Aris and City of Subiaco
[2008] WASAT 137
•19 JUNE 2008
ARIS and CITY OF SUBIACO [2008] WASAT 137
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 137 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:62/2008 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 19/06/08 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application for review is dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JAMES ARIS CITY OF SUBIACO |
Catchwords: | Town planning Application for approval to commence development Orderly and proper planning Amenity of the locality Car parking hardstand Crossover Right of way Adverse effect on existing streetscape Pedestrian/vehicular conflict Onsite parking and on-street parking |
Legislation: | City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 7, cl 22, cl 27, cl 28, cl 39, cl 42 Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.5.4 |
Case References: | Rajneesh Foundation of Australia v Shire of Manjimup (No 2) (1935) 3 SR 65 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : ARIS and CITY OF SUBIACO [2008] WASAT 137 MEMBER : MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 19 JUNE 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 62 of 2008 BETWEEN : JAMES ARIS
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF SUBIACO
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Application for approval to commence development Orderly and proper planning Amenity of the locality Car parking hardstand Crossover Right of way Adverse effect on existing streetscape Pedestrian/vehicular conflict Onsite parking and on-street parking
Legislation:
City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 7, cl 22, cl 27, cl 28, cl 39, cl 42
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.5.4
(Page 2)
Result:
The application for review is dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : N/A
Respondent : N/A
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Respondent : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Rajneesh Foundation of Australia v Shire of Manjimup (No 2) (1935) 3 SR 65
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The application for review was lodged against a decision of the City of Subiaco to refuse an application for a single car parking hardstand area to the side of the existing house, and an associated crossover to the street.
2 The State Administrative Tribunal examined the respective position of the parties, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislative and policy requirements and matters of orderly and proper planning, amenity and safety.
3 The State Administrative Tribunal determined that in the circumstances of this case, there was little safety risk involved as a result of this proposal, and that, in an environment dominated by parking on the public road reserve, there would be little or no adverse effect on the existing streetscape or the amenity of the locality.
4 However, it was also determined more importantly, in the interests of orderly and proper planning, that the respondent's efforts to achieve a long-term balance between the competing demands for on-site private car parking spaces and on-street public car parking spaces; particularly where a rear right-of-way existed, was worthy of support.
5 The application for review was dismissed.
Introduction
6 The application for review, dated 21 February 2008, was lodged by Mr James Aris (applicant) under the provisions of s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act (WA) (PD Act) and against a decision of the City of Subiaco (City or respondent) on 24 January 2008 to refuse the construction of an on-site front hardstand area and crossover to the street at No 39 (Lot 141) Hardy Road, Crawley (Hardy Road or subject land).
7 The reasons for refusal were:
"a) The proposed hardstand is contrary to the Residential Design Codes and the City's Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access policy.
b) The proposed hardstand area is contrary to Clause 27(4)(b) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the development is inconsistent with the City's Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access policy.
- c) The proposed hardstand area is contrary to Clause 28(3)(a)(i) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the development is considered to be inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
d) The proposed hardstand area is contrary to Clause 28(3)(b)(ii) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the development would have undue adverse impact on the inhabitants of the locality.
e) The proposed crossover does not meet the Acceptable Development Standards outlined in Clause 3.5.4 of the Residential Design Codes or the relevant Performance Criteria."
Subject land
8 The subject land can be described as No 39 (Lot 141) Hardy Road, Crawley. It can be found on Certificate of Title Volume 1030, Folio 850 at Location 648 (Diagram or Plan 2160).
9 There is a recently constructed (or almost recently constructed) two-storey residence on the subject land which is oriented north-south. The land has an area of 491 square metres and is served by a 6 metre right-of-way (ROW) at the rear of the property.
Legislative and policy framework
10 The subject land is zoned "Urban" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and "Residential" in the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4 or Scheme). It has a coding of R20.
11 Of relevance in this matter are:
(a) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (October 2002) (Codes); and
(b) Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access Policy No 3.7 (February 2007) (Policy 3.7).
(Page 5)
Respondent's position
12 The position of the respondent is broadly outlined in the witness statement, dated 25 March 2008, of Mr Jeremy Stephen Thompson, a planning officer employed by the City. He explains:
(a) As the subject land has access to a ROW, the proposed hardstand area is inconsistent with the acceptable development provisions of the Codes.
(b) As the proposed hardstand increases the number of crossovers to Hardy Road, when a ROW is currently in use, the proposal does not meet the performance criteria of the Codes.
(c) The proposed hardstand and crossover are located immediately adjacent to the northernmost section of the Tareena Street/Hardy Road intersection. Movement from the hardstand into this intersection would interfere with the existing traffic movement and increase the potential risk of vehicular collision.
(d) Clause 6.7 of Policy 3.7 has been consistently used by the City as a condition of planning approval to remove the crossover to the primary street where car parking provisions have been met and accessed off a more desirable location.
(e) The conditions under which a variation to the standards of Policy 3.7 might be considered are not applicable in this case.
(f) As the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Codes or Policy 3.7, it is not considered to meet the requirements of cl 27 of TPS 4 with respect to:
(i) any relevant planning policy;
(ii) the orderly and proper planning of the locality; or
(iii) the conservation of the amenity of the locality.
(g) The proposal is not considered to meet the requirements of cl 42(2)(f) of TPS 4 because of its detrimental effect on the residential neighbourhood.
(Page 6)
Applicant's position
13 The position of the applicant is outlined in the submission of Mr James Aris of 29 March 2008. He contends:
(a) The provisions of Policy 3.7 have been fully satisfied.
(b) The respondent has the discretion under cl 7.2 of Policy 3.7 to approve a variation to the acceptable standards where the surrounding development has an acceptable existing pattern of parking within the street (nominally greater than 50%).
(c) The respondent has not consistently applied s 5.0 and cl 6.1 of Policy 3.7, or cl 3.5.4 of the Codes, having regard to the existing situation at Nos 31, 35, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 and 51 Hardy Road.
(d) The location of the hardstand is safe for exiting onto Hardy Road because:
(i) Hardy Road is not a through street at the west end and functions as a corner rather than a "T" junction; and
(ii) there is a direct visibility from the hardstand down Tareena Street making reversing safer, rather than reversing against cross-traffic.
(e) The provision of a hardstand and crossover is consistent with the performance criteria and the acceptable development provisions of the Codes because of matters raised in 8(d) above, and what is proposed is a consistent feature of other properties in the street.
(f) The proposed hardstand and crossover is consistent with the amenity of the locality.
Planning issues
14 The principal planning issues are:
(a) Would the proposed hardstand and crossover accord with orderly and proper planning?
(Page 7)
- (b) Would the proposed hardstand and crossover adversely affect the existing streetscape and the amenity of the locality?
(c) Would the proposed hardstand and crossover be likely to give rise to pedestrian/vehicular conflict by allowing vehicles to reverse directly onto Hardy Road?
Assessment of proposal
Background
15 The application for development approval, dated 12 September 2007, was received by the City on 19 September 2007.
16 On 29 October 2007, the City wrote to the applicant requesting additional information in order to properly assess the application. The letter advised that the proposed development included a number of variations to the standards in the Scheme, the Codes and the City's planning policies.
17 On 6 January 2008, the applicant responded to the City's letter of 29 October 2007 advising of modifications to the original application. These modifications related to the need for a 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre visual truncation where the crossover meets the street and ensuring that it is a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the nearest edge of a tree trunk.
18 On 18 January 2008, the planning officer's report was prepared and, as no elected member raised a concern, the recommendation for refusal proceeded under the City's Delegated Memorandum.
19 On 24 January 2008, a refusal to commence development was issued by the City.
20 On 21 February 2008, the application for review was lodged by the applicant with the Tribunal.
Legislative and policy requirements
City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4
21 Under cl 7, the general planning objectives include:
"(a) to protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the City's community and the social, physical and cultural environment …"
(Page 8)
22 The need for a development approval is covered under cl 22, whereas the general provisions for the determination of development applications is covered under cl 27. Clause 27(4) is particularly relevant:
"Without limiting the scope of the Council's discretion to determine an application under sub-clause (3) the Council is to have regard to:
(a) the provisions of this Scheme …;
(b) any relevant planning policies;
(c) a statement of planning policy of the Western Australian Planning Commission;
(d) any planning study approved by the Council."
23 The determination of non-complying applications is dealt with under cl 28(3):
"The Council cannot grant development approval for a non-complying application unless, if so required by the Council under clause 26, the application has been advertised and the Council is satisfied that:
(a) if approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:
(i) the orderly and proper planning of the locality;
(ii) the preservation of the amenity of the locality;
…
(b) non-compliance would not have any undue adverse effect on:
…
(ii) the property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality;
…
(e) any submission accompanying or relating to the application;
(Page 9)
- (f) the orderly and proper planning of the locality;
(g) the conservation of the amenity of the locality; and
(h) the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of any proposed building or structure
…"
24 Although cl 39 refers to the Residential Planning Codes, these were replaced by the Residential Design Codes in October 2002 and automatically replaced the former. Clause 39(e) states:
"Unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the [Codes] is to conform to the provisions of those Codes …"
25 The issue of safety, which has been raised by the respondent in this matter, is picked up by cl 7 of the Scheme whereas the consideration of the Codes fall within cl 22(4)(c) and cl 39. The consideration of Policy 3.7 falls within cl 22(4)(b).
Residential Design Codes
26 The Codes have been formulated on the basis of an initial "objective" being stated for the particular design element (such as Access and Car Parking). This is followed by a set of "performance criteria" that must be satisfied if the "objective" is to be met and a set of "acceptable development provisions" related to the "performance criteria".
27 The "acceptable development provisions" provide a means by which the proposed development can be "deemed-to-comply" and therefore provide a speedy and certain path to approval, while the "performance criteria" allow the possibility of other, perhaps more innovative, ways of achieving an acceptable outcome.
28 The relevant design element in this case is design element 5 (Access and Car Parking) with the "objective" being:
"To ensure adequate provision of secure, visually acceptable and accessible on-site parking for residents and visitors."
29 The "performance criteria" for vehicular access are covered under cl 3.5.4:
(Page 10)
- "P4 Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, to be safe in use and not detract from the streetscape."
30 The "acceptable development provisions" for vehicular access are also covered under cl 3.5.4 and include:
"A4.1 Access to on-site parking to be provided, where available, solely from a right-of-way available for use of the relevant lot …
A4.2 Primary or secondary street driveways, where their provision is necessary, are limited as follows:
• driveways serving four dwellings or less not narrower than 3 [metres] at the street frontage;
• subject to a minimum width of 3 [metres], driveways not to occupy more than 40 per cent of the frontage of a property, excluding any part of that frontage required for an access leg to a battleaxe lot;
• no single driveways wider than 6 [metres] and driveways in aggregate no greater than 9 [metres] for any one property.
A4.3 Driveways
• no closer than 0.5 [metres] to a side boundary or street pole;
• no closer than 6 [metres] to an intersection;
• aligned at right angles to the street alignment; and
• located so as to avoid trees, or, where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced by the Council at applicant's expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the Council."
(Page 11)
- the number of crossovers to Hardy Road, when a ROW is currently in use, the proposal does not meet the "performance criteria".
32 What is clear from the Codes is that the overall "objective" for the "Access and Car Parking" element is that there should be secure, visually acceptable and accessible on-site parking for both residents and visitors. There is no mention of a ROW.
33 Again, under the "performance criteria", there is no mention of a ROW, and the emphasis is on minimising the number of crossovers, the matter of safety and the need for the development to not detract from the streetscape.
34 The emphasis of the "acceptable development provisions" is to provide on-site parking solely from a ROW, where it is available.
Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access Policy ( Policy 3.7 )
35 The objectives of the policy include:
"2.1 To assist the development of attractive streetscapes;
…
2.7 To assist with the consolidation of onsite car parking arrangements;
2.8 To identify and assist with the removal of redundant or inappropriate onsite car parking areas;
2.9 To assist with the identification of redundant crossovers; and
2.10 To ensure that the opportunity for use of street parking by the general public is maximised."
36 Clause 5.0 of the policy includes:
"In order of acceptability, possible locations and access arrangements for car parking areas and structures are as follows:
5.1 Rear Access (most acceptable)
Located to the rear of a property behind the dwelling, not accessed by or visible from the primary street.
- Lots that have vehicular access via a ROW should use the ROW for access to all required car-parking facilities.
- …
5.5 Front of dwelling (least acceptable)
Car parking areas and structures (excluding garages) located forward of the primary building line (in front of the dwelling)."
"Where a more acceptable method of access is available the Council will not approve access from a primary street unless such access is in accordance with the accepted existing pattern of access in the surrounding development (nominally greater than 50%)."
38 Clause 6.7 of the policy states:
"Any additional car parking areas in excess of that specified under the Acceptable Development Provisions of the Residential Design Codes are to be located to the rear of the property. Under these circumstances, any existing parking areas located other than at the rear of the property are considered undesirable and will be conditionally removed at the owner[']s expense on any approval."
39 There are variation provisions built into the policy under cl 7.0. The most relevant in this matter are:
"7.1 where the nature of existing development is such that the car parking requirement cannot be provided elsewhere;
7.2 where there is, in the surrounding development, an acceptable existing pattern of parking within the street setback area (nominally greater than 50%);
…
7.5 where, in the opinion of Council the proposed parking arrangement would enhance the streetscape;
…
(Page 13)
- 7.7 where there is insufficient space at the rear of the property to provide both the required number of onsite car bays and the minimum outdoor living area requirements stipulated in the Acceptable Development Provisions of the Codes;
…
7.12 in such circumstances, and provided that no significant detriment to the streetscape is likely to result, the Council may exercise its discretion to vary standards in one or more of the following ways:
…
7.12.2 In the case of a building or dwelling for which two or more spaces are required, the Council will normally allow one uncovered space to be provided within the street setback area, on a driveway serving the other space or spaces."
…"
The matter of orderly and proper planning
40 This matter is best addressed by assessing the proposal against the relevant provisions of both the statutory and policy instruments.
41 As explained in [39] above, there are variation, or flexibility, provisions under Policy 3.7 to determine a development application under current policy. Similar provisions are available to Council under cl 28 of the Scheme where a non-complying application can be approved in certain specified circumstances.
42 Again, this flexibility is available to the decision-making authority under the Codes; particularly if an assessment is made within the context of the relevant, and more broadly-based "performance criteria".
43 In making its decision under review, the Tribunal must also have regard to relevant planning instruments (such as the Codes), but is not constrained by them.
The matter of amenity
44 Under TPS 4, "amenity" is defined as:
(Page 14)
- "[meaning] all those factors which combine to form the character of the area and include the present and likely future amenity."
45 In Rajneesh Foundation of Australia v Shire of Manjimup (No 2) (1935) 3 SR 65, Mr Malcolm QC (as he was then) defined amenity as:
"In my opinion the likelihood of a proposed activity causing a nuisance is one way of testing whether or not a given activity will have a detrimental effect of the amenity of the locality."
46 This definition accepts the existing amenity as given, good or bad, and the likely consequences of a proposed development on that amenity as seen by individuals within the locality.
47 In this particular case, the Tribunal has no feedback from nearby residents on the impact of the development on their amenity (if any), and will rely on the submissions of the parties and the impressions gained from an on-site visit by Senior Sessional Member Graham on 23 April 2008.
The matter of pedestrian/vehicular conflict
48 The position taken by the respondent is that as the subject land is immediately adjacent to the Tareena Street/Hardy Road intersection, movement from the hardstand into the intersection would interfere with the existing traffic movement and increase the potential risk of vehicular collision.
49 The position of the applicant is that Hardy Road is not a "through" street at its western end (having been turned into a cul-de-sac), and that there is direct visibility from the hardstand down Tareena Street, making reversing safer than reversing against cross-traffic.
50 Having seen the situation on the ground, the Tribunal accepts the arguments of the applicant in this matter.
Conclusions
51 The application for review was lodged against a decision of the City to refuse the construction of an on-site hardstand area and crossover to the street. The hardstand area is intended to serve as a car parking bay (unroofed) on the east side of the residence, and would be located behind the building line.
(Page 15)
52 The situation is that a new two-storey residence has recently been constructed on the subject land, which has a narrow frontage of 12.19 metres only. What is now proposed is to construct a crossover from Hardy Road, and a driveway leading to a hardstand area which would accommodate a third vehicle. The crossover would eliminate one existing on-street parking bay.
53 Access to the two existing on-site car parking spaces is via the existing ROW at the rear of the subject land, and the applicant advised in a letter dated 13 September 2007 to the City that there is no room at the rear of the site to accommodate a third vehicle.
54 Of further relevance, as outlined in the applicant's submission of 28 March 2008, is that because of the close proximity of the University of Western Australia and the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, that there is extensive student vehicle parking on Hardy Road and other nearby streets from 8 am to 5 pm. Also, that the one hour and two hour short-term parking restrictions do not work as intended by the City, and that there are no resident parking permit bays.
55 The implication here is that further consideration needs to be given to the parking requirements of long-term residents, and it is clear, from photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal, that there is extensive on-street parking together with parking on crossovers and on the street verge.
56 In undertaking this review, the Tribunal has examined the respective position of the parties, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislative and policy requirements, and matters of orderly and proper planning, amenity and safety (pedestrian/vehicular conflict).
57 The position of the applicant is that the proposed hardstand and crossover are consistent with the "acceptable development provisions" and "performance criteria" of the Codes and that the provisions of Policy 3.7 have been fully satisfied. Also, that the respondent has the discretion to approve a variation to Policy 3.7 where the surrounding development has an acceptable existing pattern of parking within the surrounding development (nominally greater than 50%).
58 On this last point, the applicant advises that of the 35 lots facing Hardy Road between the cul-de-sac to the west and Winthrop Avenue to the east, there are 38 crossovers (some sites having two crossovers) and that the respondent has not consistently applied the relevant provisions of Policy 3.7 or the Codes in relation to eight specified properties in Hardy Road. The argument is also put that the proposed hardstand and crossover is safe for exiting onto Hardy Road.
(Page 16)
59 The position of the respondent is that, as the subject land has access to a ROW, the proposed hardstand and crossover would be inconsistent with the relevant "acceptable development provisions" and the "performance criteria" of the Codes. Also, that Policy 3.7 has been consistently used by the City to remove crossovers to the primary street where car parking provisions have been met and accessed off a more desirable location.
60 It would appear that the point being made here is that with a ROW in place, it would be totally inconsistent to approve a new hardstand area and crossover when they are removed when the opportunity arises as a condition of planning consent for new development.
61 The respondent also argues that an approval would be contrary to orderly and proper planning, the conservation of amenity of the locality and would be unsafe for a vehicle reversing onto Hardy Road.
62 In examining TPS 4, it is clear that the Council has the discretion to approve, or not approve, a development, and that this discretion extends to non-complying development, providing orderly and proper planning and amenity are not put at risk. In this case, the view of the respondent was that both planning principles would be put at risk if an approval was granted, and it found no necessity to use the discretionary provisions of the Scheme to issue an approval.
63 With respect to the Codes, there is discretion required in interpreting the "performance criteria" of design element 5 (Access and Car Parking), but there is no mention of a ROW in helping to influence the decision. That is covered under the "acceptable development provisions" only, with cl A4.1 specifically stating that access to on-site parking is to be provided, where available solely from a ROW available for the use of the relevant lot.
64 On this specific point, the applicant appears to have ignored cl A4.1 but chosen instead to argue the provisions contained in cl A4.2 and cl A4.3 which deal with the specific requirements of primary or secondary street driveways in the absence of a ROW.
65 This is not a criticism of the applicant, because if this application for review was upheld, even with the existing ROW, a number of the acceptable development provisions (such as minimum width crossover of 3 metres) would be
(Page 17)
- imposed as conditions of approval.
66 A relevant provision of the Codes includes the making of local planning policies. This is covered in cl 1.3:
"Where there are individual needs, the Codes may need to be supplemented by a Local Planning Policy …"
67 The relevant local planning policy in this case is Policy 3.7 which attempts to achieve the somewhat conflicting objectives of the development of attractive streetscapes and to maximise the use of on-street parking by the general public. It also contemplates the removal of inappropriate on-site car parking areas and the identification of redundant crossovers (presumably for their removal).
68 The way in which some or all of these objectives can be achieved appears to be on redevelopment, and where a ROW exists. This allows car parking spaces to be provided at the rear of a property and, with no crossover to the street, to maximise on-street public car parking spaces.
69 What the policy does not address are the circumstances contemplated in this review for a third on-site car parking space. However, as pointed out in the respondent's comments of 2 April 2008 on the witness statement of the applicant, neither the Codes nor Policy 3.7 address this requirement.
70 On the matter of on-site parking, the applicant argues that in addition to access to parking from Hardy Road, the majority of properties in the locality also use on-site parking provided from a ROW. The examples include Nos 31, 35, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 and 51 Hardy Road.
71 The respondent argues that although these eight specified properties have access from Hardy Road, they were all constructed prior to the City's Car Parking and Vehicular Access Policy in 2001.
72 From an examination of the photographic evidence before the Tribunal, it would appear that the circumstances of No 29 Hardy Road are roughly comparable to the subject land (although the residence is considerably older) in that there is no vehicular access of Hardy Road, but there is a double garage off the ROW.
73 On the other hand, there are examples, such as No 47 Hardy Road, where the circumstances are similar to what is being sought by the applicant with access to hardstand via a crossover and a double garage off the ROW.
(Page 18)
74 What the Tribunal would acknowledge though, is that if this application for review was upheld, it could influence car parking proposals for other sites in Hardy Road and elsewhere on redevelopment.
75 On the specific planning issue of pedestrian/vehicular conflict, the Tribunal's view is that in the circumstances of this case, there is little safety risk involved as a result of this proposal and that, in an environment dominated by on-street parking, the proposal would have little or no adverse effect on the existing streetscape or the amenity of the locality.
76 However, on the matter of orderly and proper planning, the Tribunal would acknowledge what the Codes (cl 3.5.4 (A4.1)) and Policy 3.7 are attempting to achieve in order to handle on-site car parking in circumstances where a ROW exists. Both documents pursue a desirable broad planning objective but do not appear to countenance the reality of such matters as the safety risk to private vehicles parked on the street at night or the provision of parking for visitors on-site.
77 However, on these matters, it may not always be the case that there will be a long-term need to provide on-site parking for more than two vehicles. Also, visitor vehicles can usually be provided for on the public road reserve; particularly after working hours and on the weekends.
78 What needs to be borne in mind is that the respondent is attempting, via Policy 3.7, to achieve a long-term balance between the competing demands for private on-site parking spaces and public on-street parking spaces. At the same time, it appears to be anticipating on-going redevelopment in the Nedlands locality which will, in circumstances where a ROW exists, remove unnecessary hardstand areas and crossovers by way of conditions of planning approval.
79 On balance, the Tribunal is prepared to support the respondent in its long-term planning objectives at this time with respect to car parking and vehicular access, but the success or otherwise of Policy 3.7 in particular will need to be monitored over time in order to gauge its practical effects.
Order
80 For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
(Page 19)
I certify that this and the preceding [80] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
4