Grant v Cairns City Council
[2003] QPEC 76
•12 December 2003
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Grant v Cairns City Council [2003] QPEC 076
PARTIES:
A B GRANT
(Appellant)
v
CAIRNS CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
9 of 2001
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
12 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
27 August 2003
JUDGE:
White DCJ
ORDER:
That the appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
Mr W Cochrane for the appellant
Mr A Philp for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Mellick Smith & Associates for the appellant
MacDonnells Solicitors for the respondent
The appellant applied to the respondent council for a development permit for a material change of use of premises for a licensed brothel on land described as Lot 8 on SP 101286 Parish of Cairns, County of Nares, located at 12 Cava close, Bungalow. The respondent refused the application. The appellant now appeals against that decision. The subject land is presently vacant. It has an area of 1,013 square metres and is approximately rectangular in shape. It is the last allotment at the head of Cava Close on the right hand side. Cava Close is a small 14 lot Light Industrial subdivision. It’s only access is directly off McCoombe Street which is a sub-arterial road which ends shortly after its intersection with Cava Close.
The appellant proposes to relocate an existing dwelling of low-set timber construction on to the site and to renovate and convert it for brothel use. The appellant proposes at some later stage to construct additions to the building so as to expand the use. The initial stage will involve three rooms for the provision of prostitution services. The additions will provide a further two rooms. The site is to be fully fenced with a 2.4 m high rendered concrete masonry block wall along the full frontage of the site to Cava Close with the exception of driveway openings. The side and rear boundaries will be fenced by a 1.8 m high Colourbond fence. All vehicular access to the site is via Cava Close. An automatic sliding gate will provide access to the patron car park with the staff car park reliant upon a remote controlled roller door. The proposal also includes timber decks and a swimming pool.
The respondent’s Planning Scheme currently in force is a Transitional Scheme pursuant to the Integrated Planning Act. It was gazetted in December 1996. The subject land and all of the Cava Close allotments are zoned Light Industry in the respondent’s scheme. In the Table of Zones the use of land in the Light Industry Zone for the purposes of a brothel was prohibited. However, this was not expressly so. No provision at all was made in the Transitional Planning Scheme for the establishment of the use of a brothel. This is undoubtedly because such a use would have been illegal at the time of the introduction of the Planning Scheme.
The Prostitution Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2000 with the stated purpose of regulating prostitution in Queensland. Issues arise concerning s 64 thereof. The Prostitution Act has been amended a number of times since its commencement. The Prostitution Amendment Act 2001 commenced on 7 December 2001. This Act effected amendments to s 64. Section 142 introduced by the Prostitution Amendment Act 2001 provides as follows:-
“An appeal started in the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act before the commencement of this section in relation to an application made to an assessment manager for development approval for a licensed brothel may continue to be dealt with under that Act as if the Prostitution Amendment Act 2001 had not been enacted.”
The Notice of appeal in this case was filed on 23 March 2001. It is common ground that so far as is relevant to this appeal, s 64 of the Prostitution Act 1999, as it was at the date of filing this appeal, provided as follows:-
“64(1) The assessment manager must refuse the application if –
(a) The land the subject of the application is in or within 200 m of a primarily residential area or an area approved for residential development or intended to be residential in character; or
(b) The land is within 200 m of a residential building, place of worship, hospital, school, kindergarten, or any other facility or place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities; or
(c) More than 5 rooms in the proposed brothel are to be used for providing prostitution.
(2) For subsection (1) distances are to be measured according to the shortest route that reasonably may be used in travelling.
(3) In subsection (1)(b) –
“Residential Building” means a building or part of a building used primarily for private residential use.”
It has been urged upon me that in spite of s 142 above I should have regard to the amendments to s 64 in order to construe s 64 as it applied to the present appeal. I am disinclined to do so. In my view s 64 as it applies to this appeal is capable of being construed by reference to the ordinary meaning of the words used without any need to resort to later and inapplicable amendments. Such resort may only give rise to potential error. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent was right in refusing the appellant’s application and the Court should dismiss the appeal on the basis that one or more of the matters referred to in subsection 64(1) arise in this case. It is necessary to describe some of the surrounding land uses in order to properly explain the arguments of the respondent in this regard.
Immediately to the south of the subject land is a narrow strip of land. At present it is a flat mown grass area. Further to the south is a fairly large parcel of land described as Lot 2 on RP 735971. It is freehold land owned by the respondent Council. It is irregularly shaped and is contained in different zones under the respondent’s Planning Scheme. A strip of that parcel of land which is closest to the subject land is contained in the Special Purpose Zone. This zoning reflects its use. Along that strip of Lot 2 where it passes near the subject land is the drainage path of Chinaman Creek contained within a concrete drain approximately 8.2 m in width and some unused land immediately beside the drain and further to the south. The drain is tidal. At low tide it has little or no water in it. At high tide (twice a day) it would have considerable water. It would also have considerable water in it during periods of heavy rain.
Somewhat to the south west of the subject land where Lot 2 widens out is an area zoned Residential. It is presently undeveloped and a portion is currently leased to the Earlville Pony club for obvious purposes. More directly to the south of the subject land and the concrete drain is Lot 1 on RP 826307 which is the site of the Parks Retirement Village. The retirement village is being developed in stages and for the purposes of this appeal I am prepared to accept that the whole of Lot 1 is intended to be Residential in character. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent in respect of this land to the south of the subject land is that the drainage reserve and that part of Lot 2 within the Special Purpose Zone and that part of Lot 2 leased to the Earlville Pony Club is within 200 m from the subject land and that they each are places “regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities”. The respondent also submits that the Parks Retirement Village and that part of Lot 2 zoned Residential constitutes an area intended to be residential in character and/or is approved for residential development and that the subject land is within 200 m thereof.
Firstly, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the land where the Parks Retirement Village is located and the part of Lot 2 zoned Residential may be properly described as one or more of the following, namely “a primarily residential area or an area approved for residential development or intended to be residential in character”. The issue in dispute is whether or not the subject land is within 200 m of those areas which may be conveniently described as residential in character. Further, I have no doubt that the parcel of land leased to the Earlville Pony Club may be described as “a place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities”. The issue in dispute in respect of that part of Lot 2 also is whether or not the subject land is within 200 m of the area of Lot 2 leased to the Earlville Pony Club. In order to determine this issue it is necessary to give consideration to the construction of subsection 64(2).
It is common ground that in order to bring the subject land within 200 m of the Parks Retirement Village, the Residential zoned area of Lot 2, and the land leased to the Earlville Pony Club the “shortest route that reasonably may be used in travelling” involves crossing over the concrete drain referred to in the evidence. No serious argument has been put that a person would reasonably cross the drain in a motor vehicle. I have no doubt that the word “travelling” in subsection (2) includes walking. In order to cross the drain on foot a person would either have to walk down the concrete sides of the drain across the bottom of it and up the other side or alternatively walk across two sewerage pipes which span the drain near the eastern corner of the Cava Close subdivision. I have no doubt that a reasonably healthy person, not physically disabled in any way, would be able to cross the drain by going down into it or by balancing across the sewerage pipes.
I reject the submission made on the appellant’s behalf that to cross the drainage reserve land and the Special Purpose zone part of Lot 2 would necessarily be a trespass. The land is in the ownership and/or control of the respondent Council. It is unfenced. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council has ever made any attempts whatsoever to prevent people from entering upon that land. There is uncontested evidence from Mr Murphy, a resident of McCoombe Street that people regularly enter upon at least parts of the drainage reserve land and the Special Purpose zone land. On that evidence the inference which must be prima facie drawn is that the Council consents to people entering upon those areas of land. That being so I am not satisfied on the evidence that to cross the drain by either walking through it or over the sewerage pipes would amount to a trespass. I feel bound to observe that I expect the respondent’s public risk insurer would be alarmed to hear that it is seriously asserting in a court of law that it consents to people, including children, crossing an unfenced drain which regularly contains a significant depth of water.
However, that is not an end to the matter. In order to give rise to the refusal of the application it is necessary to conclude that the route across the drain is one that reasonably may be used in “travelling”. In my view it is not sufficient that the crossing of the drain might be lawful and physically possible to demonstrate that it may reasonably be used. The purpose of s 64 is obviously to provide a degree of separation between the site of a brothel and what were described by His Honour Judge Hanger in Leach v Council of the City of the Gold Coast 2001 QPELR 139 as “sensitive areas”. The distance of 200 m is obviously an arbitrary figure. It is equally obvious that it was not intended that the physical separation of a brothel from a sensitive area be determined according to straight-line distances. Subsection (2) my view makes it tolerably clear that the regulation of separation was directed towards people travelling between the proposed brothel and the sensitive areas.
What is of significance to me in this case is that there is no evidence that anybody ever crosses over the drain in order to get from the subject land to the sensitive areas described in this case. Mr Murphy’s affidavit ex 7 discloses that he has lived in the area for more than five years. Although he lives at 245 McCoombe Street, apparently the respondent council thought he was sufficiently familiar with the area to be able to provide informed information to the Court. Certainly his affidavit is uncontested. In paragraph 5 thereof he deposes to members of the public of various classes doing a wide variety of things in the vicinity of the subject land. The one thing that he does not claim to have ever observed is anybody crossing over the drain. There is no evidence to suggest any reason good or otherwise, reasonable or otherwise as to why people would presently cross the drain. There is no reason suggested on the evidence to believe that if the brothel were established that for some reason people would start crossing over the drain. In my view the drain provides a reasonably effective physical barrier between the subject land and the sensitive areas on the other side of it. I am satisfied that the shortest route that reasonably may be used in travelling between the subject land and the sensitive areas does not involve the crossing of the concrete drain, either through it or over it. I am therefore satisfied that the subject land is not within 200 m of those sensitive areas and I am therefore of the view that the application cannot be refused on those grounds.
The respondent also raises the proposition that the area of the drainage reserve and the Special Purpose zoned part of Lot 2 which is on the same side of the drain as the subject land also falls within a sensitive character as described in subsection 64(1)(b) namely “a place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities”. There can be no dispute that those areas of land are within 200 m of the subject land, that distance being measured in accordance with subsection 64(2). However, in my view there is just no evidence at all to support the view that this land is “a place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities.” The closest the evidence comes is once again the affidavit of Mr Murphy. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit he states –
“In particular I have observed –
…
(d) adults and children utilising the grassed verge of the stormwater drain which adjoins the subject premises.”
What these adults and children may have been utilising the area for remains a mystery. In my view the language of subsection 64(2) cannot be tortured to the extent that an application to establish a licensed brothel must be refused simply because from time to time children may appear or may be within 200 m walking distance of the proposed site.
Finally, I turn to a parcel of land located at 150-172 McCoombe Street (not 187-201 McCoombe as described in the written submissions of counsel for the respondent). This land is sometimes referred to in the submissions as the Richardson residence. As may be observed from the maps this parcel of land has a frontage to McCoombe Street on the opposite side of the entrance to Cava Close. There is a residence on this land. It is not disputed that the nearest point on the Richardson land to the nearest point on the subject land is something less than 200 m. It is also not disputed that the nearest point of the residence itself to the nearest point on the subject land is greater than 200 m, measuring that distance in accordance with subsection 64(2).
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that for the purposes of subsection 64 the distance should be taken between the nearest point on the boundary of the subject land and the nearest point on the boundary of the land upon which the residential building is located. It is argued that support for this proposition is contained in the judgment in the Leach case to which I have referred above and also in a judgment of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Frankston v Kiwiforce Pty Ltd (2000) VCAT 759 (31 March 2000). In my view neither of those cases support the proposition contended for. In the Leach case His Honour Senior Judge Hanger was not dealing with the measurement of the distance between the proposed site of the brothel and a residential building. In the Victorian case the Tribunal was dealing with the measurement of the distance between the proposed brothel site and the site of a kindergarten.
In my view the point on the “sensitive site” to or from which the measurement must be calculated will often depend on the facts. In the case of a pre-school or kindergarten it is not uncommon that there will be a building within a parcel of land and an outdoor area, all of which is used for the purposes of the pre-school or kindergarten. Such was the case I apprehend in Frankston. I have no doubt that in such circumstances the proper way of measuring the distance between the proposed brothel site and the kindergarten would be to take the nearest locations on the boundaries of each of the relevant parcels of land. However, in this case the relevant words in paragraph (b) are “residential building”. In my view, therefore, the nearest point on the Richardson residence (that is the building) is more than 200 m from the nearest point on the subject land measured in accordance with subsection 64(2) and therefore gives rise to no proper basis upon which the application should be refused.
A further basis upon which the respondent argues that the application should be refused pursuant to s 64 is that on the land upon which the Richardson residence is located is a place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities which is within 200 m of the subject land measured in accordance with subsection 64(2). The evidence relied upon to support this proposition comes solely from Alison Wright, the Town Planning Consultant, who gave evidence for the respondent. It appears at page 4 of her report which was tendered as exhibit 5. The evidence is as follows:-
“Lot 2 on RP 730391, located at 150-172 McCoombe Street is currently used to house the depot and office of Richardson’s building services. This site also contains a dwelling house in which the owner and operator of Richardson’s Building Services resides with his family (wife and children).
A bike track has been constructed in the front yard of the dwelling house. An examination of the bike track shows that it is in regular use. This bike track was not on the site at the time that I inspected the premises in 2002 prior to the Court’s hearing of appellant’s preliminary application.”
An inspection of the site reveals that there is no doubt a substantial residence constructed on the Richardson land. As to anything further the following appeared in cross-examination of Ms Wright:-
“Q: Did you have any discussions with the Richardsons themselves?—No I did not.
Q: You did not. I see. So you’re not able to glean whether the bike track that you have seen is for motor bikes or push bikes? -- The tracks would indicate mountain bikes, BMX type things from my knowledge of bicycles but no, I was not able to glean that.
Q: And can I ask you this, since you express on how extensive is your knowledge of mountain bikes? – Not extensive.
Q: OK and you didn’t see any children playing in that yard? – Not – no.”
After this, one is left to wonder at the factual basis for the assertions made in Ms Wright’s report. If she had no discussions with the Richardsons and never saw any children playing at the residence, how does she know that children even live there? In my view this evidence falls far short of demonstrating that any part of the Richardson land within 200 metres of the subject site may be fairly described as “a place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities”.
Brief attention was given during the evidence to land located at 187-201 McCoombe Street. Located on this land is a derelict building that may have once been used as a residence. The land is zoned General Industry and non-urban. I am satisfied that nothing about this building or the land upon which it is located gives rise to any matter which requires the application to be refused pursuant to s 64. I am further satisfied that there is no circumstance which requires the application to be refused pursuant to s 64 of the Prostitution Act.
The respondent raises an issue about the swimming pool in relation to subsection 64(1)(c). It is submitted that the swimming pool is an area that would be used for prostitution. There is no evidence to support such a proposition. The proposal by the applicant is for the pool to be reserved for staff use only. A condition can be imposed to that effect.
On 18 October 2002 I ruled that the application was one which required Impact Assessment. In this respect the only issue raised in the appeal is one of amenity. However, this issue has two distinct aspects to it. The first aspect relates to the effect that traffic generated by the brothel will have on the amenity of the residential area of McCoombe near Mulgrave Road.
In the reasons I gave on 18 October 2002 I said:-
“The brothel is to be located a considerable distance form the central business district, Tourist Areas, and major residential areas of the city. Such that in my view the vast majority of its patrons will travel to it by motor vehicle usually a private vehicle or taxi. Cava Close is a short cul-de-sac running off McCoombe Street. A few hundred metres from Cava Close to the west along McCoombe Street is that street’s intersection with Mulgrave Road. Mulgrave Road is a major arterial road for a considerable distance both to the north and south of that intersection. McCoombe Street is also a major arterial road where it extends to the west of that intersection. The result, in my view, will be that a large majority of the brothel’s patrons will travel to the brothel by entering McCoombe Street at its intersection with Mulgrave Road.”
There was no evidence in the earlier proceeding or on the hearing of this appeal to support that view. I formed that view on the basis of my long-time residence in Cairns. I consider it was a matter about which I was entitled to take judicial notice. Neither party to the appeal submits that I could not take such a view and I adhere to it.
However, elsewhere in those reasons I said:-
“However there is one thing about which I think I can draw conclusions. It is proposed that the brothel will be open for business 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Whilst there will no doubt be times when no patrons at all will visit the brothel I consider it most likely that the brothel will be at its busiest at night, particularly late at night and on weekends.”
And a little later:-
“Further, whilst there will no doubt be the odd patron with the time, money and physical energy to stay at the brothel for a long time, human nature being what it is, I expect that most patrons will stay for a relatively short time. Perhaps one hour on average.
In summary, therefore, in my view the establishment of the brothel will create a real potential that the volume of traffic travelling along McCoombe will be substantially increased, that is, it will potentially impact upon McCoombe to the east of Mulgrave Road in a planning sense.”
There was no evidence to support these tentative views. I do not consider these matters to be such which would permit me to take judicial notice of them. Those views were tentative views expressed solely for the purposes of deciding whether or not the site of the proposed brothel was in an industrial area for the purposes of deciding whether or not the application to establish the brothel required code assessment or impact assessment. It was certainly not my intention that those matters should be taken as proved for the purposes of the hearing of the substantive appeal. I have no knowledge of the operations of a brothel and whether in fact there is a time at which a brothel is likely to be busiest and what that time would be. Nor do I have any knowledge about what the likely traffic generation would be in terms of the numbers of vehicles travelling to and from the brothel. Both counsel in their submissions appeared to accept that I can proceed on the basis that the brothel will be at its busiest at night, particularly late at night and on weekends. But beyond that I am not prepared to draw any conclusions about the volume of traffic in the absence of any evidence about the actual operation of a brothel to assist. Neither party called any evidence about the practical operations of a brothel to assist in this regard. However, I am not persuaded that I should draw any adverse inference against the appellant. Whilst the appellant has the burden of proof it was equally open to the respondent to call evidence as to operational aspects of a brothel.
The fact is that in the area surrounding the proposed brothel site and which would be accessed through the residential area of McCoombe Street, there is a substantial area of land zoned for industrial uses of which the following are examples –
(a) A freight depot;
(b) A warehouse;
(c) A transport depot;
(d) A vehicle hire premises;
(e) Manufacturer shops;
(f) Commercial laundries.
All of these uses have the potential to generate traffic at all hours of the day and night. Further, they have the potential to generate the use of McCoombe Street by large commercial vehicles which might well generate significant noise. Consistent with my earlier findings as accepted by the parties, at least the traffic generated by the brothel will largely consist of smaller motor cars and the like. Although it is possible that more detailed evidence on the issue could have been led, on the basis of the evidence put forward during the hearing of the appeal I am satisfied that the establishment of the brothel will not generate so much traffic as to unduly interfere with the amenity of those people who live in the residential area of McCoombe Street.
The other aspect of amenity addressed by the parties was described by counsel for the respondent in written submissions as “psychological”. This was no doubt a reference to the subject matter of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Broad v Brisbane City Council and the Baptist Union of Queensland 1986 2 QR 317. In that case the application was for rezoning of land from Residential A to Special Uses (Old Persons’ Home). An adjacent property was owned by the applicant Union and contained an existing old persons’ home. The intention of the Union was to enlarge the existing institution. Evidence was given and was accepted by the Local Government Court that the extended institution would have an unmistakable “air” or “feel” to it which would have an adverse effect on a residential amenity and this was held relevant in determining the effect upon amenity. At p 319 Thomas J said:-
“The wide ranging concept of amenity contains many aspects that may be very difficult to articulate. Some aspects are practical and tangible, such as traffic generation, noise, nuisance, appearance and even the way of life of the neighbourhood. Other concepts are more illusive such as the standard or class of the neighbourhood and the reasonable expectations of a neighbourhood. The creation of an institution within a neighbourhood is, in my view, capable of altering its character in a greater respect that can be measured by the additional noise, activity, traffic and physical effects this is likely to produce. All counsel agreed that the provision of a funeral parlour was a good example of an institution which whilst discreet in its conduct and relatively small in its production of physical consequences would be likely to have an effect in the way of “atmosphere”.
I have no difficulty accepting that the establishment of a brothel in a neighbourhood could have such a detrimental effect on the amenity of those people using the neighbourhood. I have some difficulty with the evidence of such a negative impact on the “atmosphere” of the neighbourhood in this particular case. The only evidence relevant to the issue is contained in the submissions made to the local authority in respect of the application, contained in ex 1. No submitter was called to give evidence so as to confirm his or her concern about the adverse effect of the establishment of the brothel on the amenity of the neighbourhood. However, Mr Murphy was a submitter. He swore an affidavit dealing with the use which residents of the McCoombe Street neighbourhood make of the area around the subject site. He could have been cross-examined about his submission. This is not to say that I draw any adverse inference against either party for failure to call any such witness. The appellant could hardly be expected to call as his own witness a person who was likely to give evidence-in-chief adverse to his interests in a situation where he could not test that adverse evidence in cross-examination. In light of the fact that the appellant has the burden of proof I would also not draw any adverse inference against the respondent for not calling any such witness. 37 of the submissions were from residents of the Parks Retirement Village on a pro forma letter.
I have read all of the submissions and there is no reason to believe that any of the concerns are not genuinely felt. Many expressed concern about the traffic issue with which I have already dealt. Other issues raised are as follows:-
(a) An increase in crime, drug use etc.
(b) Harassment by patrons of the brothel;
(c) Loss of property value;
(d) Anti-social activity requiring the attendance of police, ambulance etc.
(e) Disruption to business;
(f) A risk of violent crime directed towards people in the neighbourhood;
(g) The adverse reputation of the area as being the location of the brothel;
(h) A loss of security and peace of mind of residents;
(i) Risk to the moral values of children who live in the area and the likelihood of children living in the area being in the vicinity of the brothel;
(j) A detrimental effect on the ability of children and adults to use the public areas in the vicinity of the site of the brothel for informal recreation;
(k) The immorality of prostitution.
There is no evidence that any of these concerns are likely to be realised. On the other hand I am satisfied that these are concerns which would be widely held in the general community if a brothel were established near a residential area.
One of the submissions was received from the property manager of Australia Post which has a major mail centre immediately adjacent to the subject land. The balance of the submissions were received from residents of McCoombe Street and Dalton Street as well as the submissions from the residents of the Parks Retirement Village.
In spite of the somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the evidence of concern about the establishment of the brothel I have come to the conclusion that the level of objection from residents in the neighbourhood is of decisive weight. I should say that I give less weight to the objections from the residents of the Parks Retirement Village than I do to the objections of the residents of McCoombe Street and other nearby residential streets. In my view the drain and the immediate surrounding land provides sufficient physical separation from the retirement village to substantially dilute the concerns of the residents who live there. However, in my view that is not the case in relation to the residents of McCoombe Street and the surrounding streets. Section 64 of the Prostitution Act provides a form of code which specifies circumstances in which an application to establish a licensed brothel must be refused. However simply because the establishment of a licensed brothel should not be refused pursuant to the provisions of s 64 does not mean that the establishment of a licensed brothel close to a residential area should be approved or should be likely to be approved.
The residential amenity of the people who live in McCoombe Street and the surrounding streets is not particularly high. The presence of the industrial area at the eastern end of McCoombe Street does not make it a highly attractive area in which to live. On the other hand I have no doubt that the residents of that area value the amenity as it exists. The neighbourhood of McCoombe Street East is relatively small. It is discretely identifiable, surrounded as it is by Mulgrave road and two substantial drainage courses. According to Mr Murphy’s uncontested affidavit residents of the neighbourhood presently make significant use of the industrial part of the neighbourhood. The people who live in the neighbourhood must cope with the industrial uses to the east and may well have to cope with further industrial uses in years to come. Although the Prostitution Act encourages brothels to be located in industrial areas this does not make a brothel an industrial use. The establishment of a brothel would bring a new, different, and negative impact upon the amenity of the residents. In my view the establishment of a licensed brothel so close to this particular residential area will detrimentally affect the amenity of the residents in the way described in Broads case. I am not satisfied that the application should be approved. I propose to dismiss the appeal.
0
0
0