The Design And Aesthetic Appeal Video
Product Aesthetics The Design And Aesthetic Appeal
November and 12 December The application was re-advertised and notified between 10 January and 30 January Council also contended that insufficient information had been provided to allow a proper assessment of the DA in respect of:.
Top Navigation
The appeal was prepared for hearing which included the engaging of expert witnesses in various relevant disciplines. Expert Witnesses in LEC proceedings are not adversaries who argue for a particular position put forward by their client. In DA appeals, the role of the experts is to independently assist the Court. They are required to work together to jointly and independently of their client advise the Court on the matters they are in agreement on and any matters they disagree about. The drainage and landscaping contentions were resolved and overcome by additional information being provided by the Applicant.
This additional information was properly considered by Council's experts throughout the joint conferencing process and further refined on the first day of the hearing. As such, appropriate conditions were Desibn by the experts and agreed upon which addressed the storm water discharge and potential flooding downstream which involves the Applicant paying for the upgrading of the pipe and Apeal in Arika Ave. The conditions imposed The Design And Aesthetic Appeal the court are appropriate and based on sound methodology. Hence the contention about storm water runoff was check this out resolved in the eyes of the Court. Likewise, the contention in relation to landscaping and tree loss was resolved by the experts in the joint conference and again appropriate conditions outlining a comprehensive tree replacement regime were both submitted to the Court which was satisfied with them.
The residual contentions about the aesthetic look and layout of the buildings could not be resolved through the joint expert conferencing process and were the subject of competing town planning evidence which was provided in a joint expert report and by way of oral evidence at the hearing.
The council's expert witness was of the view that fundamentally the proposed development was not an appropriate design response to the topography and resulted in a huge expanse of a common driveway which would be prominent and out of character. The council's expert planner also asserted that the typology of the buildings was not in keeping with the existing character of the locality. As The Design And Aesthetic Appeal evident from the reasoning provided by Acting Commissioner Morris, she was of the view that because The Design And Aesthetic Appeal engineering and landscaping contentions had been resolved, the remaining contention about the building footprints, special separation and design responses to the topography of the landform were appropriate. As such, she preferred the Applicant's town planning evidence over the Council's evidence.
This is not a case of the Council's legal representative and experts not presenting a compelling case that the proposal should be refused, on the contrary. The Commissioner made her subjective call by weighing up the available evidence and with the benefit a thorough site view. On this occasion she decided in favour of the Applicant. Whilst to some this appears to be the wrong decision, this is the process on appeal which, at times, produces an outcome that not everyone is happy with. After more contact information? Skip to main content.
Front Porch Ideas To Add More Aesthetic Appeal To Your Home Youtube
Home - Byron Shire Council - Logo. The proposed development was incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the surrounding environment and failed to The Design And Aesthetic Appeal the objectives and performance criteria of DCPclause D1.
The site layout and subdivision design did not respond the natural features of the site and the locality and failed to satisfy the objectives, performance criteria of DCPclause D6. The development was likely to result in adverse impacts on the coastal and built environment and was unsatisfactory in relation to the relevant matters for consideration under the Coastal SEPP.
The proposed development did not provide sufficient parking to meet the needs of the development.]
You have hit the mark. I like this thought, I completely with you agree.
And indefinitely it is not far :)
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.