BP Australia Pty Ltd and City Of Mandurah
[2008] WASAT 161
•21 JULY 2008
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: BP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and CITY OF MANDURAH [2008] WASAT 161
MEMBER: JUDGE J CHANEY (ACTING PRESIDENT)
MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: 10 JUNE 2008
DELIVERED : 21 JULY 2008
FILE NO/S: DR 355 of 2007
BETWEEN: BP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
CITY OF MANDURAH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Redevelopment of an existing service station site Deemed refusal Substitute amended plans Land zoned "Precinct Development" No approved Precinct Plan for the area Precinct Plan adopted as a Local Planning Policy Weight to be given to the Draft Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan Relevance of Draft Developer Contributions Scheme Acceptability of the urban design character of the proposed development Requirement for built form at the street edge Emphasis of the street corner with a building of prominent architecture Avoidance of unsafe, poorlysurveilled areas around buildings Activation of the street edge pedestrian environment Visibility of the service station forecourt Passive surveillance and the public domain
Legislation:
City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 4.12, cl 4.14, cl 7.7, cl 7.11, cl 9.6
Result:
Application for review allowed and conditional development approval granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr MJ Hardy
Respondent: Mr C Slarke
Solicitors:
Applicant: Hardy Bowen
Respondent: McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
In July 2007, BP Australia Pty Ltd made an application to the City of Mandurah seeking approval for the redevelopment of an existing service station site located at No 2 (Lot 801) Guava Way, Halls Head in Mandurah.
When the City of Mandurah did not determine the application, the applicant applied to the State Administrative Tribunal seeking a review of the matter.
The application involved the demolition of the existing structures on the land and the development of a new service station, convenience store and car wash on the site.
While the subject land is zoned "Precinct Development" under the respondent's town planning scheme there is, to date, no approved Precinct Plan for the area. However, in 2005, a Precinct Plan was adopted by the Council as a Local Planning Policy, and the preparation of a formal Precinct Plan under the scheme is in train.
The issue in the review was whether the urban design character of the proposed development met the requirements of the Draft Precinct Plan or, if not, whether discretion should be exercised to allow the application. This required weighing the urban design aspirations of the Council against the very real impact the achievement of those aspirations would have on the effective operation of a use which, it was common ground, was appropriate on the site.
On balance in this case, the Tribunal found that development approval should be granted. This finding was based on the fact that the location and context of the subject site effectively precluded its effective integration into the pedestrian environment of the precinct, and that an alternative proposal put forward by the respondent not only placed constraints on the operation of the service station but compromised a number of the aspirations of the Draft Precinct Plan.
The application for review was therefore allowed and planning consent, subject to a range of conditions, was granted under the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No 3.
Introduction
On 4 July 2007, BP Australia Pty Ltd (applicant) made an application to the City of Mandurah (City) seeking approval for the redevelopment of an existing service station site located at No 2 (Lot 801) Guava Way, on the corner of Guava Way and Peelwood Parade, Halls Head in Mandurah (subject land).
The proposal involved the demolition of the existing 24-hour service station and the development of a service station forecourt facing Peelwood Parade, a convenience store located behind the forecourt centrally on the north-eastern boundary of the site, and a car wash facility on the north‑east boundary of the site. Access to, and egress from the development was to be provided from both Guava Way and Peelwood Parade.
When the City did not determine the application within the timeframe established by cl 7.7 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3 or Scheme), the applicant, on 19 October 2007, applied to the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking a review of the matter.
The applicant subsequently sought leave to substitute the original plans with amended plans. The respondent consented to the amended plans becoming the plans for consideration in the review. The amended plans involved the relocation of the car wash facility, previously proposed on the north-east section of the site, to the south-east section of the site.
The subject land
Peelwood Parade is the main southern access road into Halls Head from Old Coast Road. The subject land is located immediately adjacent to the north-east of the intersection and is bounded by Old Coast Road, Peelwood Parade, Guava Way (south) and an adjoining lot on which the Halls Head Tavern and drive-though bottle shop are located.
Across Peelwood Parade from the subject land is Peelwood Reserve, a large recreational area comprising a grassed sports field with mature trees edging the Peelwood Parade boundary. To the north, across Guava Way (south), is a Red Rooster fast food outlet set back behind a parking area which faces both Guava Way and Peelwood Parade. Beyond the fast food outlet, development along Peelwood Parade is set back with parking areas located adjacent to the street boundary.
Guava Way (south) provides access to the Halls Head Shopping Centre.
An existing BP service station, BP shop, and workshop currently occupy the majority of the subject land. The forecourt and three refueling bowsers front onto Peelwood Parade, with the convenience store, which comprises 124 square metres, located centrally on the site behind the forecourt. Access to the service station is provided from three crossovers, one from Guava Way and two from Peelwood Parade. The facility operates 24 hours a day. The southern portion of the land is currently occupied by a parking area accessed independently from Guava Way through the adjoining lot.
Development application
The application the subject of this review involves the demolition of the existing structures on the land and the development of a new service station, convenience store, and car wash on the site. The area of development incorporates the area of the existing car park currently occupying the southern portion of the land.
The proposed forecourt faces Peelwood Parade and has provision for five bowsers under a roof which runs broadly parallel to this street. The convenience store, comprising 290 square metres, is located behind the forecourt along the joint boundary with the adjoining tavern site. Nine parking bays are located between the forecourt and the store. On the Guava Way side of the convenience store, a service yard is located. This is separated from the Guava Way boundary by a parking area comprising five parking bays, one of which has an air/water unit, and a vehicular accessway serving these bays.
On the Old Coast Road side of the convenience store, a car wash is located along the south-east boundary, with an accessway between the two structures. On the corner of Guava Way and Peelwood Parade, two vacuum bays are proposed.
Access to the proposed facility will be provided by a crossover to Guava Way and a second crossover to Peelwood Parade. These are both located centrally on their respective boundaries.
The proposal also includes a range of signage for both the service station and the Wildbean Café, which forms part of the convenience store.
Planning framework
The subject land is zoned "Precinct Development" under TPS 3. Clause 4.14.1 of TPS 3 sets out the purpose and intent of the Precinct Development Zone as follows:
"The purpose of the Precinct Development Zone is to provide a mechanism for the control and guidance of development in Precinct Areas which have been identified as requiring, or being likely to benefit from, comprehensive planning, with the intention that a Precinct Plan, prepared and approved as an Outline Development Plan pursuant to Clause 7.11 of the Scheme, will provide for matters such as, but not limited to, permissibility of land uses, development and subdivision opportunities and standards, and infrastructure requirements."
At present, there is no approved Precinct Plan for the area. However, cl 2.1 of the draft Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan (June 2008) (Draft Precinct Plan) suggests land uses within the Precinct Area shall be "as per the equivalent zoning" under TPS 3. Figure 2 of the Draft Precinct Plan identifies the subject land within the "Commercial" zone.
Under the provision of Table 2 of TPS 3, a Convenience Store is a "P" use, while a service station is an "AA" use within the Commercial zone.
The background to the preparation of the Draft Precinct Plan is of some relevance in the current review. In January 2003, the City resolved to prepare a Precinct Plan for the Halls Head District Centre. Following advertising, the resulting Precinct Plan was adopted as a Local Planning Policy under cl 9.6 of TPS 3 in July 2005.
The City also resolved to progress the statutory implementation of the Precinct Plan by initiating Amendment No 57 to TPS 3 to rezone the precinct area to "Precinct Development" and flagged its intention that, following the gazettal of the amendment, the City would formally deal with the Precinct Plan as an Outline Development Plan pursuant to cl 7.11 of the Scheme.
In the interim, the City had engineering designs and preliminary costing for infrastructure works in the Precinct prepared, and initiated an Economic Implications/Business Plan report in order to assist in preparing a potential Developer Contributions Scheme.
Amendment 57 was published in the Government Gazette on 1 September 2007, rezoning the subject land to "Precinct Development" under TPS 3. Clause 4.14.2.1 of TPS 3 states:
"The permissibility of uses in the Precinct Development Zone and the relevant development and subdivision standards shall be as specified in the applicable Precinct Plan".
On 15 May 2007, the City resolved to adopt the Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan and Design Criteria as a Draft Precinct Plan in accordance with cl 4.12 of TPS 3 and advertised it for public comment. Public comment has duly been received, assessed by Council Officers and a report recommending adoption of the Precinct Plan and its referral to the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission) for approval was scheduled to be put to the City in June 2008.
While the Precinct Plan does not include a Developer Contributions Scheme, the recommendations to be put to the June meeting include the adoption and advertising of a Draft Developer Contributions Scheme.
An issue in regard to the planning provisions applicable to the subject land is the weight to be given to the Draft Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan.
Mr Dreckow, an expert planning witness for the respondent, argued that the scheme requires a Precinct Plan to be prepared and approved, and without such a plan, there are no land use development standards or subdivision standards applicable to the land. In his view, given the facts that a Precinct Plan was adopted as Council policy, that there are no substantive differences between the provisions of the existing policy and the Draft Precinct Plan, and that the finalisation of the Precinct Plan is imminent, the Draft Precinct Plan should provide the framework against which the current application is evaluated.
Ms Elliot, an expert planning witness called by the applicant, argued that "the draft Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan is not a seriously-entertained planning proposal and should not therefore form the basis for refusing the Applicant's current proposal".
The Tribunal has, in Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40 at [59] addressed the criteria applicable in judging whether a proposed planning instrument is seriously entertained. These criteria are:
(1)The degree to which the draft addresses the specific application.
(2)The degree to which the draft is based on sound town planning principles.
(3)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as "certain".
(4)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as "imminent".
The Draft Precinct Plan clearly fulfils the first two criteria. While there may be some limited uncertainty in regard to the latter two criteria, based on the existing Council policy and the evidence provided at the hearing, the Tribunal is of the view that the Draft Precinct Policy should be given weight and it is the appropriate instrument against which the current proposal should be assessed.
Issues for determination
The respondent, in its Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, raised four issues:
1)Is the design of the proposed development acceptable, having regard to the existing and proposed planning controls having application to the locality?
2)Does the proposal give rise to the likelihood of unacceptable traffic safety risks or congestion?
3)If the proposal is approved, should the applicant be required to make a contribution towards infrastructure costs within the Halls Head Town Centre Precinct and, if so, in what amount?
4)Is it appropriate to approve the additional retail floor space comprised in the shop component of the development, having regard to the City's adopted Local Commercial Strategy?
However, at the hearing, the respondent advised that the issue of traffic no longer arose and that the additional retail floor space was not contested. Given that the contribution to infrastructure costs goes to the question of conditions attaching to any approval, the only substantive question was the acceptability of the urban design character of the proposed development.
The issue is therefore whether the urban design character of the proposed development meets the requirements of the Draft Precinct Plan or, if not, whether discretion should be exercised to allow the application.
Whether the urban design character of the proposed development meets the requirements of the current planning provisions for the site or, if not, whether approval should be granted
Mr Slarke, counsel for the respondent, argued that the subject land forms part of the most prominent gateway to the precinct and that, because of its high visibility, development on the site will set the tone for future development in the town centre.
Mr Benjamin de Marchi, an expert witness called by the respondent, argued that the current proposal was not consistent with the Draft Hall Head Precinct Plan in the following areas:
•location of built form at the street edge;
•the emphasis of the street corner with a building of prominent architecture;
•the avoidance of unsafe, poorly-surveilled areas around buildings; and
•facilitating the activation of the street edge pedestrian environment through built form design.
The Tribunal will deal with each of these aspects in turn.
Built form at the street edge
The Vision of the Draft Precinct Plan includes the aspiration for "Buildings Addressing Street Edges and Corners". Under Street Setbacks in cl 2.4, Figure 3 establishes nil setback requirements on the subject site along the majority of the Guava Way boundary and the northern half of the Peelwood Parade boundary.
While the Draft Precinct Plan designates new main streets within the town centre, neither Peelwood Parade nor Guava Way are so designated. The illustrative plan, however, suggests built form on the subject land, both on the corner of Peelwood Parade and facing Old Coast Road.
Thus the Draft Precinct Plan clearly enshrines the goal of built form at the street edge on the subject land for the corner of Peelwood Parade and Guava Way.
As part of his witness statement, Mr de Marchi provided an indicative development concept plan for the subject land which involved the reorientation of the forecourt and bowsers, and the location of the convenience store on the corner of Peelwood Parade and Guava Way. This plan drew to some degree on both the principles established in Liveable Neighbourhoods, including an illustrative figure for a "combined service station and neighbourhood centre retail" forming part of that policy, and an example of a service station layout in Melbourne which included a convenience store component. In oral evidence, Mr de Marchi suggested the alternative plan would set a benchmark for the town centre and start to set up some opportunities leading to better urban design outcomes.
While this indicative plan provided built form on the corner, the configuration proposed raised a number of further issues. Mr Woodgush, an expert witness in urban design called by the applicant, argued the indicative plan included in Liveable Neighbourhoods was an idealistic diagram which was not well resolved. He suggested corner buildings needed to work to two sides, and that there were problems in trying to utilise the building the subject of this review as a gateway building; its size meant that it tended to "float" in space and get "lost". In addition, Mr Dunn, an expert witness called by the applicant, raised concerns over the suggestion of two entrances to the shop. His evidence was that any secondary entry would either be closed permanently, or at least at night, as pilfering can be rife in such facilities.
Mr Dunn also raised concerns over the impact the alternative location would have on the visibility of the forecourt for motorists approaching from the north on Peelwood Parade. His evidence was that motorists need to be able to identify available spaces from a distance of 60 metres to 80 metres away when planning to access the service station, and that the alternative plan infringed on this requirement.
Emphasis of the street corner with a building of prominent architecture
The Draft Precinct Plan under cl 2.3 "Building Height and Scale" suggests "Landmark buildings should be developed at key street corners" and that such buildings could draw attention to these locations by using distinctive roof forms, balconies, articulation of corner wall elements, entry forecourts, materials and colour. Such suggestions need to be seen in the context of the overarching aspiration in the same clause that "development is encouraged to be a minimum of two storeys".
The Precinct Plan does not designate "key street corners".
Mr de Marchi argued that "the section of the land along Peelwood Parade between Old Coast Road and Guava Way is one of the most important development edges in the Town Centre from an urban design perspective" and that "The prominent location of the Land, particularly being at a key entry of the Town Centre, establishes an important responsibility on the City of Mandurah to ensure that the development of the land helps to achieve the Vision for the Precinct".
Given the fact that neither party raised the possibility of a two‑storey structure on the corner of Peelwood Parade and Guava Way, it is clear that neither the current proposal, nor the indicative development concept plan provided by Mr de Marchi, would satisfy the criteria established for a "landmark building" in the Draft Precinct Plan.
Avoidance of unsafe, poorly-surveilled areas around buildings
The Vision for the Precinct seeks to establish "a safe pedestrian‑orientated environment". This criterion is addressed in more detail in cl 2.7E "Security" which suggests "Buildings and landscape design is to avoid the formation of "blind" spaces, corners or alleys that cannot be seen from within the most used rooms of a building or from approach paths".
Mr de Marchi argued that the proposed location of the convenience store will "back onto the car park of the adjacent development creating a secluded blind spot which will be particularly unsafe at night".
Mr Woodgush argued that passive surveillance does not require building up to boundaries and that passive surveillance is about the public domain rather than private sites. He also argued while the alternative plan might provide some surveillance to the parking area of the adjacent tavern, this location would compromise both the legibility and level of surveillance on the subject site.
In regard to the issue of passive surveillance, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Woodgush that the focus of the application of passive surveillance criteria should be on the public domain, and shares his concern that the alternative layout compromises the legibility and level of surveillance on the subject site.
The activation of the street edge pedestrian environment
The activation of the pedestrian environment is addressed in the Draft Precinct Plan through a number of references under both "Building Design" and "Services and Facilities". The former addresses awnings, unobscured shopfront windows, articulation to establish a "rhythm" at a pedestrian level, and visual richness, while the latter addresses pedestrian shelter, clearly visible entrances, and improvements to the pedestrian environment (street trees, footpaths, seating etc).
Mr de Marchi gave evidence that the Draft Precinct Plan, which he had assisted in preparing, sought a much greater balance in terms of the pedestrian environment than normal car dominated environments.
While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the aspiration of creating an improved pedestrian environment in the Precinct, this aspiration is constrained by the location of the subject site. Pedestrian flows along both the Peelwood Parade and Guava Way boundaries are extremely limited at present, and this is unlikely to change substantively once the precinct is fully developed. The location of the subject site at the edge of the precinct, adjacent to a very busy road and opposite a large park, limits obvious pedestrian routes in the immediate vicinity. The Precinct Plan effectively acknowledges this condition by not nominating either street as a "main street".
Conclusion
There is no dispute between the parties that a service station is an appropriate use both within a Town Centre, and more specifically, on the subject site. Thus, the substantive issue in the review is whether the urban design character of the proposed development meets the requirements of the provisions of the Draft Precinct Plan or, if not, whether discretion should be exercised in favour of the application.
In seeking to address built form at the street edge, the Tribunal found that the indicative plan put forward by the respondent, while it provides built form on the corner, raises operational issues for the convenience store and would infringe on the visibility of the service station forecourt for some approaching motorists.
In regard to the emphasis of the street corner with a building of prominent architecture, the Tribunal found that neither the current proposal, nor the indicative development concept plan provided, would satisfy the criteria established for a "landmark building" in the Draft Precinct Plan.
In regard to the issue of passive surveillance, in our view the focus of the application of passive surveillance criteria under the Draft Precinct Plan should be on the public domain, and we find that the alternative layout proposed by the respondent compromises the legibility and level of surveillance on the subject site.
In terms of the activation of the street edge pedestrian environment, the location of the subject site at the edge of the precinct, adjacent to a very busy road and opposite a large park, limits obvious pedestrian routes in the immediate vicinity.
Essentially, what was at issue in this review was the need to weigh the urban design aspirations of the respondent against the very real impediments to the effective operation of a use which, it was common ground, is appropriate on the subject site.
On balance, in this case, we have concluded that approval to develop the site in accordance with the amended plans should be granted. In our view, the fact that the location and context of the subject site effectively precludes its effective integration into the pedestrian environment of the precinct. In addition, the alternative proposal put forward by the respondent not only places severe operational constraints on the operation of an agreed use but compromises a number of the aspirations of the Draft Precinct Plan in the way described above.
The application for review was therefore allowed, and planning consent, subject to a range of conditions, granted under TPS 3.
Conditions
As required by direction of the Tribunal, the respondent prepared "without prejudice" draft conditions to be imposed if the Tribunal considered that approval of the application subject to conditions was appropriate.
While the majority of proposed conditions were agreed between the parties, a number of proposed conditions remained in dispute.
The conditions in dispute (notated as set out in the respondent's amended draft of "Without Prejudice" conditions dated 31 March 2008) are dealt with below.
Infrastructure cost contribution (condition 7A and condition 14A))
While the applicant initially disagreed with a condition requiring an infrastructure cost contribution at the hearing, counsel for the applicant did not attempt to persuade the Tribunal that a condition requiring a contribution based on a formally adopted Development Contribution Scheme for the precinct would be inappropriate. The applicant contended, however, that the requirements for streetscape works included in draft condition 14A, should not be imposed if a contribution was required for infrastructure works. To impose both, it argued, would amount to doubling up.
It is highly likely that a contribution scheme will eventually be adopted. The applicant will ultimately benefit from the infrastructure funded under that scheme. In our view, it is appropriate that the applicant meet its proper share of the costs of that infrastructure. The amount can only be determined when the scheme is in place. A condition requiring contribution when the scheme is adopted should be imposed.
We agree that a separate condition requiring contribution to streetscape works should not be imposed, since those works are likely to form part of the costs of the ultimate contribution scheme.
It is reasonable that such a contribution should be required, while the requirement for streetscape works should be removed.
Easement in Gross (condition 7 B)
The respondent sought, by way of condition 7B, an Easement in Gross in order to facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians over the land and adjoining lots.
Given the nature of the proposed use on the subject land and the fact that the adjoining lot is occupied by a tavern, such an easement is, in the circumstances, not necessary or appropriate.
Waste Management Plan (condition 7C)
The applicant argued that the waste generated by the development did not require a Waste Management Plan. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent provided clarification that any requirements would be restricted to the location and management of waste bins on the site. With such intent made explicit, the condition is appropriate and should be applied.
Landscape Plan (condition 9)
In general terms, the applicant accepts the proposed landscape condition.
However, the applicant argues that, should the development be completed in summer, it may be unsuitable for landscaping to be carried out, and occupation or use of the premises should not be delayed as a consequence. The applicant therefore proposes a bond or bank guarantee to ensure the landscaping is carried out within six months of the commencement of the use.
This is not an unreasonable request and should be supported.
Crossovers (condition 10)
The applicant has proposed wording for the condition which accords with the intent of the respondent's proposed condition while clarifying its application. The applicant's suggestion is appropriate and should be applied.
Shade trees (condition 14)
The respondent has sought the provision of one tree for each four parking bays within the parking area. This would generate a requirement for four shade trees.
The applicant is willing to plant four trees but does not wish to provide shade trees in front of the convenience store where they would block sightlines. It is argued that these bays are generally used for short periods of time and the required trees would be better located providing shade to bays along the Guava Way boundary.
The proposed location for the trees would also effectively increase the perceived landscaping on the site when viewed from the public domain and should be supported.
Pre-cast concrete and tilt slab/non-reflective colour and cladding (condition 14B and condition 17)
The applicant sought to attach a further provision to both of the above conditions which read as follows:
"The City of Mandurah acknowledges that BP may use its standard corporate colours."
Given that the respondent has not challenged the use of a service station on the site and that the current application involves a BP facility, there is clearly a reasonable expectation that the applicant would seek to use its corporate colours on the site. In this context, it would be questionable for the City to unreasonably constrain the use of corporate colours.
However, attaching the applicant's suggested addition on corporate colours to conditions which essentially address the use of materials is not appropriate.
Orders
For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.Development approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
1)The development shall be carried out and fully implemented in accordance with the details indicated on the plans R71297AP006(3) dated 21 February 2008 and R71297AP003(2), subject to the following modifications:
•Wall mounted billboards are to be deleted from the Old Coast Road elevation; and
•A landscaping area suitable for medium height planting (of sufficient height to screen the service yard wall) is to be included in front of the service yard on the Guava Way elevation.
2)An application for a demolition licence must be submitted to the City of Mandurah's Building Surveyor and approval obtained prior to demolition of any existing buildings.
3)The sign(s) shown on the approved plans shall be securely attached to the building to resist expected wind loads for the locality.
4)The sign writing associated with the signs shown on the approved plans shall be of a professional standard and quality.
5)The signs shown on the approved plans shall be kept clean and maintained free of dilapidation at all times.
6)All uncovered car parking bays to be a minimum of 5.5 metres by 2.5 metres and where bays are located adjacent to kerbs or are to be used for disabled parking, the width dimensions shall be 2.7 metres and 3.2 metres respectively. The marking out and surface of all car bays must be maintained throughout the life of the development.
7)Construction management shall be carried out in accordance with the City's Construction Management Specification. During construction, the approved Construction Management Plan is to be implemented at all times.
8)The applicant must pay to the City an infrastructure cost contribution in accordance with the cost contribution required for Lot 801 Guava Way (if any) adopted as part of the Development Contribution Scheme Section of the Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan. The contribution must be paid in full within 60 days following the adoption of a cost contribution schedule as part of the Halls Head Town Centre Precinct Plan.
9)Prior to the issue of a building licence, a Waste Management Plan setting out the location of bins and arrangements for the removal of waste from the site shall be submitted and approved by the City. The Waste Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented to the satisfaction of the City throughout the life of the development.
10)Prior to the issue of a building licence, a detailed stormwater plan must be submitted to and approved by the City showing all stormwater from roofed and paved areas being collected and disposed of on‑site in landscaped areas in accordance with water‑sensitive design principles to the specification of the City.
11)Prior to the issue of a building licence, a detailed landscape plan is to be prepared by a qualified landscape architect or designer and submitted to and approved by the City. Two copies of the landscape plan(s) shall be submitted at a scale of 1:200 or 1:100 and shall detail the following:
•site layout and context, property boundaries, street names, building(s), parking areas, paved areas, adjacent verges, existing trees and vegetation;
•proposed planting within the property and verge area. Trees and plants are to be shown in exact location using clear symbols; and
•a coded planting legend listing proposed plants by botanical names and details of pot/bag sizing, spacing and quantity.
When approved, the landscaping plan(s) will be endorsed and will form part of the planning approval.
No person shall occupy or use land or any building the subject of this approval for the purpose of which the approval is given unless and until the landscaping has been implemented in accordance with the landscape plan(s) approved by the City or, prior to the issue of a building licence, a bond or bank guarantee has been lodged with the City to ensure the landscaping is carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
The landscaping must be carried out within six months of commencement of use. Once the landscaping has been completed, the City must be notified so that a site inspection can be conducted to confirm whether the landscaping is compliant with the approved landscape plan. If the landscaping is to the satisfaction of the City, the bond or bank guarantee will be refunded to the applicant.
Landscaped areas once completed must be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction of the City.
12)Prior to the commencement of use, all existing crossovers are to be removed and the verge grass and kerbing reinstated. New crossovers are to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
13)Prior to the commencement of use, vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas shall be suitably constructed, sealed, drained, kerbed, marked (including loading and disabled bays) and thereafter maintained.
14)Prior to the commencement of use, external lighting shall be provided in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1158.1 and must be provided under the awnings and within the car parking area forward of the main building line, but with the illumination being confined to the limits of the site boundary unless otherwise approved in writing by the City.
15)Prior to the commencement of use, the applicant shall ensure that the parapet wall is painted with anti‑graffiti coating to a maximum height of 4 metres.
16)Prior to the commencement of use, four shade trees approved by the City shall be provided within the parking area marked as bays 1 to 7 on the approved plans.
17)If it is proposed to use pre‑cast concrete or tilt up wall construction, all exposed external wall faces are to be painted to the satisfaction of the City.
18)Prior to occupation, the proposed development shall be connected to sewer.
19)All delivery vehicles must be located entirely on the site during loading and unloading of goods associated with the use of the site.
20)External lighting shall be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
21)The exterior colour and cladding of the building must be of a non‑reflective nature to the specification and satisfaction of the City.
I certify that this and the preceding [86] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE J CHANEY, ACTING PRESIDENT
0
1
1