Choong and City of Subiaco
[2010] WASAT 86
•17 JUNE 2010
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: CHOONG and CITY OF SUBIACO [2010] WASAT 86
MEMBER: MS M CONNOR (MEMBER)
HEARD: 28 JANUARY 2010 AND 19 FEBRUARY 2010 FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 9 APRIL AND 30 APRIL 2010
DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2010
FILE NO/S: DR 331 of 2009
BETWEEN: SUK KHAN CHOONG
Applicant
AND
CITY OF SUBIACO
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town Planning Development application Refusal for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a single storey dwelling Location and vehicular access arrangement of double garage Right of way at rear Minimisation of crossovers Surrounding development Streetscape Existing pattern of parking Safety
Legislation:
City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 27(3), cl 27(4), cl 27(4)(b), cl 37, cl 39(3), cl 70(1)(a), cl 78, cl 78(8)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1), s 252(2)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008), cl 6.5, cl 6.5.3, cl 6.2.8
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2005 (WA), s 31
Result:
The application for review is dismissed
The decisions of the respondent are affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr S Allerding (Representative)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Allerding & Associates
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Mitchell and City of Subiaco [2008] WASAT 230
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
Ms Choong applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the City of Subiaco's decision to refuse planning consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a single storey dwelling on No 4 Rankin Road, Shenton Park.
The only aspect of the design of the proposed dwelling that was in dispute was the double garage element, which took access from the primary street. The following three principal issues arose for determination in this matter:
1)Does the application meet the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 and the objective of cl 6.5 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008)?
2)Is the construction of a double garage, accessed from the primary street (Rankin Road), inconsistent with the respondent's Residential Car Parking Policy, and if so, should the policy be departed from given the circumstances of this case?
3)Whether it is appropriate to approve the demolition of the existing dwelling if the construction of the proposed dwelling is determined to be unacceptable.
The respondent contended that two aspects of the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) had not been satisfied, that being vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers and not detract from the streetscape. The Tribunal found that, providing there was only one crossover onto Rankin Road servicing the single house, the performance criteria relating to vehicular access would be satisfied and thereby meet the objective of cl 6.5 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008).
As to whether the proposed development was inconsistent with the respondent's Residential Car Parking Policy, the Tribunal found that it was appropriate in the circumstances of this particular case to approve a variation to the access requirements of the policy and support vehicular access onto Rankin Road for the subject land. Despite this finding, the Tribunal did not support the location of a double garage as shown on the plans submitted by Ms Choong, as such a proposal was considered to be contrary to the intent of the policy and there was no reason in the circumstances of this case to warrant departure from the policy. However, the Tribunal was supportive of a redesign that substituted the proposed double garage for a single bay garage accessed from Rankin Road, with the width of the vehicular access being reduced to reflect the dimensions of the single garage.
The Tribunal did not address the issue of demolition in its decision as, Ms Choong, during the course of the hearing, told the Tribunal that she considered the two applications to be integral and did not want approval to demolish the existing dwelling without the approval to construct a new dwelling on the subject land.
The application for review was dismissed and the decisions of the respondent affirmed.
Introduction
Ms Suk Choong (Ms Choong) made application to the City of Subiaco (respondent or Council) for approval to demolish the existing dwelling and construction of a single storey dwelling on No 4 (Lot 512) Rankin Road, Shenton Park (subject land).
The application for demolition was refused by the respondent on 30 July 2009, stating the following reason:
a)A Development Application for the subsequent redevelopment of the site, which meets the requirements of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 and relevant policies, has not been approved.
The application to commence development for the single house was also refused by the respondent on 30 July 2009, stating the following reasons:
a)The proposal does not meet the requirement of Clause 27(4)(b), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the City's Town Planning Scheme as it is inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality, the conservation of the amenity of the locality and the scale of the existing buildings in the surrounding area.
b)The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 28(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the City's Town Planning Scheme as the proposed development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality or the preservation of the amenity of the locality.
c)The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 41(2) (f) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the proposal would have undue adverse impacts on the general amenity of the locality.
d)The proposal does not meet with the City's Car Parking Policy in relation to the locality and design of car parking.
On 28 August 2009, Ms Choong made application under s 252(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) to have the decisions reviewed. Section 252(2) of the PD Act relates to the classification of a use or the permissibility of a use that is not listed under the local scheme. Neither of these matters relate to the application at hand. The parties were made aware of the error and the Tribunal proceeded as if the application had been made under s 252(1) of the PD Act.
The matters proceeded to directions hearing, which resulted in an invitation by the Tribunal to the respondent to reconsider its decisions under s 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The City reiterated its previous decision.
Proposal
The proposal involves the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is 325.24 square metres in area, consisting of entry, lounge and dining areas, four bedrooms, two bathrooms, laundry, alfresco area and double garage accessed from the primary street (Rankin Road). It is the location and access arrangement of the double garage that finds issue with the respondent.
There is an attempt in the design of the dwelling to reduce the impact of the double garage on the street. Bedroom 1, which is set back 6.3 metres from the front boundary, projects forward of the double garage, which is set back 6.8 metres from the front boundary.
Planning framework
The subject land is zoned Urban in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Residential with a density coding of R20 under the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4 or Scheme).
Clause 37 of TPS 4 divides the Scheme area into precincts and notes that for each precinct there is a planning policy contained in the respondent's policy manual. The subject land is located in the Shenton Park precinct.
Clause 39(3) of TPS 4 provides that '[u]nless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Codes is to conform to the provisions of those Codes'. The proposed development falls within the ambit of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes). Further, cl 70(1)(a) of TPS 4 provides that car parking is to be provided in accordance with the Codes for residential development.
The only provisions of the Codes that are in contention in this matter are cl 6.5 Access and parking requirements, and more specifically the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 Vehicular access.
Clause 27(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 27(4) of the Scheme sets out the matter to which regard is to be given in the determination of an application. The pertinent matters relating to this application area as follows:
•the provisions of the Scheme and of any written law applying within the Scheme area, including the MRS (cl (a));
•any relevant planning policies (cl (b));
•any submission accompanying or relating to the application (cl (e));
•the orderly and proper planning of the locality (cl (f));
•the conservation of the amenity of the locality (cl (g)); and
•the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of any proposed building or structure. (cl (h)).
Clause 78 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 Scheme. These policies may be applied to all or part of the Scheme area. The planning policy of the respondent that is relevant to this review is Policy 3.7 Residential Car Parking (Policy 3.7). According to the respondent, this policy has been formulated and adopted by the Council in accordance with the provisions of cl 78 of the Scheme.
Clause 78(8) of the Scheme provides that a planning policy prepared under cl 78 shall be consistent with the Scheme and, where any inconsistencies arise, the Scheme prevails. Clause 27(4)(b) requires consideration of planning policy in the determination of an application.
Issue
The only aspect of the design of the proposed dwelling that is in dispute is the double garage, which takes access from the primary street. The following three principal issues arise for determination in relation to this review:
1)Does the application meet the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 and the objective of cl 6.5 of the Codes?
2)Is the construction of a double garage, accessed from the primary street (Rankin Road), inconsistent with the respondent's Policy 3.7, and if so, should the respondent's Policy 3.7 be departed from, given the circumstances of this case?
3)Whether it is appropriate to approve the demolition of the existing dwelling if the construction of the proposed dwelling is determined to be unacceptable.
The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.
Does the application meet the performance criteria of clִ6.5.4 and the objective of cl 6.5 of the Codes?
It was generally accepted by the parties that the proposed development did not meet the acceptable development provisions of cl 6.5.4 of the Codes and therefore the application required assessment against the corresponding performance criteria.
Clause 6.5.4 of the Codes specifies the performance criteria for vehicular access as follows:
P4Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, avoid street trees, to be safe in use and not detract from the streetscape.
The respondent contended that two aspects of the performance criteria had not been satisfied, that being 'to minimise the number of crossovers' and 'not detract from the streetscape'. Ms Natalie Martin Goode, Manager of Planning Service for the City of Subiaco, argued that as the design of the development failed to access the right of way and resulted in at least one crossover on to Rankin Road, the development could not be said to minimise the number of crossovers. As to the issue of streetscape, Ms Martin Goode considered it in the context of the definition 'Surrounding Development' as contained in Policy 3.7, that being five properties either side of the proposed development on both sides of the street (excluding laneways/rights of way) that the dwelling is orientated towards, and described the streetscape as follows:
The streetscape is mixed in terms of there are some older dwellings and some newer dwellings and there's also a mixture of garages, hardstands, single carport and double carports and rear car parking but the most notable thing about the streetscape is that there are no double garages in that streetscape.
Ms Martin Goode argued that the development would degrade the streetscape, as the double garage, which is a dominant feature in the front elevation of the proposed dwelling, is inconsistent with the streetscape and therefore does not meet the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 of the Codes.
The plans submitted with the application indicate one crossover located on the western side of the subject land. However, there is an existing crossover that currently services the existing dwelling which is located on the eastern side of the subject land. One of the suggested 'without prejudice' draft conditions submitted by the respondent related to this issue and required '[t]he redundant car parking area, driveway and crossover located at the southeast corner of the lot is to be removed at the owner's expense prior to the occupation of the building'. Ms Choong's response to the 'without prejudice' draft conditions indicated opposition to the removal of the crossover. Ms Choong further indicated during the hearing that it was her preference to retain the existing crossover, as it is in excellent condition and could provide access for visitor parking without reducing the number of street parking bays.
The retention of the existing crossover and the construction of an additional crossover to service the proposed dwelling cannot be considered as minimising the number of crossovers, given that the only development occurring on the subject land is a 'single house'. A design response, such as the one proposed, does not satisfy the performance criteria and therefore would not achieve the objective of cl 6.5 of the Codes. The Tribunal, however, does not agree with Ms Martin Goode's argument in relation to the minimisation of crossovers, as her interpretation would, in effect, undermine the performance criteria, as it would never be possible to satisfy that limb of the performance criteria with an alternate proposal where the property has access to a rear laneway/right of way. Clearly, this is not the intent of the Codes, as the proposition proffered by the acceptable development provision is one way of satisfying the performance criteria, not the only way. The circumstances of each case need to be considered in assessing whether the proposal satisfies this limb of the performance criteria. In this particular instance, there is already an existing crossover accessing Rankin Road, and all lots fronting onto Rankin Road within the area defined by the definition of 'Surrounding Development' have crossovers onto Rankin Road. Relocating the crossover to the other side of the property neither increases nor decreases the number of crossovers and, providing there is only one crossover servicing the single house, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development would satisfy this aspect of the performance criteria.
The Tribunal, together with representatives of the parties, had the benefit of a view of the subject land and the surrounding properties, which entailed walking along Rankin and Waylen Roads, and the rights of way between Nicholson and Rankin Roads, and Rankin and Waylen Roads. It was evident from the view that vehicle access and crossovers are a common element in both Rankin and Waylen Roads and form part of the character of the existing streetscape. Ms Martin Goode's argument relating to the impact of the dominance of the double garage element of the proposed development on the streetscape is not relevant in dealing with this clause of the Codes, as cl 6.5.4 is confined to vehicular access. Given the character of the streetscape of Rankin Road, the Tribunal considers that the relocation of the existing crossover to the other side of the subject land would not detract from the existing streetscape. The same cannot be said for a proposal which provides new access arrangements and retains the existing crossover and vehicular access. Such access arrangements would become the dominant visual element within the front setback area of the subject land, which would detract from the existing streetscape and, as such, would not satisfy the performance criteria of cl 6.5.4 of the Codes.
Is the construction of a double garage, accessed from the primary street (Rankin Road) inconsistent with the respondent's Policy 3.7 and, if so, should the policy be departed from given the circumstances of this case?
The City adopted Policy 3.7 pursuant to cl 78 of TPS 4 to complement the provisions of TPS 4 and the Codes in relation to streetscape, vehicular access and car parking. The intent of the policy is to minimise the detrimental impact of inappropriately located onsite car parking areas and structures on existing streetscapes, whilst protecting the safety of the public.
One of the stated objectives of Policy 3.7 is '[t]o reduce the visibility of car parking areas and structures from the perspective of the primary street where preferable access is available'.
Policy 3.7 set outs, in order of acceptability, possible locations and access arrangements for car parking areas and structures. These are as follows:
6.1 Rear Access Located to the rear of a property behind the dwelling, not accessed by or visible from the primary street. Lots that have vehicular access via a right-of-way should use the right-of-way for access to all required car-parking facilities. (Most acceptable).
6.2 Secondary Street Located and accessed off a secondary street behind the dwelling, not visible from the primary frontage of the dwelling.
6.3 Front Access Accessed off the primary street and located at the rear of the property.
6.4 Side of dwelling Located behind the primary building line, alongside the dwelling and accessed off the primary street.
6.5 Front of dwelling Car parking areas and structures (excluding garages) located forward of the primary building line (in front of the dwelling). (Least Acceptable).
There is no dispute that the subject land has access to the right of way that is located at the rear of the property. In the context of the policy, the most desired location and access arrangement for the subject land is to locate the garage at the rear of the property accessed via the right of way. The design of the proposed dwelling falls within the second least acceptable option, being 'side of dwelling'.
Policy 3.7 takes an inflexible approach to the options, and stipulates that Council will not approve access from a primary street where a more acceptable method of access is available (that is, the options set out in cl 6.1 or cl 6.2 of Policy 3.7). However, cl 8.0 of Policy 3.7 provides the ability to vary the location and/or access to onsite car parking requirements where one or more of the 12 specified exceptions apply. The exceptions pressed by Ms Choong are cl 8.2, cl 8.3, cl 8.6 and cl 8.8, which read as follows:
8.2Where there is, in the surrounding development, a suitable existing pattern of parking within the street setback area (nominally greater than 50%). In determining whether the existing pattern of parking in surrounding development is suitable, regard will be given to:
i)Whether surrounding development has the potential to be redeveloped such that car parking can be provided in a more acceptable location as defined by clause 6.0 of this policy;
ii)Whether the existing pattern of parking structures in the street setback area are of high architectural and streetscape quality; and
iii)In cases of uncovered car parking areas, whether the location has the necessary approval to be considered suitable by the City.
As defined in cl 2.0, 'surrounding development':
…
[m]eans the five properties on either side of the proposed development on both sides of the street (excluding laneways/rightof-ways) that the dwelling is orientated towards. More significance will be given to surrounding development that is closer to the proposed development, particularly in the case of corner lots.
8.3Where it can be demonstrated that the proposed car parking arrangement would benefit a disabled or other occupant with demonstrated exceptional access requirements[.]
8.6Where there is insufficient space to enable adequate manoeuvring into a rear parking space[.]
8.8Where it can be demonstrated that the proposal is safer than the otherwise preferred parking location[.]
The respondent asserted that the proposed development was inconsistent with Policy 3.7, as there is the ability to provide access other than from the primary street, and that none of the exceptions specified in cl 8 of the policy justified a variation to the standards.
In response to cl 8.2 of Policy 3.7, Ms Martin Goode analysed the lots within the area defined by the policy as 'surrounding development', and calculated that 13 (76%) of the properties within that area had parking within the front setback area (refer to Exhibit 14). Of these properties, she asserted that 11 properties (85%) had the 'potential' to be redeveloped such that parking could be provided in a more acceptable location as identified in Policy 3.7. There was further clarification given by Ms Martin Goode during reexamination, where she identified only three properties as having the required resident car parking, that being two bays per dwelling, within the front setback area (equating to 17.6%).
Ms Martin Goode told the Tribunal that her assessment relating to 'potential' was based on whether opportunity existed to relocate car parking on the properties in a more acceptable location, as defined by cl 6 of Policy 3.7. She indicated that this may be achieved through demolition of the existing dwelling and replacement with a new dwelling or modifications to the existing dwelling. She contended that eight of the properties (53.3%) that currently have access onto Rankin Road have the potential to redevelop, such that all parking is entirely accessed from the right of way only. However, this calculation includes four properties that already incorporate rear access from the right of way into their development. Ms Martin Goode's analysis of the potential to redevelop did not factor in whether the existing parking structures were of high architectural quality, or the likelihood of their removal.
In assessing the second limb of cl 8.2 of Policy 3.7, that being architectural quality of the existing car parking structures, Ms Martin Goode considered there to be four parking structures with access from the primary street that were of low architectural quality, which implied that the remaining seven parking structures with access to Rankin Road were of high architectural standard (refer to Exhibit 14). Ms Choong disputed this figure and asserted that there were only three car parking structures of low architectural quality, as she considered the lock up garages at No 6 and No 6A Rankin Road to be of high architectural standard.
The evidence shows that 15 (88%) of the 17 properties identified within the 'surrounding development' area have vehicular access onto Rankin Road. Of these, five properties currently have vehicular access onto Rankin Road and substantial garage structures accessing the right of way. A further six properties are not able to gain access onto the rear laneways and therefore will always have vehicular access onto Rankin Road. Given this pattern, there is realistically only four properties that could potentially be redeveloped so as to prevent access onto Rankin Road, although one of these (No 8) has recently been renovated, incorporating a double carport accessing Rankin Road. Further, 76% of the properties within the surrounding development area had some form of parking within the front setback area. As to the architectural quality of the parking structures that have access onto Rankin Road, the evidence suggests that at least 63% of these are of high architectural quality. There are a further two properties (No 7 and No 9) that have what are considered to be parking structures of low architectural quality. However, these structures can only be replaced and perhaps relocated further behind the building setback line, as there is no potential to relocate these structures to the rear of the properties.
In Mitchell and City of Subiaco [2008] WASAT 230 at [43], the Tribunal observed that 'while the planning instruments establish an expectation that parking and access will be located at the rear when rear access is available, there will be occasions where it is reasonable or desirable that some other location for parking and access be considered'. The Tribunal considers this to be one such occasion. The Tribunal is of the view that the existing pattern of access and parking will remain and form an integral part of the visual elements and functionality of the streetscape of this section of Rankin Road and, therefore, access on to Rankin Road is acceptable. However, it is essential that the design of the new dwelling is sympathetic to and complements the existing street, and does not significantly detract from the character of the 'surrounding development' area.
Ms Martin Goode's description of the streetscape as set out in [25] above gives emphasis to the fact that there are no double garages in the streetscape. She considered the double garage element of the proposed dwelling to be a dominant feature of the design which, in turn, would present as a dominant feature in the streetscape and will adversely affect the established and future character of the surrounding area.
Ms Choong contended that development in Rankin Road had been sporadic and varied in nature, and that a double lock up garage would add to the diversity of the streetscape. She asserted that an analysis of streetscape was subjective and could be interpreted differently by different individuals, and rejected the respondent's claim that the double garage would degrade the streetscape. To demonstrate the subjectiveness of the streetscape analysis, Ms Choong referred to the four submissions received by the respondent from surrounding owners/occupants, and highlighted the fact that three of the submissions support her application and only one submission objected to the double garage element of the proposed development.
The Tribunal does not accept Ms Choong's position and holds that an objective assessment can be undertaken to determine the character of the streetscape within the 'surrounding development' area. The evidence shows that the existing streetscape is part of a traditional suburban residential subdivision with generally large size allotments that are capable of either subdivision into two lots or being developed with two dwellings on the existing lots (grouped dwellings). All of the dwellings that front onto Rankin Road, with the exception of one (No 3), have the appearance of a single storey dwelling, with grassed/landscaped front setbacks with varying degrees of parking visible from the street. The street itself has some canopy trees and vegetation along the verges, and this creates a positive and unifying visual effect along the street. Vehicular driveways break this feature regularly, but these are generally narrow and well spaced and, as a result, they do not dominate the overall character of the street. The existing streetscape generally has a single storey scale and parking structures do not present as a dominating feature of the dwellings or the streetscape. The predominant parking arrangements and/or structures that are visible from the street are hardstand areas and single carports located to the side of the dwellings.
Clearly, the proposed double lock up garage is an element that is not recognisable in the existing streetscape and, if constructed, would present as a dominant feature detracting from the overall streetscape within the 'surrounding development' area. Although the proportion of garage to dwelling is compliant with the acceptable development provisions of cl 6.2.8 of the Codes, the design response of the proposed development does not respect the dominant building scale and form of the main elements in the streetscape. The Tribunal considers that a more appropriate design response is required in this instance, one that is more sympathetic to the streetscape. A sensitive design should ensure that the garaging is hidden, or minor in proportion, scale and presence in the streetscape. The most effective option is to locate the double garage at the rear of the proposed dwelling, accessed from the right of way. However, in the context of the characteristics of the existing pattern of the streetscape, a single bay garage constructed on the same alignment as the proposed double garage (not necessarily with a visually permeable roller door, as the garage would not be built forward of the primary building line, which reflects cl 7.5 of Policy 7.3) is considered to be acceptable. Any additional parking requirements of Ms Choong could be provided at the rear of the dwelling, accessed from the right of way. This option would, to some extent, fulfil the needs of Ms Choong by providing a secure parking structure accessed directly to the dwelling, and produces a planning outcome that is sympathetic with the streetscape of the 'surrounding development' area.
With respect to cl 8.3 of Policy 3.7, the Tribunal acknowledges the ailments suffered by Ms Choong and the difficulties experienced and risks arising from her condition. However, the Tribunal agrees with the argument put by the respondent that, as the existing dwelling is to be demolished there is ample opportunity to incorporate the needs of Ms Choong and to achieve a design that minimises the detrimental impact of the garage structure on the streetscape of the 'surrounding development' area.
In regard to cl 8.6 and cl 8.8 of Policy 3.7, Ms Choong argued that there was insufficient space to enable adequate manoeuvring into a rear parking space as the laneway was only 5 metres in width, and that access from Rankin Road was safer than access from the laneway. Ms Choong referred to Liveable Neighbourhoods which indicates the typical road pavement width for a laneway as 6 metres. However, it should also be noted that the range that was specified as an indicative road pavement width for laneways was 3 metres 6.4 metres. As rightly pointed out by the respondent, the issue with manoeuvring can be easily overcome by ensuring that any parking structure is set back at least 1 metre from the rear boundary, which can easily be accommodated on the subject land, given the size of the lot and the demolition of the existing dwelling. The 1 metre setback would increase the effective width of the right of way to 6 metres, thereby improving the turning radius and visibility whilst manoeuvring. Similarly, sight line issues can also be overcome by ensuring adequate setback distances from the right of way.
In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to approve a variation to the access requirements of Policy 3.7 and support vehicular access from Rankin Road for the subject land. Despite this finding, the Tribunal does not support the location of a double garage as shown on the plans submitted by Ms Choong, as such a proposal is contrary to the intent of the Policy 3.7 and there is no reason in the circumstances of this case that warrants departure from the policy. However, the Tribunal is supportive of a redesign that substitutes the proposed double garage for a single bay garage accessed from Rankin Road, with the width of the vehicular access being reduced to reflect the dimensions of the single garage.
Whether it is appropriate to approve the demolition of the existing dwelling if the construction of the proposed dwelling is determined to be unacceptable
Ms Choong told the Tribunal at the hearing that she considered the two applications to be integral, and did not want approval to demolish the existing dwelling without the approval to construct a new dwelling on the subject land. Given Ms Choong's position, the Tribunal did not proceed to address this issue.
Orders
For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decisions of the respondent are affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [50] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS M CONNOR, MEMBER