Extension allowed because it constitutes a less intrusive design solution

The Commission further observed that the “building mass” would detract from the visual character of the rural settlement.

In reaction, the applicant appealed to the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting inter alia that the same policy being quoted by the Commission allows for additional structures at roof level (second floor level), having an area which does not exceed 20 square metres. Instead, applicant submitted, he voluntarily opted for a structure at a lower level having no fixed access to the overlying roof (at second floor level). Applicant maintained that the proposed room at first floor level “will eventually blend positively within the existing massing and screened from the otherwise blank walls.” 

For its part, the commission reiterated that the site under appeal consists of a dwelling constructed on two floors with an approved footprint of approximately 200 square metres and a floor area of 300 square metres, besides having a garage at basement level.

The case officer therefore contended that these dimensions exceed by far the maximum areas allowed by policy, which lays down a maximum of 150 square metre footprint and a 200 square metre floor space. The case officer maintained that an additional washroom of 12 square metres would take the total floor area to 312 square metres, thus exceeding the permitted 200 square metres. 

In its assessment, the Tribunal underlined that the site lies in a Category 2 rural settlement where the present floor space already exceeds the maximum set out in the policy. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal observed that the proposed room was set to be located adjacent to three blank walls at first floor level and no negative visual impact was therefore envisaged. Even more so, the Tribunal noted that instead of having a washroom at second floor level in consistence with policy requirements, applicant opted for a much less intrusive design solution.

Against this background, the Tribunal approved the extension at first floor level on condition that  “no washrooms are allowed at roof level.”

The additional room at first floor did not impart a negative visual impact