Archetype Design Studios and Town of Claremont

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA)

CITATION: ARCHETYPE DESIGN STUDIOS and TOWN OF CLAREMONT [2006] WASAT 181

MEMBER: JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

HEARD: 7 AND 8 JUNE 2006

DELIVERED : Edited reasons delivered extemporaneously on 8 JUNE 2006

FILE NO/S: DR 80 of 2006

BETWEEN: ARCHETYPE DESIGN STUDIOS
Applicant
AND
TOWN OF CLAREMONT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Planning Grouped dwelling Elevated site Whether compliant with performance criteria of Residential Design Codes Effect of height and bulk on streetscape Amenity of locality Whether flat roof Whether concealed roof

Legislation:

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002, cl 3.7.1

Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme 3, cl 9, cl 26(3), cl 40, cl 40(2), cl 40(3), cl 77, cl 78, Pt 1

Result:

Development approval granted subject to conditions

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr A Roberts
Respondent: Mr CA Slarke

Solicitors:

Applicant: Minter Ellison
Respondent: McLeods

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Edited transcript of reasons given ex tempore

On 16 December 2005, the applicant applied to the respondent for approval to commence development of two group dwellings at Lot 18, 56 Victoria Avenue in Claremont.
On 7 March 2006, the respondent refused the application, expressing as its reasons that the height of the proposed development did not comply with cl 40(3) of the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS 3 or the Scheme). Second, the area of the storeroom did not comply with the acceptable development requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002 (the Codes) and, third, the proposed development did not comply with clauses 77 and 78 of the Scheme. During the course of the proceedings before this Tribunal, amended plans have been provided and the second of those grounds of refusal is no longer pursued by the respondent.
The site of the proposed development is within the Scheme area governed by TPS 3. It is located on the south side of Victoria Avenue and is zoned R15. On the other side of Victoria Avenue, the zoning is R15/20. To the west, approximately six lots away on the southern side of Victoria Avenue, the zoning is R40. On the northern side of Victoria Avenue, west of Chester Road, which is west of the subject site, the zoning is R25.
It is significant to this application that there are peculiarities of the particular site where the development is proposed to be placed. The natural land form in the locality slopes steeply down towards the river from Victoria Avenue. In 1978, development approval was granted in respect of the subject site for the construction of a retaining wall to a maximum of 7.1 metres in height at the southern boundary. The northern boundary of the land is the boundary which abuts Victoria Avenue.
The property has been filled behind that retaining wall, so that now the property is a flat development site, the ground level equating approximately to the street footpath level. The ground level of the site is approximately 8 metres higher than that of adjoining neighbours at the southern boundary.
The application raises two broad issues. The first relates to the height of the proposed development and the second to its effect, or likely effect, on the streetscape of Victoria Avenue and its consistency with the architectural style of other buildings in the immediate locality.

The height of the proposed development

The starting point in relation to this issue is cl 40 of TPS 3. The relevant portions of that clause reads as follows:
"1.Subject to sub‑clauses (6) and (12) of this Clause a building shall not be erected or added to so as to exceed the height prescribed or determined in accordance with this Clause.
2.For the purposes of this Clause the height of a building shall be the vertical distance between the top of the eaves, parapet or flat roof, whichever is the highest and the natural ground level. Natural ground level shall be determined by connecting a point on the front boundary to a corresponding point on the rear boundary. Points are deemed to correspond when a line connecting such points is parallel to the nearest side of the boundary. Where a lot is affected by By‑law No. 123 Council may accept the line dividing the unhatched area from the hatched area as the rear boundary of the site.
3.Subject to sub‑clauses (4) and (5) and (6) of this Clause, in the Residential Zone a building shall not exceed 6.6 m in height."
The effect of those provisions is to limit in practical terms the height of buildings to two storeys, but the provisions of the Scheme are otherwise silent as to the absolute height of a building, taking into account its roof.
Having regard to those provisions, the architects of the project have designed the development with a view to endeavouring to comply with the 6.6 metre wall height limit. In doing so, the proposal involves what I will refer to as walls going up to what is the commencement of the roof, which are around 6 metres in height, measured in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Whether it is precisely 6 metres or a little more does not matter, because there is no issue that the point at which, what is described by the applicant as, "the roof" commences, the walls are certainly less than the 6.6 metre limit required by cl 40 of TPS 3.
What the applicant describes as "the roof" contains three elements. Around a large portion of the perimeter there is an area of the roof which has a slope of 5 degrees. Adjoining that segment of the roof there is a second element, where the roof slopes upwards at 60 degrees to a height of just under 9 metres. Within that element of the roof there are dormer windows located both on the northern side, which is the Victoria Avenue side, and on the southern side, which overlooks the Swan River. The windows on the southern side are larger than those on the northern side.
The centre of the roof, at the top of the 60 degree sloping segment, is effectively flat, having a fall of 2 degrees to the south, with a box gutter at the southern end of the flat portion. The effect of that design of the roof is to provide a substantial area which is habitable under the flat portion of the roof, which the applicant describes as a loft. Within the loft area there is planned a master bedroom and an en‑suite, which Mr Webb, an expert called by the respondent, had measured as having an area of approximately 70 square metres.
The internal walls of the master bedroom and en‑suite appear to be vertical elements, matching the perimeter of the flat portion of the roof, so that the 60 degree element of the roof does not itself constitute the internal wall of the master bedroom; that is, the internal wall would appear to be some form of stud construction or perhaps masonry construction which meets the 60 degree portion of the roof at the top.
The respondent contends that the building should be treated for the purposes of TPS 3 as being a flat roofed structure, with the consequence, the respondent says, that the flat roof is in excess of 6.6 metres high as required by cl 40(3) and therefore is in breach of the Scheme; or alternatively that if it is not a flat roof, then the construction in its proposed form, breaches the spirit and intent of the Scheme provisions; or a further alternative, that the construction does not meet the Codes' requirements in respect to building height, because the design incorporates a concealed roof for the purposes of the Codes, with the effect that the resultant wall height exceeds the acceptable development standard for permissible height under the Codes; or in the further alternative, if it is not a concealed roof, then the construction does not satisfy the objectives and performance of the criteria of the Codes.
In determining the height issue, therefore, it can be seen there are a number of sub‑issues that need to be addressed. First, does the proposed development have a flat roof within the meaning of that expression within TPS 3? The applicant describes the roof structure as being similar to a mansard roof. It is correct that a substantial portion of the roof is flat and in that sense the roof differs from what might be thought to be the classical mansard roof, which has a slope at the outer perimeter of the roof, which is quite steep, changing at the centre of the roof to an element of lower slope, but nevertheless rising to a pyramid in the centre.
The expression "flat roof" is not defined either in the Scheme or in the Codes. Clause 9 of the Scheme provides that words and expressions used in the scheme, but not defined in Part 1 of the Scheme, elsewhere in the Scheme, or in the Codes, shall have their normal and common meanings. In my view, applying that test it cannot be said that the proposed roof can be properly described as a flat roof, notwithstanding that an element of it is, in effect, flat. Rather I think that it is, if one needs a label, far closer to describe the roof as similar to a mansard roof.
I was provided during the course of closings with a glossary of building terms published jointly by the National Committee on Rationalised Building and Standards Australia. That document is of some assistance in giving substance to the ordinary or common meaning of these expressions. A review of that document supports the conclusion which I have reached, that this roof form cannot be properly described for the purposes of the Scheme as a flat roof. There is unmistakably a visible portion of roof above the wall of the upper or first floor level, which, to an external viewer and in terms of function, in my view, can only be described as a visible roof or a roof element.
The respondent then contends that one should construe cl 40(2) on a purposive basis and, in doing that, the proposed development can be found to be non‑complaint with cl 40(2). The essential proposition underlying that submission is that the intent of the Scheme is to limit buildings to two storeys, and that this building, by the proposed use of the roof structure, is in effect three storeys. Therefore it is contended that the proposed development would defeat the object of cl 40 of the Scheme.
In my view, it is not possible to construe cl 40 as being designed to limit building to two storeys, without any capacity to use roof space above the two storeys. That is what this design does. It does allow for a substantial use of the roof space, though in my view, it is nevertheless properly construed as a use of roof space, rather than as an additional storey.
Critical to this issue is the presentation of the development to Victoria Avenue, which has been the focus of the evidence at the hearing, and is the focus of the concerns expressed by the respondent and by its witnesses. It is accepted, quite properly, that the presentation to Victoria Avenue is of a two‑storey building with a loft, the dormer windows on that side of the building being somewhat less substantial than on the river side view of the building. In my view, there is clear scope for that type of development within the parameters found within the Scheme, when read with the Codes.
That then brings me to the next element of the respondent's contentions, which is that the proposed building does not comply with the acceptable development standards, nor with the objectives or performance criteria of the Codes. The Codes are incorporated into the Scheme by cl 26(3) of TPS 3. Clause 3.7.1 of the Codes deals with the question of building height requirements. It expresses the objective in relation to that element as being:
"To ensure that the height of buildings is consistent with the desired scale in a given locality."
The performance criteria found at par P1 of cl 3.7.1 provide that:
"Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:
1.adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;
2.adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and
3.access to views of significance."
The acceptable development standards in relation to building height are contained within Table 3 of par A1.1, in cl 3.7.1. It is common ground that the proposed development is a category B building. Table 3 provides for maximum heights in relation to three different categories of building.
The first of those is, "height to the top of external wall (roof above)". The second is, "height to the top of external wall (concealed roof)," and the third is, "top of pitched roof".
Of those, it is the concealed roof standard that the respondent contends is applicable to the proposed development. That provides for a maximum external wall height of 7 metres in relation to buildings of the nature of the proposed building. The respondent's contention is that this building, or the proposed building, has a concealed roof in the sense that it has a flat, and not visible, portion of the roof which is at a height greater than 7 metres from ground level. Thus the respondent contends that the proposed development does not comply with the acceptable development standard as prescribed by the Codes.
I do not accept that submission. I have noted that, in round terms, the total footprint of the building is, on my rough calculations, in the range of 140 to 150 square metres. Mr Webb, as I have said, has measured the flat area at the top of the roof as being an area of approximately 70 square metres. So the other elements, that is the 5 degree slope and the 60 degree slope, constitute a coverage of roughly half of the footprint of the building. In my view, that leads to the conclusion that the pitched portion of the roof functions as a roof, and that that is how the building would appear from the street, or indeed from the river. The sloping of the element of the roof is, I think, unmistakably roof and is not concealed.
I agree with the conclusion which ultimately both the planners, Mr Webb and Mr Bain, have expressed in the course of the evidence; that the acceptable development standards contained within the Codes do not, in fact, address this structure at all. So one is then cast back to the objective and the performance criteria, to determine whether or not the proposed development would comply with the Codes. The relevant consideration is whether the height of the building is consistent with the desired scale in the locality (the objective), or the desired height of buildings in the locality (the performance criteria).
As I have indicated, there are some amenity issues outlined in par P1 of cl 3.7.1 concerning access of direct sun to buildings and open spaces, daylight to major openings, and access to views. None of those are contentious issues in respect of the present application. It is not suggested that there are any amenity issues of that nature which arise in relation to this particular development, and those aspects of the performance criteria are met.
To assess whether or not there is compliance with the objective and performance criteria of the Codes, it is necessary to ascertain how one determines "desired scale" or "desired height" within the locality. In my view, the starting point in answering that question is TPS 3 and its provisions. It contemplates wall heights of 6.6 metres. It also, at least impliedly, contemplates a variety of roof structures. Most obviously, it contemplates potentially a pitched roof to 9 metres.
That is because Table 3 of cl 3.7.1, the acceptable development standards, contemplates a 9 metre high building where there is a pitched roof up to 25 degrees. By the incorporation of the Codes into the Scheme, clearly that is something which would meet the Scheme requirements in respect of this site. The effect of that is that the resultant bulk and scale of any particular building which might comply with the Scheme and the Codes will be somewhat dependent on the particular roof design that is chosen by the proponent.
Mr Webb accepted in the course of his evidence that a pitched roof at 25 degrees might only be marginally less bulky in presentation than the proposed building. There is no doubt that there is any number of different roof formations that might have a greater or lesser impact on the apparent bulk of the building from the street, but in looking at what might be the desired scale in the area, in my view one needs to look at what the Scheme sets out as potentially available for development within a particular area.
In that sense, I have reached the conclusion that the proposed building is not outside the parameters of the desired height or scale of buildings within this particular area. The question arose, during the course of the hearing, as to what relevance other buildings in the street might have on determination of the "desired scale". It was the respondent's position that the other buildings in the street were particularly significant to determination of that question.
I accept that it is appropriate, in determining the desired scale and height for the purposes of the Codes, to have regard to other development in the street. The weight to be given to that factor will depend on the particular circumstances in any given case; for example, the weight to be accorded might be affected by whether other development in a street occurred in the context of the existing zoning of the site or under a different planning regime.
There is not a great deal of detail that I have to assess each other development in the street, when it occurred, and how it might represent the "desired scale" for the purposes of this locality, but in any event I think that other development within the street plays a less significant part in the assessment of the "desired height" than the Scheme provisions themselves.
Having said that, looking at the scale of this building against the scale of other residential buildings on the south side of Victoria Avenue, I have concluded that the scale is not inconsistent with other development. I make that observation really having regard to the aspect from the Swan River, which is best depicted in the evidence in photo number 19 in Mr Bain's witness statement, annexure SJB1. That depicts a number of buildings having an aspect over the Swan River that seem to me to be of very consistent scale to the building which is proposed.
There is of course a different aspect to the bulk and scale being the aspect from Victoria Avenue. I appreciate that that is a matter that needs to be dealt with separately and I will do that in a moment in the context of clauses 77 and 78 of TPS 3. But, for the purposes of assessing the appropriate scale in a given locality for the purposes of the Codes, it is appropriate to look at the scale of the building when viewed both from the southern aspect and from the northern aspect.
So on that basis, I have reached the conclusion that the building as proposed is consistent with the desired scale of buildings within the locality, and accordingly meets the objective and the performance criteria in relation to building height requirements of the Codes.

The impact on streetscape

That then brings me to the question of the second broad area of objection to the proposal raised by the respondent; that is the impact of the proposed building on the streetscape and on adjoining buildings. That question has to be determined by reference to clauses 77 and 78 of TPS 3.
Clause 77 provides:
"1.This Clause applies to every application for planning approval with respect to a building.
2.Before the Council may approve an application for planning consent to which this Clause applies the Council shall be satisfied that:
(a)the appearance of the building will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality and will not clash in harmony with the appearance of adjoining or neighbouring buildings; ..."

And then there are four other requirements which are not immediately relevant to the proposal before me. Clause 78 deals with protection of townscape and reads:
"In order to protect the existing townscape from changes of such magnitude or quality as to adversely affect the general character or amenity of the locality of a proposed development, the Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have regard to:
1.the scale and architectural form of the proposed development;
2.the materials, colours and finishes proposed to be used;
3.the scale, architectural form and the materials, colour and general appearance of the buildings in the vicinity;
4.the landform and vegetation of the locality as they affect the character of that locality."
The respondent contends that the bulk and scale of the proposed building is inconsistent with other buildings in the immediate vicinity, especially in that area of Victoria Avenue which has the residential coding of R15, or on the other side of the road, R15/20. The applicant contends that clauses 77 and 78 should be considered in the context of the locality going further west along Victoria Avenue, where the coding is higher and there are very substantial buildings constructed, including a 17‑storey residential block and a number of other multi‑storey residential buildings.
In order to address this issue, there were three montages presented during the course of the evidence. There was much time spent at the hearing about how accurately those montages represent the likely effect of this development on the streetscape. I think, as was probably conceded by all concerned, fair criticisms can be made of each of the montages presented and the way in which they were compiled. I accept that all three were prepared in a genuine attempt to give an accurate impression of the likely effect on the development on the streetscape, but in my view, none of them can be taken as being an absolutely accurate representation of the ultimate effect.
My conclusion, having reviewed all of them and considered the evidence that has been given in relation to them, is that the building would not be as prominent as is depicted in the montage prepared and produced by the respondent being a montage described simply as "Victoria Avenue, 1:20, Building Elevation set back 13.6 metres".
The reason for that conclusion is that I am not satisfied that the vertical scale is accurate, nor that the two‑dimensional elevation of the proposed development inserted into that series of photographs accurately represents the bulk as it would be perceived as one walked or drove along the street. That conclusion is reached partly because of questions as to the accuracy of the vertical scale, and because of the lack of perspective and colouration in relation to the proposed development as it is inserted into the montage. Colouration alone makes the building look more prominent and intrusive than is likely to be the reality.
The applicant relied upon a montage prepared by Mr Bogdanich, the architect for the proposed development. I accept that Mr Bogdanich endeavoured to incorporate perspective into the series of photographs which he compiled, and in particular, perspective in relation to the proposed development, by use of a computer program. The problem with that montage is that the methodology adopted makes it difficult to gain any overall impression of the continuum of the landscape. That is because the photographs are disconnected and do not give an overall impression of the streetscape. Rather they provide a comparison of individual perspectives of the houses in the street.
Against those reservations as to the montages presented by each party, I have to make my own assessment of how great the impact would be. I have reached the conclusion that the visual impact of the development, if it were to proceed, would be likely to be somewhere between the impacts illustrated by the different montages. I accept, however, that the generous setback from the Victoria Avenue boundary will significantly ameliorate the effect on the streetscape of the bulk and height of the proposed development.
In considering the effect on amenity and character of the locality I have had to determine what is the relevant streetscape, because that was a matter at issue between the parties. My view is that it is appropriate to focus on the immediate vicinity as the primary, but not the sole, concern in terms of streetscape. Development to the west of Chester Street and the R40 development on the south side of Victoria Avenue further west is, however, not irrelevant to the character and amenity of locality.
In looking at the street as represented in the various photographs that have been tendered, a couple of things are demonstrated. One is that this street is characterised by a mixture of residential styles. That is true both in the immediate vicinity, comprising the R15 and R15/20 coding on either side of Victoria Avenue close to the site, and in the more extreme contrast further to the west, where the coding increases and multi‑storey buildings can be observed.
The second observation that can be made is that the photographs demonstrate the importance of plantings to the general streetscape. When one looks at the photographs up and down Victoria Avenue, the prominent element of the streetscape is, in my view, the plantings on the road reserve and, to an extent, the gardens within the individual lots, as Mr Webb contended. What those plantings do is mask a number of quite substantial dwellings, including residential developments within a few lots of the subject site. Trees constitute a dominant element of the streetscape.
The impact of this proposal on streetscape is heavily affected by the nature of the site. As I have noted, the site stands apart from others in the locality. It is much higher, because of the retaining walls, than the sites immediately adjacent to it or indeed in the rest of Victoria Avenue. The retaining wall at the southern end of the boundary is some 7 metres high and the boundary itself is something like 8 metres above adjoining lots at that point.
The consequence of that is that any development on this site is going to have particular prominence. That fact is added to by virtue of the survey strata subdivision which has been approved for the lot, so that what is inevitable on this site is that there will be the development of two residences and probably two residences sharing a party wall. What is also inevitable, because this site commands spectacular views of the river, is that there will be a two‑level development at the very least. The consequence of that is that whatever goes on this site is inevitably going to be bulky.
The respondent acknowledges the peculiarities of the site, as they must, but argues that the prominence of the site, and its elevation over adjoining properties, calls for a particularly sensitive approach to design, in order to avoid an adverse affect on amenity within the street and on the character of the locality and to avoid any clash with adjoining buildings.
Clearly that is the issue which causes the greatest difficulty in relation to this matter. What I have concluded already is that the building does comply with the provisions of the Codes. As Mr Slarke observed correctly, that is not the end of the matter and it may be that the requirements of clauses 77 and 78 of the Scheme should demand refusal of the application, notwithstanding that the development otherwise complies with the Codes.
Having considered the matter carefully both yesterday and during the course of the morning, I have reached the point where I am satisfied that the architectural form of the proposal will not clash in harmony with the surrounding buildings and will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality. I have reached that conclusion for a couple of reasons. One is that compliance with the Scheme and Codes provisions, albeit utilising those provisions to maximise the opportunity of the property, is very significant in terms of whether or not the application should be approved. It is clearly not determinative, but it puts an applicant in a fairly strong position.
The second reason is that the setback as proposed is roughly double what the Scheme and the Codes would require and is greater than some of the other buildings on the street. The third is that architectural styles do vary within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development and I do not think it can be said that this architectural style clashes with the appearance or style of other buildings in the locality.
And finally, the factor which influenced me is the conclusion I have reached as to the importance of plantings and gardens within the street. I refer in particular to plantings on the street and at the Victoria Avenue boundary of lots along both sides of that street. When one notionally inserts substantial plantings and mature trees into the montages, the impact of the proposed development on the streetscape would be very substantially softened and would be consistent with the general streetscape of Victoria Avenue.
During the hearing, it was indicated by the applicant that it would accept a condition requiring a landscape plan to be submitted and approved by the respondent and for that plan to involve the planting of mature trees. I think that is desirable and in my view that condition will satisfy the concerns as to streetscape, so as to make the development acceptable.
So for those reasons, I have determined that I can be satisfied of those matters which I am required to be satisfied of in clauses 77 and 78. The application for development approval should be approved, subject to the agreed conditions, including a condition in relation to the submission of a landscape plan.

Orders

The application to commence development in accordance with Plans A01 to A08 lodged with the Tribunal dated 24 May 2006 is approved subject to the following conditions:
1.No work being allowed, permitted or suffered to be carried out:
i)before 7.00 am or after 6.00 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or
ii) on a Sunday or on a public holiday;
2.A Site and Traffic Management Plan for tradespersons and delivery vehicles to be approved by the Manager Development Services prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
3.A Building Licence is to be obtained prior to the commencement of any works.
4.All storm water being retained on the site.
5.Internal vehicle accesses and paths to be designed in such a manner as to prevent storm water entering the property from the road and footpath.
6.For all vehicle accesses where there is a grade change or irregularity in the vertical alignment please refer to AS 2890‑1 (1993) for ground clearance template.
7.All redundant crossovers to be removed and the verge reinstated in accordance with the Town's Road Verge Policy TS15 at the applicant's cost.
8.No building, wall, fence or landscaping greater than 0.75 metres in height, measured from the natural ground level at the boundary, shall be constructed within 1.5 metres of a vehicular access way unless such wall or fence is constructed with a 1.5 metre truncation.
9.Each crossover to be a maximum width of 3.5 metres and to be in compliance with the Town's Crossover Vehicle Access Policy TS14.
10.The majority of the vehicle crossover to be provided at the same grade as the adjoining footpath to ensure continuity for pedestrians as per the Town Crossover Vehicle Access Policy TS14.
11.The infill panels of the front fence being a maximum height of 1.8 metres with the maximum height of the piers being 2.1 metres above the footpath and shall be designed to comply with the design requirements of Council's By‑Law Relating to Fencing.
12.Engineer designed masonry walls being provided wherever soil levels are altered at or adjacent to a site boundary.
13.No building materials or rubbish to be deposited in the Swan River;
14.No access to the site for tradesmen etc or deliveries to the site is to be from the Metropolitan Region Scheme "Recreation" reservation.
15.No building material, debris or other material be stored on the Metropolitan Region Scheme "Recreation" reservation.
16.The storerooms are to be redesigned to comply with the Acceptable Development Criteria 3.10.3 A.3.1 ‑ Essential Facilities to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Services, prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
17.The roof over the master bedroom terrace is to be deleted and the roof is to be redesigned accordingly without any eaves to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Services, prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
18.The southern wall and obscure glazing is to be maintained at a minimum height of 1.6 metres extending west from a point 2 metres east of the strata boundary, and be designed to ensure that adjoining residents are not readily visible.
19.The side fencing on the western boundary is to be a minimum height of 1.2 metres and 1.6 metres above the walkway level where a view cone incursion occurs, and be designed to ensure that adjoining residents are not readily visible.
20.Air‑conditioning, pool equipment and other plant to be screened from view of adjoining properties and operated at a level where noise does not adversely affect the adjoining neighbours or the amenity of the locality.
21.Power supply being placed underground from the property line to the dwelling.
22.Paving and drainage being to Council's specifications.
23.If required the proposed roof to be treated with a non-reflective coating in order to comply with the provisions of Town of Claremont DS06 ‑ Reflective Roofs and to reduce the potential impact on the amenity of the locality, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Services.
24.No modifications to the level of the existing verge is permitted.
25.This approval constitutes approval only for the purposes of Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No 3, and not for the purposes of the Metropolitan Region Scheme or the Swan River Trust Act.
26.The applicant undertaking a predevelopment and post development inspection and reporting on the condition of adjoining dwellings and 52 Victoria Ave and is required to rectify any damage identified in the post development inspection both structural and aesthetic such as removal of debris.
27.The application is required to comply with Amendment 13 ‑ Energy efficiency measures of the Building Code of Australia.
28.No building to exceed the height limit as determined under cl 40(2) of 6.6 metres of Town Planning Scheme No.3.
29.The walkway, and entrance to the walkway from Lot 18A, on the southern boundary of the common property is required to have a hand rail installed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
30.Development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for planning approval (Planning Application No.3056).
31.This Planning Approval is valid until 7 March 2008 (2 years) unless the proposed works have been substantially commenced.
32.That the applicant notify the CEO of the Town of Claremont 72 hours prior to the concrete pour of 'the ground slab' and that the CEO verify by way of a registered surveyor that the level is compliant with the Australian Height Datum provided to Council as part of the Development Application (No.3056).
33.If in the opinion of the Manager of Development Services there is a potential for overlooking into the neighbouring properties at 54 or 56B Victoria Avenue from the external stairs leading to the walkway to the river foreshore, the height of :
(a) any balustrade within the stairs; and/or
(b)the relevant portion of the boundary walls either side of the walkway, shall be increased as necessary to an appropriate level in order to ameliorate any overlooking, to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.
34.The Applicant is to submit to the Town, and implement, a landscaping plan, to include planting of mature trees where appropriate on the road reserve and the site, to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

I certify that this and the preceding [58] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE J CHANEY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[2006] WASAT 181

8 June 2006