site area of 994 square metres. The western side boundary abuts a residential allotment of similar dimensions and the eastern and southern boundaries abut a large public reserve/park.
7 The land has a significant slope from the Tallarook Road frontage downhill towards its rear and has, in part, been terraced to accommodate that slope and subsequent development.
8 A part two storey detached dwelling has been developed toward the rear of the allotment setback some 19-20 metres from the front road boundary. It is also set well below street level, with, according to Mr Batge, the roof ridge only 1-2 metres above the level of the road verge.
9 Well forward, in front of the dwelling and setback some 7.6 metres from the front boundary is a double garage constructed of similar materials as those used for the dwelling. It is sited side-on to the street with its doors facing eastward across the allotment. Forward of that garage and adjacent the front boundary is a levelled and concrete paved area behind a timber fence of approximately 1.5 metres in height, where a moderately large caravan and trailer park. The road verge forward of the front boundary is some 4-5 metres in width. There is only low-level vegetation on the front part of the allotment with no effective screening of the structures on the land as viewed from Tallarook Road. There are many larger trees on the eastern side and to the rear. Photos of the subject land are contained within Exhibits A4 and R2.

Development Proposal

10 The amended development proposal before the Court (Exhibit A2), comprises the erection of a carport structure over an area that has already been levelled and paved and with retaining walls constructed on either side (as opposed to a garage structure in the same location considered by the Council). It is assessed, and there was no argument or submissions to the contrary, that the Court is able to deal with the amended proposal as a minor variation to that considered by the Council.
11 The length of the proposed structure, to run parallel to the road frontage with the roof pitching away from the street, is approximately 8.5 metres. The gabled ends of the roof are not to be filled in. The structure is also to be 3.92 metres in width with an approximate height of 3.35 metres. However, a verbal amendment/offering by the appellants indicated that it could/would be further lowered an additional 0.45 metres. No levels are provided on the plans, however the paved area is set some 500 mm below the adjacent verge level, hence the proposed structure would appear to be approximately 2.4-2.5 metres above the adjacent road verge levels.
12 The structure is proposed to be sited 600 mm from both the front street and western side boundary of the subject site and approximately 10-11 metres from the eastern boundary. Site coverage with the additional structure is estimated by Mr Batge to be under 25% of the subject land area.
13 The development proposal is a kind of development that in accordance with the provisions of the RHZ and Table Mit/1 is neither complying nor non-complying and is to be assessed on its merits as a consent development.

The Locality

14 Comprising that part of the area surrounding the subject land of tangible influence on it and that this specific proposal affects, to a notable degree, I find that the locality is to be based on a visual amenity and general character basis. I have noted that defined by Mr Batge, and that it focuses along Tallarook Road and I generally accept that definition, except for one allotment/dwelling to the east (No. 17 Tallarook Road) that should be removed and one allotment/dwelling to the west on the opposite corner (72 Myrtle Road), that should be added to the locality. (Refer photos in Exhibit A4 and pp 4, 30 and 31 of Exhibit R2).
15 Except for a bushland park adjoining to the east and south (Archibald Park), the locality is entirely residential in land use and comprising detached dwellings, mostly of single storey or split level on large allotments and with associated garages and other outbuildings/ancillary structures.
16 Dwelling setbacks to the front Tallarook Road boundary, excluding corner sites such as No. 1 Tallarook Road, are generally in the 6-14 metre range (although the dwelling on the subject land is further back). However, some carport structures extend within 2 or 5 metres of that boundary (for example at Nos. 4 and 3 respectively to the west). Most garaging is integrated with the associated dwelling, although there are some that are freestanding or not integrated in design and form. The freestanding garage on the subject land is well forward of the dwelling and comparable to the front setback of the dwelling adjoining at No. 8.
17 The front setback areas of most properties are landscaped which, together with road reserve trees, provides for partial screening of buildings and enhances amenity levels. The subject land and property adjoining at No. 8 are much more open to a front on view with limited screening vegetation.
18 Residential amenity levels in the locality are relatively high, enhanced by vegetation, the hills ambience and some built form design, but marred by some more dominant or poorly designed structures and electricity poles. The appearance of the caravan parked on the levelled area near the front boundary of the subject land is a negative visual element in the locality. There are some buildings forward of the conventional front setback and they have a negative effect on visual amenity but not to a greater degree due to, in some respects, their slender nature or screening or materials/colour features.

Relevant Development Plan Provisions

19 I have had regard to the provisions referred to by Mr Batge, the only expert witness, and by counsel, and I find the following to be the provisions providing the most guidance, particularly with respect to the key issues in focus in this matter:

METROPOLITAN ADELAIDE (MA hereafter)
Objectives: 9, 24 and 43; and
Principles of development control: 9 and 11.

COUNCIL WIDE (CW hereafter)
Objectives: 4(f), 5, 7, 14, 19 and 23; and
Principles of development control: 1, 3(c), 16(d), 18, 19(c)(d), 21, 22, 23, 27(c), 74(p), 145, 146, 149, 152, 154 and 177.

RESIDENTIAL (HILLS) ZONE (RHZ hereafter)
Objective: 1; and Desired Character; and
Principles of development control: 1, 6 and 8; and
Table Mit/1 – domestic outbuilding.
Processing

20 The Council categorised the development proposal as Category 1, no public notification was undertaken nor representations received. It would also appear that no referrals were required by the regulations to any government departments and agencies.

Assessment Approach

21 Section 33(a) of the Act requires the relevant authority (the Council) and on appeal this Court, to assess a development application against the provisions of the appropriate/relevant Development Plan and s 35(2) specifies that where a development is assessed as being seriously at variance with the Development Plan, it must not be granted consent. The whole of the Development Plan must be assessed, including on appeal. The relevant guidelines in the Plan provide the firm basis for decision-making together with a consideration of any other relevant matters.
22 In terms of s 35 and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, the proposal is for consideration on its merits against the Development Plan guidelines and involves weighing up the pros and cons and considering whether it is sufficiently conducive to the overall intent, purpose and desired character and amenity of the RHZ and tested in the specific site and locality context. The Development Plan is also to be utilised as a flexible, advisory planning policy document, not as a mandatory legal statute and as a practical guide for practical application, superimposed upon an existing state of development on the site and in the relevant locality. Ultimately, a planning judgment is to be made on a fact and degree basis as to whether the specific proposal sufficiently meets the Development Plan and having regard to all relevant matters, warrants consent.

Planning Assessment

23 The amended proposal is for a carport structure to protect/shade a caravan owned by the appellants. I consider that it is embraced by the domestic outbuilding descriptor in a general sense. It is for a minor use ancillary to and associated with the primary residential use of the subject land.
24 This matter focuses on the location/siting, design and appearance of the building tested in the site, streetscape and locality contexts, and its effect on visual amenity and built form character of the Tallarook Road streetscape within the locality. There are no other significant issues arising where the proposal falls short of the planning guidelines. I agree with those other assessments by Mr Batge.

25 Of particular guidance to the primary issues in focus are the following Development Plan provisions:

RESIDENTIAL (HILLS) ZONE

...

Objective 1: Development comprising detached dwellings on large allotments that maintains and enhances the natural vegetation and features of the Mount Lofty Ranges.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
...

6 Development should be designed and sited to relate to the slope of the land and the natural character of the area so that:

(a) the bulk and scale of buildings respond to, rather than dominate, the natural landscape.

(b) existing vegetation that contributes to the character of the area is retained wherever reasonably possible.

(c) the natural drainage characteristics of the land are retained and all creek and drainage lines are maintained in a natural state.

(d) landscaping incorporating trees and shrubs of primarily indigenous species is provided to reduce the visibility, bulk and scale of buildings and structures.

(e) cutting and filling of the natural ground profile is obscured from view by existing vegetation wherever possible and softened by new planting;

(f) the need for retaining walls is avoided, or if retaining walls are necessary their height is minimised and they are screened by existing vegetation wherever possible and suitably landscaped;

(g) the use of bright and highly reflective external materials and finishes is avoided on buildings and structures that are prominently visible from roads, reserve areas or other public places;

(h) the extent of any vegetation clearance required for bushfire protection will not significantly detract from the natural character and appearance of the locality.

...

Complying Development

8 The following development is complying in the Zone subject to compliance with the relevant conditions contained in Table Mit/1:

...
COUNCIL WIDE
....

Objective 4: The city's amenity and character enhanced by:

...

(f) encouraging residents to care for their own areas in keeping with the natural character; and

...

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
...

18 Buildings and structures should be set-back a sufficient distance from road boundaries to:

(a) maintain or provide an attractive streetscape appearance through the provision of landscaping between dwellings and the street;

(b) incorporate existing vegetation where applicable;

(d) provide adequate space for the provision of on-site car parking;
...

23 Domestic outbuildings should be of a design, size, finish and location that minimises visual intrusion with respect to adjoining properties and the streetscape, and does not significantly reduce useable outdoor space.

Outbuildings should accordingly satisfy the requirements that they are to be:
(a) accessory to an existing dwelling;
(b) not greater than 40 square metres in floor area;

(d) sited so as to accord with principle of development control numbered 19;
(e) sited at least 1.0 metres from an adjacent property boundary;

(f) of a size that does not result in a loss of more than 20 percent of the required provision of private open space associated with the dwelling under this Development Plan; and

(g) finished on the external surfaces in a colour that matches or blends with any existing dwelling on the site, and is in keeping with the character of the locality; metal clad walling or roofs are to be of a pre-coated finish unless specified otherwise within a particular zone.
...

149 Development should incorporate landscaping as an integral part of the design of the development.
...

154 Landscaping should enhance the appearance of development, establish visual buffers to adjacent development and screen service, loading, outdoor storage and car parking areas.
...

METROPOLITAN ADELAIDE
...

Objective 43: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects.
...
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
...
11 Landscaping of development in residential zones should:

(a) enhance residential amenity;

(b) screen storage, service and parking areas;

(d) not unreasonably affect adjacent land by shadow.

[my underlining]

26 All of these provisions may not have been in place when housing and other development took place along Tallarook Road given that the Development Plan is updated from time to time.
27 In this Council’s Development Plan (the RHZ and the relevant locality), there is a strong emphasis on visual qualities, and the maintenance and enhancement of a vegetative character. Together with the topography, it is one element of its uniqueness.
28 By RHZ Principle 8 and Table Mi/1, a complying domestic outbuilding development should be:

(a) accessory to an existing dwelling (met in this case);

(b) not greater than 40 square metres (met in this case – 33 square metres proposed);
(c) not greater than 2.4 metres high to the top of walls (met as there are no walls though higher to the fascia); or in comparison the fascia/gutter line and uprights from the adjoining front property boundary level is some 2.1 metres or 2.6 metres from the new floor/pavement level;
(d) sited not less than 1 metre behind the main face of an existing dwelling on the site (not met as the carport would be approximately 20-22 metres forward of the face of the existing dwelling which is set well back and down the slope);
(e) is to be of a size that does not reduce the requirement for private open space for the dwelling by more than 20 per cent (met) and does not result in the total floor area of buildings on the site exceeding 40% of the area of the site (met);
(f) (excluding an open sided carport), sited no closer than 1 metre to a property boundary other than a road boundary (met as the proposal is open sided, although it is only setback 0.6 metres);
(g) finished on the external surfaces in a pre-coated color (met);

(h) not reduced the number of existing on-site parking spaces (met);

(i) any driveway to the proposed outbuildings being at a grade of less than 1-in-5 (uncertain, but likely to be met).

29 Hence, compared to the conditions of the conservative complying development baseline for a domestic outbuilding, the proposed structure is marginally tall, but more significantly, sited much closer to the side and the front road boundary (and this would be the case even if the dwelling was sited the standard or typical for the locality of say a 6-8 metre setback).
30 It is noteworthy that the RHZ Objective, Desired Character statement and Principle 6 all place an emphasis on landscaping and vegetation to soften the appearance of structures and to maintain the unique, leafy character of the Zone. The development proposal does not achieve those aims due to its close proximity to boundaries and the very narrow areas remaining (0.6 metre width to the front and western side boundary), in which to achieve any substantial planting. Some planting in such narrow beds or planter pots is achievable but I consider that it would be very difficult to create a significant softening/screening of the structure and caravan thereunder. In addition, the Council road verge (4-5 metre width) could also be planted and procedures are available (refer Exhibit R3), to seek Council’s consent for that. However, that is uncertain in terms of approval and problematic over the longer term with respect to maintenance and possible requirements for removal by either the Council or service authorities.
31 In terms of the "fit" of the proposal with the character of the streetscape and locality, and whilst there are a few structures that are forward of their related dwellings (such as Nos. 1, 3 and 4 Tallarook Road), as well as others further afield, they are not a consistent element of the predominant character, they are not particularly dominant visually, they are set back further from front boundaries than 0.6 metres allowing for some screening/softening planting and some have flat or low angled roofs (not pitched roofs which adds to bulk and obtrusiveness). I assess that those other examples do not sufficiently support the siting and design of the proposal to warrant consent on the basis of consistency with built form character in the locality.
32 I have not ignored site layout/topographical considerations and functional requirements and options for the appellants or their need for such a structure. However, the matter is not finely balanced and I cannot elevate such considerations to over-ride the clear policy direction in the Plan and the RHZ for such development. It is, unfortunately, sometimes the case that the needs and design concepts of proponents cannot be actualized on a particular site given zoning policies, and the locality and streetscape contexts.
33 As proposed to be sited and designed, the visual amenity of the street and the locality will be negatively affected by the proposed structure. That would also remain the case, but to a lesser extent, with the continued parking of the caravan on the constructed/paved position (without any carport cover), very close to the front and side boundaries behind the 1.5 metre timber fence. The added visual impacts would principally be caused by the height and roof form of the structure. It would also remain obtrusive, even when the caravan is utilised and taken away off-site. In addition as suggested by Mr Batge, it does solidify, for the longer term, both the location and obtrusiveness of the caravan parking and the structure in what is a visually unacceptable manner. I find that they do not maintain, nor enhance the visual amenity of the locality and to the contrary they detract from it. The carport would also encourage continuation of that practice.
34 Whilst the carport siting and design would cause a modest degree of detrimental visual impact, it could have more far reaching negative consequences by incrementally changing the character of the streetscape and the locality, which may give encouragement to other similar structures, the continuance of which would begin to materially depart from the Desired Character of the Zone and the streetscape and locality character.
35 I am not satisfied that there is adequate scope for screening/softening planting on the subject land, nor can I place sufficient weight on possible future planting on the Council’s road verge, so as to off-set the detrimental visual impact likely to be caused. In addition, partial lattice screening to one or more sides (as suggested by the appellants), whilst it may encourage and enable creepers to be trained up the structure, that would increase the perceived bulk of the structure as viewed from the roadway.
36 The expert evidence of Mr Batge was adequate and reasonable and it was not seriously challenged, compromised or diminished by the appellants’ case.

Conclusion

37 I conclude that the proposal does not sufficiently meet the Development Plan as a whole, that departures from several guidelines are significant and that on careful consideration of the amended proposal, what I saw on the view, the evidence, the submissions, and of all relevant matters, and from my own assessment, that it does not warrant Development Plan Consent.

Decision

38 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Council to refuse consent is confirmed.
39 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/2008/7.html

4	The Court viewed the subject land and the locality on the morning of Tuesday, 15 January 2008 in the presence of the parties and the expert witness called.
5	Witnesses providing evidence to assist the Court and to which regard is given comprised, for the appellant, the male appellant (a lay person); and for the respondent Council, Mr D Batge, an experienced independent consultant town planner (refer Exhibit R2).

6	The subject land is an allotment on the southern side of Tallarook Road that has a slightly irregular road frontage of approximately 20 metres with a bend in that boundary, an average depth of some 44.7 metres and a site area of 994 square metres. The western side boundary abuts a residential allotment of similar dimensions and the eastern and southern boundaries abut a large public reserve/park.
7	The land has a significant slope from the Tallarook Road frontage downhill towards its rear and has, in part, been terraced to accommodate that slope and subsequent development.
8	A part two storey detached dwelling has been developed toward the rear of the allotment setback some 19-20 metres from the front road boundary. It is also set well below street level, with, according to Mr Batge, the roof ridge only 1-2 metres above the level of the road verge.
9	Well forward, in front of the dwelling and setback some 7.6 metres from the front boundary is a double garage constructed of similar materials as those used for the dwelling. It is sited side-on to the street with its doors facing eastward across the allotment. Forward of that garage and adjacent the front boundary is a levelled and concrete paved area behind a timber fence of approximately 1.5 metres in height, where a moderately large caravan and trailer park. The road verge forward of the front boundary is some 4-5 metres in width. There is only low-level vegetation on the front part of the allotment with no effective screening of the structures on the land as viewed from Tallarook Road. There are many larger trees on the eastern side and to the rear. Photos of the subject land are contained within Exhibits A4 and R2.

10	The amended development proposal before the Court (Exhibit A2), comprises the erection of a carport structure over an area that has already been levelled and paved and with retaining walls constructed on either side (as opposed to a garage structure in the same location considered by the Council). It is assessed, and there was no argument or submissions to the contrary, that the Court is able to deal with the amended proposal as a minor variation to that considered by the Council.
11	The length of the proposed structure, to run parallel to the road frontage with the roof pitching away from the street, is approximately 8.5 metres. The gabled ends of the roof are not to be filled in. The structure is also to be 3.92 metres in width with an approximate height of 3.35 metres. However, a verbal amendment/offering by the appellants indicated that it could/would be further lowered an additional 0.45 metres. No levels are provided on the plans, however the paved area is set some 500 mm below the adjacent verge level, hence the proposed structure would appear to be approximately 2.4-2.5 metres above the adjacent road verge levels.
12	The structure is proposed to be sited 600 mm from both the front street and western side boundary of the subject site and approximately 10-11 metres from the eastern boundary. Site coverage with the additional structure is estimated by Mr Batge to be under 25% of the subject land area.
13	The development proposal is a kind of development that in accordance with the provisions of the RHZ and Table Mit/1 is neither complying nor non-complying and is to be assessed on its merits as a consent development.

14	Comprising that part of the area surrounding the subject land of tangible influence on it and that this specific proposal affects, to a notable degree, I find that the locality is to be based on a visual amenity and general character basis. I have noted that defined by Mr Batge, and that it focuses along Tallarook Road and I generally accept that definition, except for one allotment/dwelling to the east (No. 17 Tallarook Road) that should be removed and one allotment/dwelling to the west on the opposite corner (72 Myrtle Road), that should be added to the locality. (Refer photos in Exhibit A4 and pp 4, 30 and 31 of Exhibit R2).
15	Except for a bushland park adjoining to the east and south (Archibald Park), the locality is entirely residential in land use and comprising detached dwellings, mostly of single storey or split level on large allotments and with associated garages and other outbuildings/ancillary structures.
16	Dwelling setbacks to the front Tallarook Road boundary, excluding corner sites such as No. 1 Tallarook Road, are generally in the 6-14 metre range (although the dwelling on the subject land is further back). However, some carport structures extend within 2 or 5 metres of that boundary (for example at Nos. 4 and 3 respectively to the west). Most garaging is integrated with the associated dwelling, although there are some that are freestanding or not integrated in design and form. The freestanding garage on the subject land is well forward of the dwelling and comparable to the front setback of the dwelling adjoining at No. 8.
17	The front setback areas of most properties are landscaped which, together with road reserve trees, provides for partial screening of buildings and enhances amenity levels. The subject land and property adjoining at No. 8 are much more open to a front on view with limited screening vegetation.
18	Residential amenity levels in the locality are relatively high, enhanced by vegetation, the hills ambience and some built form design, but marred by some more dominant or poorly designed structures and electricity poles. The appearance of the caravan parked on the levelled area near the front boundary of the subject land is a negative visual element in the locality. There are some buildings forward of the conventional front setback and they have a negative effect on visual amenity but not to a greater degree due to, in some respects, their slender nature or screening or materials/colour features.

26	All of these provisions may not have been in place when housing and other development took place along Tallarook Road given that the Development Plan is updated from time to time.
27	In this Council’s Development Plan (the RHZ and the relevant locality), there is a strong emphasis on visual qualities, and the maintenance and enhancement of a vegetative character. Together with the topography, it is one element of its uniqueness.
28	By RHZ Principle 8 and Table Mi/1, a complying domestic outbuilding development should be:

29	Hence, compared to the conditions of the conservative complying development baseline for a domestic outbuilding, the proposed structure is marginally tall, but more significantly, sited much closer to the side and the front road boundary (and this would be the case even if the dwelling was sited the standard or typical for the locality of say a 6-8 metre setback).
30	It is noteworthy that the RHZ Objective, Desired Character statement and Principle 6 all place an emphasis on landscaping and vegetation to soften the appearance of structures and to maintain the unique, leafy character of the Zone. The development proposal does not achieve those aims due to its close proximity to boundaries and the very narrow areas remaining (0.6 metre width to the front and western side boundary), in which to achieve any substantial planting. Some planting in such narrow beds or planter pots is achievable but I consider that it would be very difficult to create a significant softening/screening of the structure and caravan thereunder. In addition, the Council road verge (4-5 metre width) could also be planted and procedures are available (refer Exhibit R3), to seek Council’s consent for that. However, that is uncertain in terms of approval and problematic over the longer term with respect to maintenance and possible requirements for removal by either the Council or service authorities.
31	In terms of the "fit" of the proposal with the character of the streetscape and locality, and whilst there are a few structures that are forward of their related dwellings (such as Nos. 1, 3 and 4 Tallarook Road), as well as others further afield, they are not a consistent element of the predominant character, they are not particularly dominant visually, they are set back further from front boundaries than 0.6 metres allowing for some screening/softening planting and some have flat or low angled roofs (not pitched roofs which adds to bulk and obtrusiveness). I assess that those other examples do not sufficiently support the siting and design of the proposal to warrant consent on the basis of consistency with built form character in the locality.
32	I have not ignored site layout/topographical considerations and functional requirements and options for the appellants or their need for such a structure. However, the matter is not finely balanced and I cannot elevate such considerations to over-ride the clear policy direction in the Plan and the RHZ for such development. It is, unfortunately, sometimes the case that the needs and design concepts of proponents cannot be actualized on a particular site given zoning policies, and the locality and streetscape contexts.
33	As proposed to be sited and designed, the visual amenity of the street and the locality will be negatively affected by the proposed structure. That would also remain the case, but to a lesser extent, with the continued parking of the caravan on the constructed/paved position (without any carport cover), very close to the front and side boundaries behind the 1.5 metre timber fence. The added visual impacts would principally be caused by the height and roof form of the structure. It would also remain obtrusive, even when the caravan is utilised and taken away off-site. In addition as suggested by Mr Batge, it does solidify, for the longer term, both the location and obtrusiveness of the caravan parking and the structure in what is a visually unacceptable manner. I find that they do not maintain, nor enhance the visual amenity of the locality and to the contrary they detract from it. The carport would also encourage continuation of that practice.
34	Whilst the carport siting and design would cause a modest degree of detrimental visual impact, it could have more far reaching negative consequences by incrementally changing the character of the streetscape and the locality, which may give encouragement to other similar structures, the continuance of which would begin to materially depart from the Desired Character of the Zone and the streetscape and locality character.
35	I am not satisfied that there is adequate scope for screening/softening planting on the subject land, nor can I place sufficient weight on possible future planting on the Council’s road verge, so as to off-set the detrimental visual impact likely to be caused. In addition, partial lattice screening to one or more sides (as suggested by the appellants), whilst it may encourage and enable creepers to be trained up the structure, that would increase the perceived bulk of the structure as viewed from the roadway.
36	The expert evidence of Mr Batge was adequate and reasonable and it was not seriously challenged, compromised or diminished by the appellants’ case.

38	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Council to refuse consent is confirmed.
39	There will be an order to that effect.