Cafarelli and Town of Vincent
[2008] WASAT 45
•27 FEBRUARY 2008
CAFARELLI and TOWN OF VINCENT [2008] WASAT 45
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 45 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:368/2007 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) | 26/02/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application is allowed The decision of the respondent is set aside and conditional approval is granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CALOGERO CAFARELLI TOWN OF VINCENT |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Retrospective approval for alterations and additions to existing single house Need for privacy screen to bedroom 2 Provision of "Minimum Total" open space Variation of plot ratio requirement Application of Policy No 3.5.16 Non-Variation of Specific Development Standards and Requirements Height of building Desired height of building in the locality |
Legislation: | Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA), s 401(b) Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 214(3), s 252(1) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 2.6.2i, cl 3.4.1 A1, cl 3.4.1 A2, cl 3.4.1 P1, cl 3.7.1 P1, Table 1 Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1, cl 6, cl 10, cl 18, cl 20(5), cl 33(e), cl 34, cl 38(3), cl 38(5), cl 47, cl 47(9) |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 25 September 2007 to refuse retrospective planning approval for alterations and additions to approved two-storey single house on Lot 156 (No 2A) Sholl Lane, North Perth is set aside and a decision is substituted that retrospective planning approval is granted for alteration and additions as shown on plans, referred to as Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4 of 5, prepared by Paterson Tudor Owen & Parker and Tecnica Drafting, and dated stamped received by the Town of Vincent on 9 March 2007, subject to the following conditions:,(i) All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennas, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive.,(ii) Any new street/front wall, fence and gate between the Sholl Lane boundary and the main building, including along the side boundaries within the front setback area, shall comply with the following:,(a) the maximum height of posts and piers being 1.8 metres above the adjacent footpath level;,(b) decorative capping on top of posts and piers may extend the total maximum height of the posts and piers to 2 metres above the adjacent footpath level;,(c) the maximum width, depth and diameter of posts and piers being 350 millimetres;,(d) the maximum height of the solid portion being 1.2 metres above the adjacent footpath level, and the section above this solid portion being visually permeable, with a minimum 50% transparency; and,(e) the provision of a minimum 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres truncation where walls, fences and gates adjoin vehicle access points, or where a driveway meets a public street or right of way, or where two streets intersect. Walls, fences and gates may be located within this truncation area where the maximum height of the solid portion is 0.65 metre above the adjacent footpath level.,(iii) Within 28 days of the issue of the State Administrative Tribunal determination orders in relation to the subject review application (DR 368 of 2007), the windows to bedroom 2 on the northern elevation shall be screened with a permanent obscure material and be non-openable to a minimum of 1.6 metres above the finished first floor level. A permanent obscure material does not include a self-adhesive material or other material that is easily removed. The whole windows can be top hinged and the obscure portion of the window openable to a maximum of 20 degrees. ,(iv) Subject to obtaining the consent of owners of No 2 Sholl Lane for entry onto their land, the owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) walls facing No 2 Sholl Lane and Fitzgerald Street in a good and clean condition. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : CAFARELLI and TOWN OF VINCENT [2008] WASAT 45 MEMBER : MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 368 of 2007 BETWEEN : CALOGERO CAFARELLI
- Applicant
AND
TOWN OF VINCENT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Retrospective approval for alterations and additions to existing single house Need for privacy screen to bedroom 2 Provision of "Minimum Total" open space Variation of plot ratio requirement Application of Policy No 3.5.16 Non-Variation of Specific Development Standards and Requirements Height of building Desired height of building in the locality
Legislation:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA), s 401(b)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 214(3), s 252(1)
(Page 2)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 2.6.2i, cl 3.4.1 A1, cl 3.4.1 A2, cl 3.4.1 P1, cl 3.7.1 P1, Table 1
Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1, cl 6, cl 10, cl 18, cl 20(5), cl 33(e), cl 34, cl 38(3), cl 38(5), cl 47, cl 47(9)
Result:
The application is allowed
The decision of the respondent is set aside and conditional approval is granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr K Adam
Respondent : Mr SJ Bain
Solicitors:
Applicant : KA Adam & Associates
Respondent : SJB Town Planning & Urban Design (Town Planners)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Mr Calogero Cafarelli applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the Town of Vincent's decision to refuse retrospective planning approval for alterations and additions to an approved two storey single house on Lot 156 (No 2A) Sholl Lane, North Perth.
2 The following four principal issues emerged for consideration in the review:
1) Whether the portion of the building set back 3.97 metres from the rear boundary is acceptable in relation to the privacy provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002).
2) Whether the overall provision of open space on the subject land is acceptable.
3) Whether the plot ratio of the development is acceptable.
4) Whether the height of the building is acceptable.
3 The Tribunal considered the issues against each of the relevant performance criteria as set out in the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) and considered the relevance of the Town of Vincent's Policy No 3.5.16 Non-Variation of Specific Development Standards and Requirements in relation to open space and plot ratio. The Tribunal was satisfied that the development met the applicable objectives of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), and having regard to the matters set out in cl 38(5) of TPS 1, found that the proposed development would not prejudice the orderly and proper planning of the locality. The application for review was allowed and retrospective planning approval granted subject to conditions.
Introduction
4 An application for retrospective planning approval was lodged with the Town of Vincent (respondent) on 9 March 2007 for alterations and additions to an approved two-storey single house on Lot 156 (No 2A) Sholl Lane, North Perth (subject land).
5 The application to commence development was refused by the respondent at its meeting of 25 September 2007 for the following reasons:
(Page 4)
- "(a) the development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenities of the locality;
(b) the non-compliance with the plot ratio and privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes;
(c) the non-compliance with the upper floor front/street setback requirements of the Town's Policy relating to the Knutsford Locality; and
(d) the plot ratio and open space requirements proposed to be varied is as specified in the Town's Policy relating to Non-Variation of Specific Development Standards and Requirements."
6 The applicant, on 31 October 2007, made application under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), to have the decision reviewed.
Agreed background facts
7 The following facts relating to the background of this matter were agreed by the parties:
• The respondent granted approval to the development of a single house on the subject land on 20 September 2005;
• A building licence for the development was obtained from the respondent on 14 November 2005;
• The applicant subsequently commenced work on the development. The works have reached an advanced state (beyond lock-up stage) and several aspects of the development are not in compliance with the approved drawings;
• A notice under s 401(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA) and written direction under s 214(3) of the PD Act were served on the applicant on 8 January 2008, requiring the unauthorised works to be brought into compliance with the approval;
(Page 5)
- • An application for retrospective approval seeking approval for the development as constructed was lodged with the respondent on 9 March 2007;
• The respondent, at its meeting of 25 September 2007, refused to grant retrospective approval for the development as constructed.
Subject land
8 The subject land is more particularly described as Lot 156, being the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2614 Folio 398. Lot 156 is 215 square metres in area and has a 14.37 metre frontage to Sholl Lane.
9 The subject land is one of three lots created by subdivision of Lot 8 Fitzgerald Street. The lot to the west of the subject land, Lot 154, has been developed with a two storey single house, while the lot to the east, Lot 157, is currently vacant.
The proposal
10 The proposal details the development as constructed, which seeks approval for a number of modifications to the development as originally approved. These are as follows:
• Rear setback - varied from 4.5 metres - 5.460 metres to 3.970 metres - 5.035 metres;
• Length of parapet wall along northern and southern boundaries increased from 9.45 metres to 9.910 metres;
• The removal of the permanent obscure wing wall shown to bedroom 2;
• Balconies increased from 960 millimetres to 1 metre - resulting in further encroachment into the front setback area;
• Modification to porch element;
• Finished floor level (FFL) increased from 29.85 to 30.00;
• Front courtyard area - north-south dimension reduced from 2.93 metres to 2.715 metres;
(Page 6)
- • Wall height - maximum of 65 courses (or 5.6 metres above FFL) along the northern rear elevation increased to between 6.52 metres and 6.53 metres;
• Plot ratio increased from 0.85 to 0.91; and
• Maximum total open space - reduced from 43.3% of the site to 40.4% of the site.
Planning framework
11 The subject land is zoned "Urban" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and "Residential" with a permitted density of R60 under the Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1 or Scheme).
12 Clause 6 sets out the "Objectives and Intentions" of TPS 1. The general objectives of the Scheme that are of particular relevance to this matter are:
"6(3)(a) to cater for the diversity of demands, interests and lifestyles by facilitating and encouraging the provision of a wide range of choices in housing, business, employment, education, leisure, transport and access opportunities;
…
6(3)(c) to ensure that the use and development of land is managed in an effective and efficient manner within a flexible framework which -
(i) recognises the individual character and needs of localities within the Scheme zone area; and
(ii) can respond readily to change; …"
14 The "Zoning Table" contained in the Scheme classifies the use class "Single House" as a "P" (permitted) use in the Residential zone. Under cl 33(e) of TPS 1, planning approval is not required for a single
(Page 7)
- dwelling where it complies with the Codes and where the amenity of the area generally is not adversely affected. The application requires a departure from the acceptable development provisions of the Codes, and as such, requires planning approval. The proposed modifications have been carried out without the applicant having first applied for and obtained planning approval. Clause 34 of the Scheme provides for the approval of unauthorised existing development.
15 Clause 18 of TPS 1 requires the development of land to be in accordance with the standards and requirements contained in the following documents:
"… Scheme Text, the Scheme Map, the policy applying to the land proposed to be developed, the planning policies and the Residential [Design] Codes."
16 Clause 20(5) of the Scheme enables Council to consider variation to the Codes where it considers that acceptable levels of residential amenity can be achieved.
17 Subclause 38(3) of the Scheme provides the authority for the Council to refuse or approve an application. Without limiting the scope of the discretion to determine an application, cl 38(5) of the Scheme sets out the matters to which regard is to be given in the determination of an application. The pertinent matters relating to this application are as follows:
"(a) the provisions of this Scheme and of any other written law applying within the Scheme area including the Metropolitan Region Scheme;
(b) any relevant planning policy; …
(g) the orderly and proper planning of the locality;
(h) the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and
(i) the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surrounding of any proposed building or structure."
18 Clause 18 and cl 38(3)(b) both require consideration of planning policy in the determination of an application. Clause 47 of the Scheme empowers the Council to make planning policies relating to an aspect or aspects of development control or any other matter relevant to the
(Page 8)
- Scheme. These policies may be applied to all or part of the Scheme area. Two policies referred to by the parties were:
• Policy No: 3.3.18 Knutsford - Locality Plan 18 (Policy 3.3.18); and
• Policy No: 3.5.16 Non-Variation of Specific Development Standards and Requirements (Policy 3.5.16).
Issues
20 The following four principal issues emerged for consideration in the review:
1) Whether the portion of the building set back 3.97 metres from the rear boundary is acceptable in relation to the privacy provisions of the Codes.
2) Whether the overall provision of open space on the subject land is acceptable.
3) Whether the plot ratio of the development is acceptable.
4) Whether the height of the building is acceptable.
21 In order to gain a full appreciation of the issues, a view was held with the parties' representatives.
Whether the portion of the building set back 3.97 metres from the rear boundary is acceptable in relation to the privacy provisions of the Codes
22 At the view, both parties agreed that this issue was no longer in dispute as the applicant had agreed to construct the privacy screen as required by the condition imposed on the original approval. The applicant indicated that the privacy screen would be constructed prior to completion of the development.
Whether the overall provision of open space on the subject land is acceptable
23 The acceptable development provisions of the Codes (cl 3.4.1 A1) relating to the provision of open space specify that open space is to be provided in accordance with Table 1, Element 2 and Element 3 of the
(Page 9)
- Codes. Table 1 specifies the site requirements and identifies two separate elements for "Single House", being "Minimum Total" and "Minimum Outdoor Living".
24 The parties agreed that the proposed development complied with the "Minimum Outdoor Living" requirement as specified in Table 1, and satisfied the other requirements as set out in Element 3 (cl 3.4.1 A2).
25 The issue in contention was the provision of the "Minimum Total" open space. Table 1 specifies a minimum of 45% of the site. It was agreed that the development as constructed only provided 40.4% (86.9 square metres), which is less than the 43.3% (93 square metres) approved in the original application.
26 As the minimum total open space of the development is noncompliant with the relevant acceptable development provision of the Codes, the test is whether the application meets the performance criteria, thereby satisfying the relevant objective of the Codes. Clause 3.4.1 P1 of the Codes sets out the performance criteria for "Open Space Provision", which states:
"Sufficient open space around buildings:
• to complement the building;
• to allow attractive streetscapes;
• to suit the future needs of residents, having regard to the type and density of the dwelling."
27 The respondent contended the performance criteria had not been satisfied, as the development did not achieve an attractive streetscape and was inconsistent with other development in the area, all of which have greater front setback areas. The respondent calculated the average setback of the approved development to be 1.8632 metres and the average setback of the built development as 1.5325 metres. The respondent asserted that the modifications sought combined to make a closer, more imposing building to Sholl Lane.
28 In addition, the respondent argued that the proposal was contrary to Policy 3.5.16, as the policy advocates that a variation to the minimum total open space provisions, as stated in Table 1 and cl 3.4.1 A1 of the Codes, will not be allowed.
(Page 10)
29 The Tribunal is satisfied that the further encroachment of the building in the front setback area will have minimal visual impact on the streetscape and is considered to be compatible with the corresponding setbacks to the house on Lot 154 and with the existing building. The more significant reduction in open space is as a result of the reduction in the rear setback. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient open space around the building to suit the future needs of residents, having regard to the type and density of the dwelling.
30 The Tribunal accepts that the respondent has adopted Policy 3.5.16 to guide decision-making in relation to variations of development standards and requirements. However, the section of Policy 3.5.16 that relates to open space is not consistent with the Codes, as it provides for lesser requirements than that specified in the Codes. Clause 2.6.2i of the Codes does not provide for local planning policies to be prepared addressing local requirements for open space, and as such, minimal weight should be accorded to the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the relevant performance criteria, thereby satisfying the relevant objective of the Codes.
Whether the plot ratio of the development is acceptable
31 Column 5 of Table 1 of the Codes specifies the "Maximum Plot Ratio" for sites coded R60 as 0.65. It was common ground that the plot ratio area of the development was 195.49 square metres, yielding a plot ratio of 0.91. The plot ratio of the approved development equated to 0.85.
32 The respondent contended that the Codes did not provide for a variation to plot ratio as there is no performance criteria specified, and that an increase in plot ratio was contrary to Policy 3.5.16, which does not support variation to the maximum plot ratio requirement as specified in Table 1 of the Codes.
33 The respondent is correct in asserting that the Codes do not provide for variation to plot ratio, and it is acknowledged that Policy 3.5.16 reflects the Codes. However, the power to vary plot ratio lay in cl 20 of TPS 1, which is entitled "SPECIAL APPLICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNING CODES". This clause provides, in part, as follows:
"(5) The Council will consider variation to Residential [Design] Codes where it considers that acceptable levels of residential amenity can be achieved."
(Page 11)
34 It is to be presumed that this clause was used by the respondent in supporting the variation of the plot ratio requirement for the original development application.
35 Policy 3.5.16 has been adopted by the respondent to guide decision-making in relation to variations of development standards and requirements, and in respect to plot ratio, the policy is consistent with the position advocated by the Codes. The policy should be given weight in considering variations to plot ratio. The Tribunal notes that the respondent has already approved a higher plot ratio on the subject site and in the immediate vicinity, which would indicate that developments that realise a higher plot ratio are acceptable within this locality. The issue for the Tribunal in this instance is whether acceptable levels of residential amenity can be achieved with the additional increase in plot ratio.
36 In the context of the surrounding locality, the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional increase in plot ratio will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the locality, and that the bulk and scale of the development is consistent with other similar developments in the immediate vicinity.
Whether the height of the building is acceptable
37 The argument submitted by the respondent as identified in the respondent's submissions is as follows:
"The [Codes] requirement for walls is a maximum of 6m from natural ground level. The original approval contained a condition requiring the northern side wall to be lowered to 5.6m from the floor level. The reason behind the condition originally being imposed has not been determined and there has been no assessment of the site levels and thus natural ground level to determine the actual height of the wall. The Applicant was to provide a plan prepared by a surveyor to show the height of the wall and the ground levels to ensure the maximum wall height of 6m has not been exceeded. This is still required."
38 In relation to FFLs, the respondent submitted:
"The approved plans show a level of 29.85m and the proposed/built plans are at a level of 30.0. The survey plan [as submitted by the applicant] shows a level of 30.11. Of note no natural ground levels are provided by the applicant … This issue is tied with the issue of the wall height … It is also
(Page 12)
- essential to ensure that the floor level is not 0.5m above natural ground level, otherwise the requirements of clause 3.8.1A1 of the Codes (privacy) come into play."
39 Mr Adam examined the following documents relating to natural ground levels and building floor levels:
• A survey plan prepared at or prior to the subdivision of original Lot 8 into three lots;
• A site plan prepared in 1996 by the surveyors, following construction of the house on Lot 154, but prior to the subdivision of Lot 8 into three green title lots;
• A survey of building height dated November 2007; and
• The site plans of development on the subject land, both as approved in September 2005 and on the current application plan.
40 Based on these documents, Mr Adam concluded the height of the north-facing wall is between 6.27 metres and 6.47 metres, and that the ridge height is between 7.58 metres and 7.78 metres. He considered that these heights compare with the Codes' acceptable development heights of 6 metres and 9 metres for the walls and ridge respectively.
41 In relation to natural ground levels, using the same documents, Mr Adam concluded the following:
"the natural ground levels at the northern face of the adjoining development of Lot 154 would be of the order of RL29.70 (at the east end) rising to about 29.72 at the west end. The application drawing give a GFL for this dwelling of RL 29.85, and the construction dwelling gives a north-facing plate height of 71c (6.09m), above GFL. The wall height …would be above 0.3m higher, [that is] about 6.39m above GFL and therefore about RL 36.24. The resulting wall height would be between 6.52 and 6.53m."
42 He further noted that the construction drawings for the house on Lot 154 shows approximately 0.5 metres of fill and that the wall height of that building scales approximately 7 metres above what appears to be natural ground level.
43 This evidence was not challenged by the respondent.
(Page 13)
44 Mr Adam conceded that the wall height of the development exceeds the acceptable development provisions of the Codes and that the performance criteria relating to building height requirements are therefore invoked.
45 Clause 3.7.1 P1 of the Codes sets out the performance criteria for "Building Height Requirements", which states:
"Building height consistent with the desired height of building in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:
• adequate direct sun to buildings an appurtenant open spaces;
• adequate daylight to major opening to habitable rooms; and
• access to views of significance.
46 The specific circumstances (those identified in the dot points) identified in the performance criteria are not pertinent to this application; however, the general principles relating to consistency of desired height of building in the locality and the need to protect the amenities of adjoining property are relevant considerations. The need to consider such matters also falls under cl 38(5)(i) of the Scheme, which requires consideration of the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of any proposed building or structure.
47 No evidence was produced by the respondent to indicate the desired height of buildings in the locality.
48 The Tribunal considered the height of existing buildings in the immediate vicinity as a relevant factor in determining the desired height of building for this locality. Of particular relevance was the existing house on Lot 154, which is noticeably higher than the house on the subject land. The applicant asserted that it is "at least between 60mm and 250mm higher, and possibly as much as about 0.75m higher". The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Adam in relation the compatibility of the building height with other dwellings in the locality and his considered view on the impact of the development on the adjoining properties.
(Page 14)
49 In the context of the surroundings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the building height of the development is comparable with other residential buildings in the locality and is consistent with the desired height of building in the locality. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the height of the development will not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining properties.
Conclusion
50 The Tribunal is satisfied that the development meets the applicable objectives of the Codes, and having regard to the matters set out in cl 38(5) of TPS 1, considers that the proposed development will not prejudice the orderly and proper planning for the locality, and should be approved subject to appropriate conditions.
Conditions
51 As required by direction of the Tribunal, the respondent prepared "without prejudice" draft conditions to be imposed if the Tribunal considers that approval of the application, subject to conditions, is appropriate. The suggested four conditions were accepted by the applicant.
52 Proposed condition 3 requires the windows to bedroom 2 on the northern elevation to be screened with a permanent obscure material and be non-openable to a minimum of 1.6 metres above the finished first floor level. The agreed condition also includes an alternative which provides that the privacy screening works are not required if the Town receives written consent from owners of the adjoining properties stating that they have no objection to the respective privacy encroachments.
53 Planning is concerned about use and impact rather than the identity of affected persons. Therefore, the absence of an objection from the current occupant or owner does not make the privacy screening unnecessary in terms of orderly planning. Further, as I said earlier, the applicant has agreed to the installation of the privacy screening. The condition should be modified to delete any reference to the alternative option.
Orders
54 For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is allowed.
(Page 15)
- 2. The decision of the respondent made on 25 September 2007 to refuse retrospective planning approval for alterations and additions to approved two-storey single house on Lot 156 (No 2A) Sholl Lane, North Perth is set aside and a decision is substituted that retrospective planning approval is granted for alteration and additions as shown on plans, referred to as Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4 of 5, prepared by Paterson Tudor Owen & Parker and Tecnica Drafting, and dated stamped received by the Town of Vincent on 9 March 2007, subject to the following conditions:
(i) All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennas, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive.
(ii) Any new street/front wall, fence and gate between the Sholl Lane boundary and the main building, including along the side boundaries within the front setback area, shall comply with the following:
(a) the maximum height of posts and piers being 1.8 metres above the adjacent footpath level;
(b) decorative capping on top of posts and piers may extend the total maximum height of the posts and piers to 2 metres above the adjacent footpath level;
(c) the maximum width, depth and diameter of posts and piers being 350 millimetres;
(d) the maximum height of the solid portion being 1.2 metres above the adjacent footpath level, and the section above this solid portion being visually permeable, with a minimum 50% transparency; and
- (e) the provision of a minimum 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres truncation where walls, fences and gates adjoin vehicle access points, or where a driveway meets a public street or right of way, or where two streets intersect. Walls, fences and gates may be located within this truncation area where the maximum height of the solid portion is 0.65 metre above the adjacent footpath level.
- (iii) Within 28 days of the issue of the State Administrative Tribunal determination orders in relation to the subject review application (DR 368 of 2007), the windows to bedroom 2 on the northern elevation shall be screened with a permanent obscure material and be non-openable to a minimum of 1.6 metres above the finished first floor level. A permanent obscure material does not include a self-adhesive material or other material that is easily removed. The whole windows can be top hinged and the obscure portion of the window openable to a maximum of 20 degrees.
(iv) Subject to obtaining the consent of owners of No 2 Sholl Lane for entry onto their land, the owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) walls facing No 2 Sholl Lane and Fitzgerald Street in a good and clean condition.
I certify that this and the preceding [54] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS M CONNOR, MEMBER
0
4