![An appeal against a development at 23 Lytton Street, Invermay was thrown out by a tribunal. Picture by Craig George An appeal against a development at 23 Lytton Street, Invermay was thrown out by a tribunal. Picture by Craig George](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/162400250/cddcf0cb-aafa-4059-8f3c-cd6bda67eb4d.jpg/r0_0_4376_2915_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
A tribunal has sided with councillors over a decision to approve a contentious development at Invermay.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
A Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) panel upheld a decision by City of Launceston councillors to grant a development application for a two-storey secondary dwelling at 23 Lytton Street, Invermay.
This was approved after a lengthy debate in September 2023, and was the second time the plans had been before the council.
The first time was in 2021, and a decision by councillors to reject it on the grounds it did not provide enough private open space was upheld by TASCAT.
New designs were put to councillors, however there were several discrepancies between the size of the development and the actual dimensions of the lot which meant the building would encroach on a neighbouring lot.
This was resolved by an amended motion that explicitly restricted the development to the legal title boundaries as measured by a surveyor, however councillors Susie Cai, George Razay and Tim Walker remained against it.
At the time, Cr Walker said the development was a "Trojan horse", and relied too much on discretionary approvals.
The dimension issue and the discretionary approvals were then used as the grounds for the TASCAT appeal, which a panel consisting of deputy president Richard Grueber and Michael Ball dismissed.
They found the condition that the development remain constrained to the title boundaries of 23 Lytton Street was satisfactory.
The panel also found the the development satisfied performance criteria on the six discretionary matters including the size of the lot and two parking-related matters.
As a result, Mr Grueber and Mr Ball supported the council decision.
"None of the grounds of appeal are made out," they said.
"The decision by the council to grant a permit should be affirmed."