Buildex Construction Company and City Of Melville
[2008] WASAT 86
•4 APRIL 2008
BUILDEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and CITY OF MELVILLE [2008] WASAT 86
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 86 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:441/2007 | 4 APRIL 2008 | |
| Coram: | MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER) MS R MOORE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 4/04/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Development approval granted subject to conditions | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BUILDEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CITY OF MELVILLE |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Mixed use office/residential building Whether development conforms to Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) in relation to mixed use development Whether mixed use development provision is concerned with amenity of existing residents in locality or amenity of residents of proposed development Height, bulk and scale Whether proposed scale and style is "compatible with" prevailing character Words and phrases: "compatible with" |
Legislation: | City of Melville Town Planning Scheme No 5, cl 4.2(a), cl 5.1(a), cl 5.19, cl 6, cl 7.8, cl 9.6 Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.3.1 P1, cl 3.8.1 A1, cl 4.2.1, Table 1 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 28 November 2007 to refuse development approval for a mixed use office and residential development at No 4 (Lot 314) Forbes Road, Applecross is set aside.,3. Development approval is granted for a mixed use office and residential development at No 4 (Lot 314) Forbes Road, Applecross subject to the following conditions:,(1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans drawn by Ali Mozaffri, DA01 to DA10 inclusive, each revision 01 amended 27.08.07 except as modified by the following conditions.,(2) The masonry sections to the west and north and the curved roof section to the south of and above the west-facing balcony of Unit 5 on the second level plan shall be deleted above the finished floor level of the balcony. All balustrading for this balcony is to be glazed and not masonry. These modifications are to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence.,(3) The office glazing is to be non-reflective/non-mirrored glass.,(4) The building is to be reduced in height by 500 millimetres at each point. If necessary to achieve a satisfactory grade for the ramp to the basement, the office is to be set back further from the street. This modification is to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence.,(5) - (26) Conditions (5) to (26) are to be in accordance with conditions (1) to (22) in Exhibit 4 which have been agreed between the parties. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : BUILDEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and CITY OF MELVILLE [2008] WASAT 86 MEMBER : MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
- MS R MOORE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF MELVILLE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Mixed use office/residential building - Whether development conforms to Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) in relation to mixed use development - Whether mixed use development provision is concerned with amenity of existing residents in locality or amenity of residents of proposed development - Height, bulk and scale - Whether proposed scale and style is "compatible with" prevailing character - Words and phrases: "compatible with"
(Page 2)
Legislation:
City of Melville Town Planning Scheme No 5, cl 4.2(a), cl 5.1(a), cl 5.19, cl 6, cl 7.8, cl 9.6
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.3.1 P1, cl 3.8.1 A1, cl 4.2.1, Table 1
Result:
Development approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr I Rogers
Respondent : Ms A Butterworth (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Hardy Bowen
Respondent : Allerding & Associates (Planning Consultants)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This case concerned a four-level above basement mixed use office/residential development. The site is at the interface between medium density and low density areas. The principal issues were:
• conformity with the mixed use development provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002);
• height, bulk and scale; and
• conformity with a statement of intent that development be of a scale and style "compatible with" the prevailing character.
2 Following the hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral decision in which it granted development approval subject to conditions including:
• the deletion of masonry and roof sections at the third level which would have a visually heavy appearance and add unnecessarily to the height, bulk and scale of the building; and
• the lowering of the building by 500 millimetres at each point.
3 The Tribunal determined that the mixed use development provisions of the Residential Design Codes are fundamentally concerned with ensuring reasonable standards of residential amenity for residents of the proposed development, not amenity of existing residents in the locality generally. However, on a merit assessment, the height, bulk and scale of the development is acceptable in terms of impact on streetscape and amenity of residents in the locality, if the two modifications required by the Tribunal are made. The building will present as a substantially three-level building, with the fourth level set well back and within the roof form, to the low density area which includes large two-level houses. The proposed building form is appropriately transitional.
4 The Tribunal also determined that, if the modifications required by the Tribunal are made, then the scale and style of the development is "compatible with" the prevailing character. The words "compatible with" mean capable of existing in harmony with, and do not require new development to match existing character.
(Page 4)
5 The Tribunal's reasons, taken from the transcript and edited in minor respects to aid clarity, were as follows.
Introduction
6 These proceedings involve an application by Buildex Construction Co (applicant) for review under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) of the decision of the City of Melville (City or Council) to refuse development approval for a four-level mixed use office and residential building above basement carpark at No 4 (Lot 314) Forbes Road, Applecross (site).
7 The site has a regular rectangular shape, a frontage and width of 20.12 metres, a depth of 50.29 metres and an area of approximately 1012 square metres. The site is located on the eastern side of Forbes Road between Kishorn Road and Kintail Road.
8 There are single-storey medium density residential developments to the north and south of the site. The opposite, western side of Forbes Road comprises one- to two-storey houses. There are no buildings higher than two storeys in Forbes Road between Kishorn Road and Kintail Road. First Avenue to the rear or east of the site comprises a mix of houses and medium density residential developments, including what appears to be a four-level mixed use office and residential building at No 7 First Avenue.
Planning framework
9 The site and the rest of the streetblock, as well as the streetblocks to the east and north, is zoned "Commercial Centre Frames" and is subject to a residential density coding of R50 under the City of Melville Town Planning Scheme No 5 (TPS 5 or Scheme), and is located in the Canning Bridge Frame precinct (CBF precinct) under TPS 5. However, the properties on the opposite, western side of Forbes Road and the areas to the west and north of those properties are zoned "Living Areas" under TPS 5 and are located in the Applecross precinct under TPS 5.
10 In the Commercial Centre Frames zone, residential use is not permitted unless the Council exercises discretion and grants development approval, and office use is not permitted unless the Council exercises discretion and grants development approval after advertising the application for the proposed use.
(Page 5)
11 Clause 7.8 of TPS 5 sets out 14 categories of matters to which the Council must have regard, when relevant, in determining a development application.
12 Clause 4.2(a) of TPS 5 requires that development conforms with the statement of intent and the development requirements stipulated for the precinct in which the land is located. The statement of intent for the CBF precinct is as follows:
"Primarily residential but may include offices and medical practitioners where privacy of neighbours is respected and design has a residential character. Buildings shall not use reflective or mirror glass externally. Shops, open air display of goods and vehicles, service stations and the like are prohibited. The Council may prepare urban design guidelines for the precinct."
13 The Council has made Local Planning Policy No 06-025 Mixed Use Development (Mixed Use Policy) in accordance with cl 9.6 of TPS 5. Clause 6 of the Mixed Use Policy states as follows:
"Design is to respect the adjoining and surrounding land uses and development, to be of a scale and style compatible with the prevailing character of the area, and to be of a quality consistent with the area's amenity."
14 Clause 5.1(c) of the TPS 5 requires that the development of land for residential purposes shall conform to the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (Codes).
15 The town planning expert witnesses, Mr AA Stewart, who gave evidence on behalf of the applicant, and Mr JL Meggitt, who gave evidence on behalf of the City, agree that the proposed development conforms to the acceptable development provisions of the Codes in all respects other than in relation to plot ratio for the residential component, boundary setbacks to an extent, and privacy to an extent. The experts also agree that the proposed development conforms to the Code's performance criteria for boundary setbacks in cl 3.3.1 P1 and can be conditioned to conform to the acceptable development provision in relation to privacy in cl 3.8.1 A1 of the Codes.
(Page 6)
Development application and Council's decision
16 On 1 March 2007 the applicant lodged the development application with the Council for approval for a building comprising five residential units over four levels, a communal 70 square metre gym at street level, a communal swimming pool at the rear at street level, and a basement comprising a car park for 15 vehicles and a storage area. The street level, as shown on the plans submitted on 1 March 2007, was, in fact, approximately 1 metre to 1.5 metres above ground level.
17 The proposed building has a contemporary design with a distinctive curved or barrel-shaped roof that extends down the southern side wall. The roof is the dominant feature of the building, but is complemented by solid masonry elements, extensive glazing and timber louvres.
18 At some stage after the lodgment of the development application, the applicant altered the proposed use of the gym to an office.
19 The development application was advertised and Council received three letters of objection and a petition signed by 18 residents in the locality. The letter enclosing the petition said that the petitioners' primary concern is traffic, and some are also concerned about privacy impacts of the proposed office. One of the three resident objectors who wrote a letter of objection, Mr RJB Keys who owns Unit 3 at No 2 Forbes Road which adjoins the site to the north, gave evidence in the proceedings.
20 The development application was also referred to the City's architectural and urban design advisory panel (architectural panel). The architectural panel considered the development application at its meeting on 17 July 2007. The minutes of the architectural panel's meeting include the following:
"Generally agreeable with the design and architectural character of the proposal. However, as the property is on the periphery of the Canning Bridge Frame and directly facing a residential area, concerns were raised with regard to the streetscape matters. These primarily concerned the parking bays at the front of the development (access to which would involve removal of a street tree and an excessive crossover width) and the raising of the ground level due to the partial undercroft parking area. In both instances it was recommended that the modifications be made to the plans; ie, remove the front parking bays (and associated crossover) and lower the building so that the commercial floor is at street level. This would assist in achieving an improved
(Page 7)
- relationship with the street and adjacent residential development in terms of scale and character and also improve relationships with pedestrians. Concern was raised with regard to some technical Australian Standard requirements relative to the ramp slopes and transitional grades. It was recommended that these aspects be reviewed as they would need to be addressed before a building licence could be issued and any changes would require a revised development application. It was also noted that the shade diagrams were erroneous, although assessment of overshadowing is a matter to be undertaken by the City officers."
21 The applicant subsequently lodged amended plans in an effort to address the two matters identified by the architectural panel. The amended plans successfully addressed the architectural panel's concern about parking bays fronting the street. The amended application incorporates two visitor parking bays between the street frontage and the building, accessed from the central driveway which also provides access to the basement. However, the amended plans did not fully achieve the architectural panel's recommendation for the lowering of the building. The building proposed in the amended plans is still 500 millimetres to 1 metre above natural ground level at the lowest level above the basement.
22 The development application was recommended for approval by Council's professional staff, but was refused by Council on 28 November 2007 for the following four reasons:
1. The residential plot ratio exceeds the maximum of 0.6 as provided for under the R50 coding in the Codes.
2. The application has failed to adequately address the performance criteria under cl 4.2.1 P1 of the Codes in that the proposal results in a significant increase in building bulk when viewed from the street.
3. The development is on the interface between the Living Areas and Commercial Centre Frame zones and the introduction of office uses on the interface is considered inappropriate having regard to the amenity of the area.
4. Pursuant to cl 7.8 of TPS 5, the Council has adopted Mixed Use Policy and the development exceeds the plot ratio considered appropriate for the area and mixed use development.
23 The applicant then sought review of the Council's decision.
Issues for determination
24 The following three principal issues arise for determination in this review:
1) Whether the proposed development conforms to the Codes in relation to mixed use development.
2) Whether the proposed development is acceptable in relation to height, bulk and scale.
3) Whether the proposed development conforms with the statement of intent for the CBF precinct and cl 6 of the Mixed Use Policy.
25 It is also necessary to assess the objectors' concerns in relation to the proposed development.
Does the development conform to the Codes in relation to mixed use development?
26 The acceptable development provision in relation to mixed use development in cl 4.2.1 A1 of the Codes requires the dwelling component of a mixed use building to be developed in accordance with the plot ratio as provided in Table 1, in addition to any ground level non-residential floor space. Table 1 specifies a maximum plot ratio for multiple dwellings of 0.60 in the R50 code.
27 In contrast, the proposed development equates to a residential plot ratio of 0.8:1. In terms of floor space, the development includes 202 square metres or approximately one-third more floor space than the acceptable development provision contemplates. The total plot ratio of the proposed development is approximately 0.87:1.
28 The corresponding performance criteria in cl 4.2.1 P1 of the Codes is as follows:
"Dwellings combined with non-residential uses on the same site that provide comparable standards of amenity to other multiple dwellings taking account of the need to:
(Page 9)
- • satisfy streetscape objectives;
• provide open space in accordance with resident needs; and
• provide car parking to satisfy reciprocal requirements of residents and other users."
29 The planning experts agree that the proposed dwellings provide comparable standards of amenity to other multiple dwellings, taking into account the need to provide open space in accordance with resident needs and provide car parking to satisfy reciprocal requirements of residents and other users. However, the planning experts disagree in relation to the first bullet point in the performance criteria concerning satisfaction of streetscape objectives.
30 In Mr Meggitt's opinion, the proposed development does not satisfy relevant streetscape objectives, because of the bulk and scale of the building and its impact on the amenity of residents in the locality. The surrounding buildings on Forbes Road are one and two storeys. The application is for a four-storey development with an undercroft garage which Mr Meggitt considers is not compatible in scale. In addition, the site is opposite the living area's zone "and as such, greater consideration needs to be given to ensuring that the design is sympathetic with the surrounding area".
31 In Mr Stewart's opinion the proposed development is not detrimental to the streetscape or character of the area. Mr Stewart considers that the bulk and scale of the building is appropriate in this locality and is consistent with the form of development contemplated in the CBF precinct. Mr Stewart considers that many of the adjoining and adjacent sites, whilst occupied currently by one- to two-storey building, are under-utilised and suitable for redevelopment in accordance with the provisions of TPS 5.
32 Mr Stewart also observed that plot ratio "is only one of a number of factors that influence the bulk and scale of a building". Other factors include height and setbacks. Mr Stewart notes that the proposed building complies with the maximum building height for the CBF precinct and that the bulk of the building is set back more than 6 metres from the street. Furthermore, when viewed from the street, the uppermost level is set back a considerable distance so that the only visible elements are the enclosing roof and front terrace.
(Page 10)
33 Mr Stewart considers that these elements assist in giving the building "a three-storey rather than four-storey appearance". In oral evidence, Mr Stewart described the building as essentially three storeys with a loft.
34 The Tribunal considers that the proposed development conforms to the performance criteria for mixed use development.
35 While in Mr Meggitt's opinion the proposed development does not satisfy relevant streetscape objectives for the purposes of cl 4.2.1 of the Codes because of the bulk and scale of the building and its impact on the amenity of residents in the locality, it is apparent from the objective of the mixed use development requirements and from the opening words of the performance criteria that the provision is fundamentally concerned with ensuring reasonable standards of residential amenity; that is, the amenity for residents of the proposed development, not the amenity of residents in the locality generally.
36 The objective of the provision is "to ensure that a reasonable standard of residential amenity is maintained for dwellings that are provided in conjunction with commercial or other non-residential uses". The performance criteria require that dwellings in mixed use developments "provide comparable standards of amenity to other multiple dwellings" taking account of the need to satisfy streetscape objectives.
37 This is not to say that the impact of a proposed mixed use building on streetscape or the amenity of residents in the locality is irrelevant; far from it. These matters are relevant in the exercise of discretion under cl 7.8 of TPS 5. However, the performance criteria in cl 4.2.1 of the Codes are concerned fundamentally with the residential amenity of the future residents of the proposed development. It is in that context that satisfying streetscape objectives are relevant. The proposed dwellings will have a high level of amenity and satisfy the performance criteria.
Is the development acceptable in relation to height, bulk and scale?
38 In terms of the wider merit assessment of the bulk and scale of the building and its impact on the amenity of residents in the locality, the Tribunal considers that the proposal would be acceptable if two modifications were made.
39 The first modification is that the masonry elements to the west and north and the roof element to the south of and above the west facing balcony of Unit 5 on the second level plan should be deleted and the balustrading of this balcony should be restricted to glazing.
(Page 11)
- The second required modification is for the building to be lowered by 500 millimetres at each point in order to essentially satisfy the architectural panel's recommendation of 17 July 2007.
40 The masonry and roof elements that abut the west-facing balcony of Unit 5 are visually heavy and add unnecessarily to the height, bulk and scale of the building.
41 The protrusion of the proposed development by between 500 millimetres and 1 metre above natural ground level also adds unnecessarily to the height, bulk and scale of the building.
42 These modifications can be achieved by a condition of development approval if the development is otherwise acceptable.
43 It is correct, as Mr Meggitt observes, that the site is at the zone and precinct interface with a low-density residential area. The living area to the west of the site is coded R15, although it appears to have been subdivided at a density of approximately R20 on the western side of Forbes Road opposite the site. However, we consider that the proposed building form provides an adequate transition to the Living Areas zone to the west if the two modifications that we have outlined were made.
44 While the proposed building would be the only four-level building in the street, it satisfies the maximum building height control for buildings in the CBF precinct under the Scheme. Furthermore, the uppermost level is set back by 4.35 metres from the level below, by approximately 12 metres from the street frontage and is considerably narrower in footprint than the levels below. We accept Mr Stewart's evidence that the building will generally present as three storeys plus a loft, rather than as a four-storey building, if the masonry and roof elements we have referred to are deleted. The building will therefore present substantially as a three-level building to the Living Areas zoned land to the west. The Living Areas zoned land contains substantial two-storey houses. The proposed building form is therefore appropriately transitional.
45 Furthermore, variations in setback and materials are proposed within and between Levels 1, 2 and 3. These variations and the substantial additional setback of the uppermost level from the street and side boundaries will significantly mitigate bulk and scale. The building will present as three storeys only to the south, because the fourth level will be entirely comprised within the roof form on that elevation. The building will present as three to four storeys to the north, with the fourth level set well back.
(Page 12)
46 It should also be noted that the overall bulk and scale reflected in plot ratio is well within the overall plot ratio contemplated by the planning controls. These controls contemplate a mixed use building with commercial floor space of up to 0.6 plot ratio - with potential for an increase to 0.8 under cl 5.19 of TPS 5 - and residential floor space of up to 0.6 plot ratio. A total floor space of 1.2 to 1.4 plot ratio is therefore theoretically possible for the site.
47 Whilst, as Mr Meggitt said, a plot ratio in that order may not be practically achievable on the site, having regard to other planning controls such as building height and setback, an overall plot ratio of 0.87, as is proposed, is reasonable in terms of the consequent bulk and scale, provided that the modifications that we have outlined are made.
48 The Tribunal finds that the bulk and scale of the building and its impact on streetscape and on the amenity of residents in the locality is acceptable. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is consistent with orderly and proper planning.
Does the proposed development conform with the statement of intent and policy?
49 Mr Meggitt considers that the proposed development does not conform with the statement of intent, because the design does not have a residential character. In particular, the office component has a full glass elevation and the proposal has a height of four levels above basement.
50 However, the Tribunal considers that the building does have a distinct residential character. The glass elevation of the office is identical to the originally proposed elevation of the gym. The glass elevation is also set back behind the second level. The glazing will not be mirrored or reflective. Finally, the planning experts agree that the proposed office is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the amenity of the area.
51 The height of the building does not result in it not having a residential character. There are comparable residential buildings in the precinct of similar height. Furthermore, as we have said, the building will generally present as three storeys in height above ground with the fourth level set well back from the front and side boundaries and incorporated largely within the roof form.
52 As noted earlier, cl 6 of the Mixed Use Policy states as follows:
(Page 13)
- "Design is to respect the adjoining and surrounding land uses and development, to be of a scale and style compatible with the prevailing character of the area, and to be of a quality consistent with the area's amenity."
53 Mr Meggitt considers that the development does not comply with this provision in that "it is not of a scale and style compatible with the prevailing character of the area". The word "compatible" relevantly means "capable of existing together in harmony" (Macquarie Dictionary, Revised Third Ed, page 398).
54 Mr Stewart gave the following evidence:
"In my opinion the building displays a contemporary design that, whilst unique, is certainly residential in character and sits comfortably within the urban fabric of the locality. Although the building does not attempt to replicate the traditional housing forms of adjacent dwellings or those on the opposite side of the street, the building is characterised by painted rendered walls, a curved colorbond roof and non-reflective glazing.
The pedestrian entry lobby is located at the front of the building to create a clearly defined residential address. Apart from the two visitor car bays, all car bays are located in a basement and screened from the street which further assists with maintaining the residential character of the building and the streetscape. The established mature trees that have been planted in the verges of Forbes Road also assist with softening the visual appearance of the building."
55 The Tribunal considers that the design of the proposed development respects the adjoining and surrounding land uses and development, and is of a scale and style compatible with the prevailing character of the area, if the modifications that we have referred to earlier are made.
56 The proposed development utilises variations in setbacks and materials that are respectful of surrounding development, and is of a scale and style compatible with the prevailing character of the area.
57 The prevailing character of the area includes substantial two-storey buildings both in the CBF and Applecross precincts. A building presenting substantially as three storeys with a recessed fourth level set well back and substantially within the roof form is compatible with the prevailing character.
(Page 14)
58 Importantly, the policy does not require that new development must match the scale and character of existing development. Indeed, such a policy would be contrary to the Scheme's vision for the zone and precinct.
59 Rather, the requirement is to be compatible with - that is, be capable of existing together in harmony with - the prevailing character. As we have found, the development reflects an appropriate transition in height to the Living Area and, as Mr Stewart says, "sits comfortably" within the urban fabric of the locality, if the modifications we have outlined are made.
Objectors' concerns
60 As noted earlier, the objectors expressed concern about traffic and, to some extent, about privacy aspects of the office development. These concerns were not shared by either expert town planner.
61 The development provides adequate resident and visitor car parking and there are no obvious privacy issues posed by the office in a zoning that contemplates offices in a primarily residential building. Furthermore, the site is only a short distance away from the core commercial area fronting Canning Highway.
62 Mr Keys expressed concerns about the visual impact of the building on the internal and external living areas of his unit, acoustic impact of the pool and privacy impact of raised decks between the northern elevation of the proposed building and the common boundary.
63 However, the units in the adjoining property to the north, including Mr Keys' unit, are each separated from the site by a common driveway and landscaping strip. The principal open space of each unit in the adjoining property to the north is oriented to the north; that is, away from the site. The development will present, principally, as two levels to Mr Keys' unit, with substantial setbacks to the third and then to the fourth levels. The proposed pool is approximately 400 millimetres below natural ground level at the boundary.
64 The lowering of the whole building by 500 millimetres, so that it is no higher than 0.5 metre above natural ground level at any point, will effectively mitigate privacy concerns from the decks and from the units. It will also mitigate the acoustic impact of the pool.
65 The Tribunal finds that, with the modifications that we have referred to, the development will have an acceptable impact in terms of residential amenity of the adjoining property to the north and generally in relation to residential amenity in the locality.
(Page 15)
Conclusion
66 The proposed development conforms to the Codes in all respects. It conforms with the statement of intent for the CBF precinct and is consistent with the Mixed Use Policy. The bulk and scale and streetscape impact of the proposal is acceptable, if the development is conditioned to reflect the modifications we have outlined, having regard to the matters for consideration in cl 7.8 of TPS 5. The development warrants approval subject to conditions.
Orders
67 The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 28 November 2007 to refuse development approval for a mixed use office and residential development at No 4 (Lot 314) Forbes Road, Applecross is set aside.
3. Development approval is granted for a mixed use office and residential development at No 4 (Lot 314) Forbes Road, Applecross subject to the following conditions:
(1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans drawn by Ali Mozaffri, DA01 to DA10 inclusive, each revision 01 amended 27.08.07 except as modified by the following conditions.
(2) The masonry sections to the west and north and the curved roof section to the south of and above the west-facing balcony of Unit 5 on the second level plan shall be deleted above the finished floor level of the balcony. All balustrading for this balcony is to be glazed and not masonry. These modifications are to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence.
- (3) The office glazing is to be non-reflective/non-mirrored glass.
(4) The building is to be reduced in height by 500 millimetres at each point. If necessary to achieve a satisfactory grade for the ramp to the basement, the office is to be set back further from the street. This modification is to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence.
(5) - (26) Conditions (5) to (26) are to be in accordance with conditions (1) to (22) in Exhibit 4 which have been agreed between the parties.
I certify that this and the preceding [67] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
5
0
3