CITYGATE PROPERTIES PTY LTD and CITY OF BUNBURY

Case •

[2010] WASAT 1

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION:   CITYGATE PROPERTIES PTY LTD and CITY OF BUNBURY [2010] WASAT 1

MEMBER:   MS M CONNOR (MEMBER)

HEARD:   23 NOVEMBER 2009

DELIVERED          :   11 JANUARY 2010

FILE NO/S:   DR 278 of 2009

BETWEEN:   CITYGATE PROPERTIES PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

CITY OF BUNBURY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development application - Refusal of showroom/warehouse development - Adjoining land zoned 'Residential' - Development complies with all expressed development standards and requirements for Mixed Business zone - Residual discretion - Whether side and rear setbacks adequate - Interface requires sensitive design - Amenity - Expectations - Impacts

Legislation:

City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No 7, cl 2.1.1, cl 2.2, cl 2.4, cl 4.2.1.4, cl 5.9.4.4.1, cl 10.2.1, cl 10.3.1, Table 1, Pt 2
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008)

Result:

The application for review is allowed
The decision of the respondent is set aside and conditional approval granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr JCW Skinner

Respondent:     Mr CA Slarke

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Jackson McDonald

Respondent:     McLeods

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

BP Australia Pty Ltd v City of Perth (Appeal No 16 of 1993)

Empire Securities Pty Ltd and Ors and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 98

Gosatti Holding Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle (Appeal No 48 of 1999)

St Patrick's Community Support Centre and City of Fremantle [2007] WASAT 318

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: 

Summary of Tribunal's decision

  1. Citygate Properties Pty Ltd applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the City of Bunbury's decision to refuse planning approval for the construction of a showroom/warehouse development at No 4 (Lot 38) Mervyn Street, Bunbury.

  2. The principal issue that emerged for consideration in the review was whether the proposed setbacks to the eastern and northern boundaries were adequate.  The issue arose because of the need for a transitional interface between two different zones, that being the 'Mixed Business' zone and the 'Residential' zone.

  3. The proposed development complied with all the expressed development standards and requirements for development in the 'Mixed Business' zone.  The Tribunal accepted the general principle that at a zone interface, a development proposal in one zone needs to recognise and take into account the form of existing development and/or development likely to occur in an adjoining different zone and found that there was residual discretion in the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No 7 to decide whether the proposed development should be approved.

  4. The Tribunal found that the built form of the proposed development was responsive to the transitional nature of the area and would have minimal impact on the existing and future amenity of the adjoining residential lots and as such, the proposed setbacks to the eastern and northern boundaries were acceptable.  The application for review was allowed and planning approval was granted subject to conditions.

Introduction

  1. An application for planning approval was lodged with the City of Bunbury (respondent or City) on 10 February 2009 for a warehouse and/or showroom at No 4 (Lot 38) Mervyn Street, Bunbury (subject land).  Revised plans for the proposed development were submitted on 13 May 2009.

  2. The application to commence development was refused by the respondent for the following reasons:

    1.The proposed development would be built up to the boundary with the adjoining residential (R15) properties creating a land use conflict and adverse impacts on use and amenity by virtue of building height, length and proximity to the residential boundaries and as such would be contrary to the provisions of Clause 5.9.4.4 ­ 'Building Height' of Town Planning Scheme No 7.

    2.The adjoining residential (R15) properties currently enjoy openness and space with no built form on the boundaries.  If a similar scale development was proposed on these adjoining residential properties then a 2.3 metre setback would be required for a wall length of 30 m and height of 5 metres.  Having regard to that requirement, the proposed development would, amongst other things, be contrary to Clause 1.6.3 ­ 'The Aims of the Scheme', (g) ­ 'to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of         the built and natural environment of the local government area; and (k), 'To ensure the separation of incompatible land uses'; of Town Planning Scheme No 7.

    3.The proposed structure would be used for the purpose of Warehouse/Showroom.  A 'showroom' is a 'P' use (Town Planning Scheme No 7, Clause 4.3) which 'means that the use is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme'[and] address any other issues raised under Clause 10.2 of the Scheme.  A 'warehouse' use is a 'D' which means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.  A warehouse use is considered to be more intrusive than a showroom use and given the proximity of the proposed structure to the adjoining residential properties to the east and north, would exacerbate land use conflict and undermine the existing level of residential amenity to those properties.  As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Clause 4.3.2 and the associated Zoning Table No 1 of Town Planning Scheme No 7.

    4.The proposed car­parking layout; access and pedestrian safety has not been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the City's Engineer in that with the car parking bays having a proposed length of 4.8 metres, and the 0.6 metre overhang allowed in the Australian Standards, leaving a separation of 0.6 metres to the building wall ­ pedestrians will have no other alternative but to walk along the vehicle aisle to reach the building entrance.  The potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians is unacceptable and can be avoided by altering the design of the proposed tenancy.  The current design also does not indicate how the disabled gain safe access to either building.  As such, the proposal does not sufficiently address Clause 5.7.1.6(c) of Town Planning Scheme No 7 ­ 'means of access' and (f) ­ 'pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement and safety' which require addressing prior to the Council considering planning approval.  There would also be conflict with Clause 10.2.1, (t), and (u) in that inadequate provision has been made for pedestrian access and access for disabled persons.

    5.The proposed development would be contrary to Clause 10.2.1(a) and (b) of Town Planning Scheme No 7, in that the residential amenity; land value and character of the residential area would be compromised and adversely affected and to approve the proposed development would constitute a failure of the City's duty of care to its residents and would thus be contrary to the requirements of orderly and proper planning.

    6.The proposal would not be in accordance with the provision of Section 10.2.1(i), (n) and (o) of Town Planning Scheme No 7 in that the proposed structure would create built form adversely affecting the adjoining landowners amenity by virtue of height; bulk; scale and an overbearing appearance on the boundaries with the residential properties, that has not previously existed, bringing the two incompatible land uses to conflict to the detriment of the residential properties.

    7.The proposal would be contrary to Clause 10.2(y) of Town Planning Scheme No 7 in that submissions have been received from three (3) adjoining landowners objecting to the proposed development by virtue of the setbacks and building up to the boundary.

    8.The proposal would be contrary to orderly and proper planning and detrimental to the amenity of the adjacent residential locality.

  3. The applicant, on 14 July 2009, made application under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) to have the decision reviewed.

Subject land

  1. The subject land is more particularly described as Lot 38 Mervyn Street, Bunbury being the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume, 1454 Folio 899 and is 2491 square metres in area.

  2. There is currently an existing concrete tilt­up panel building, which is approximately 895 square metres in area, located on the western portion on the subject land.  The existing building is currently used for showroom/warehouse purposes.

  3. The subject land has previously been utilised as a transport depot, spray painting premises and motor wrecker's yard.

Proposal

  1. The proposal involves the construction of a concrete tilt panel showroom/warehouse building with a metal roof and glass and aluminium shopfronts.  The building is to be located on the vacant, eastern portion of the subject land.

  2. The building is 545 square metres in area and is setback 7.5 metres from Mervyn Street (southern boundary).  The northern (rear) wall is 15 metres long and is setback 600 millimetres from the rear boundary (common with Lot 37).  The total length of the eastern (side) wall is 40.18 metres.  A 21.2 metre­long section of the eastern wall is to be setback 600 millimetres from the side boundary (common with Lot 17).  The remaining 18.98 metre long section of the eastern wall is to be setback 2 metres from the side boundary (common with Lot 16).  The height of the building is to be 5 metres along its eastern elevation, rising to 5.8 metres at the western elevation.  The eastern and northern walls are proposed to have trellising attached to allow coverage by climbing plants.

  3. An additional 11 car parking bays are proposed to be constructed onsite.

Planning framework

  1. The subject land is zoned 'Mixed Business' under the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No 7 (TPS 7 or Scheme).  Under the Scheme, the surrounding land is zoned/reserved as follows:

    •land immediately to the north and east of the subject land is currently zoned 'Residential' with R15 density coding;

    •land abutting to the west of the subject land is designated as 'Parks and Recreation'; and

    •land on the southern side of Mervyn Street, opposite the subject land, is zoned 'Mixed Business'.

  2. Clause 4.2.1.4 of TPS 7 sets out the following broad objective of the 'Mixed Business' zone:

    To provide for a wide range of light and service industry, storage, wholesaling, showrooms, trade and professional service and a limited range of other mixed business uses which, by reason of their scale, character, operational or land requirements, are not generally appropriate to be accommodated within the City Centre, Shopping Centre or Industry Zones.

  3. Table 1 ­ Zoning Table of TPS 7 designates 'Showroom' as a 'P' use and 'Warehouse' as a 'D' use in the 'Mixed Business' zone.

  4. With respect to the development standards or requirements applied by the Scheme for development within the 'Mixed Business' zone, the proposed development complies with:

    •plot ratio (0.57 proposed ­ maximum permitted 1.5);

    •site coverage (57% proposed ­ maximum permitted 70%);

    •the minimum landscaping provisions (8% proposed ­ 8% required);

    •minimum floor area (545 square metres provided ­ minimum of 200 square metres

    •car parking provisions (28 provided ­ 17 required); and

    •front setback (7.5 metres proposed ­ 7.5 metres required).

  5. The Scheme is silent on side and rear setbacks and in relation to building height, cl 5.9.4.4.1, provides as follows:

    … the local government is to give due consideration to the building height and possible impacts on the use and amenity of any adjoining residential land.

  6. Clause 10.3.1 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 10.2.1 of the Scheme sets out the matter to which due regard it to be given in the determination of a matter.  The pertinent matters relating to this application are as follows:

    •the aims and provisions of the Scheme (cl 10.2.1(a));

    •the requirements of orderly and proper planning (cl 10.2.1(b));

    •any Local Planning Policy adopted under cl 2.4, (cl 10.2.1(f));

    •the compatibility of a use or development with its setting (cl 10.2.1(i));

    •the preservation of the amenity of the locality (cl 10.2.1(n));

    •the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal (cl 10.2.1(o));

    •any relevant submissions received on the application (cl 10.2.1(y)); and

    •any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant (cl 10.2.1(za)).

  7. Clause 2.1.1 of the Scheme empowers the Council to make planning policies in respect to any matter relating to planning and development of the Scheme area.  These policies may apply to all or part of the Scheme area.  Three local planning policies of the respondent that are relevant to this review are:

    •Mixed Business Zone ­ Areas of Commercial Primacy (Commercial Primacy Policy);

    •Non­Residential Development in or Adjacent to Residential Areas (Non­Residential Policy); and

    •Building Height

  8. According to the respondent, these policies have been formulated and adopted pursuant to Part 2 of the Scheme.  This evidence was not challenged by the applicant.

  9. The local planning policies are not part of the Scheme and do not bind the local government in respect of any application for planning approval, however, cl 2.2 and cl 10.2.1 of the Scheme both require consideration of local planning policies in the determination of an application.

Issues

  1. The single issue identified by the parties in these proceedings related to whether the proposed setbacks to the eastern and northern boundaries are adequate.

  2. The respondent submitted that the issue arises because of the interface between two different zones, that is the 'Mixed Business' zone and the 'Residential' zone. The respondent contended that the development should be sensitively designed to provide an appropriate transition between the two zones. The respondent accepted that the Scheme did not make any explicit provision for side and rear setbacks and that the proposed development complied with all the specific requirements specified in the Scheme, but asserted that the amenity impacts associated with the bulk, height and scale of the development must be taken into consideration in the determination of this application and relied on the following clauses of the Scheme ­ cl 5.9.4.4.1, cl 10.2.1(i), cl 10.2.1(n) and cl 10.2.1(o), see paras [18] ­ [19].

  3. The respondent submitted that the proposed setbacks of the development to the adjoining residential properties were inadequate having regard to the impacts of those setbacks on residential amenity.  The respondent maintained that the development did not achieve an appropriate sensitive transition between the two land uses and was incompatible with its setting.  The respondent asserted that an increase in the rear and side setbacks would serve to ameliorate the overall affect of the height, bulk and scale of the proposed commercial development on the abutting residential development.

  4. Mr Gary Miller Fitzgerald, Senior Manager Development Services at the City of Bunbury called by the respondent to give evidence, considered that the proposed setbacks relative to the height of the building were insufficient and indicated in his witness statement that a setback of 2.3 metres was more appropriate.  He considered that if the development as submitted was approved, the established level of amenity currently enjoyed by the residents of the adjoining properties would be reduced significantly, particularly in terms of the openness of the built environment.  He also maintained that there is a reasonable likelihood of the surrounding residential area being redeveloped at a higher density, (as a consequence of a recoding amendment to the Scheme ­ Amendment 38) and that resultant redevelopment of the residential properties would be adversely affected by the proposed development.

  5. Mr Fitzgerald informed the Tribunal that the approach taken by the City to determine the preferred setbacks to the adjoining residential properties was based on the philosophy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2008 (Codes) in regard to the protection of amenity, more specifically in relation to the elements relating to height and setbacks.  Mr Fitzgerald considered that as the Scheme did not provide for any side or rear setbacks in the 'Mixed Business' zone and the City has no local planning policy concern that matter, the use of the Codes was an objective means of establishing a 'next best approach' to determine an appropriate setback distance between the two land uses.  Although he did not consider that the development on the subject land should be required to comply with the Codes provisions in all respects, he did consider that the method of using length and height of walls to calculate setback was appropriate in this instance.  Using this method, Mr Fitzgerald calculated the setback to the northern and eastern boundaries to be 2.3 metres.  However, in his oral evidence, he did accept that a reduction of the setback to the northern boundary (rear setback) to 2 metres, to align with the existing showroom building on site would be reasonable.

  6. The respondent also attempted by reference to local planning policies prepared by other local governments to demonstrate that the preferred setback was appropriate and reasonable.  Mr Fitzgerald informed the Tribunal that he had contacted 15 local governments, of which four had produced policies dealing with the non-residential/residential development interface, and that the application of these policies would require a setback of equal to or greater than that required by the respondent in this instance.

  7. The respondent also referred to submissions received from owners of adjoining properties objecting to the proposed development and considered them to be relevant as they demonstrated the concerns of affected landowners.  The respondent did not call any of the objectors as witness to give evidence and therefore, the Tribunal is unable to assess the veracity of the concern or the weight to be attributed to their perceived diminution of amenity caused by the proposed development.  However, the concerns raised by the objectors about visual impact and overshadowing are relevant considerations in the determination of this application and have been addressed by the respondent in presenting their case.

  8. The applicant was at pains to point out to the Tribunal that the proposed development complied with all the express development standards and requirements for development in the 'Mixed Business' zone, and was 'well under' the maximum plot ratio and site coverage provisions of the Scheme.  Furthermore, the height of the proposed building met the acceptable development provision and was deemed to satisfy the performance criteria as set out in the in City's recently adopted local planning policy relating to 'Building Height'.

  9. The applicant also referred to two other local planning policy of the respondent, namely the Commercial Primacy Policy and Non­Residential Policy.  The applicant submitted that the two policies worked together to guide development within the 'Mixed Business' zone and on residential zoned land adjacent to the 'Mixed Business' zone.  In relation to the Commercial Primacy Policy, the applicant accepted that the policy provided for the encouragement of commercial uses, but submitted that in order to have commercial uses there needed to be the physical development and therefore, the policy must also encourage the development that is necessary and goes with those uses.  Furthermore, the policy also encourages the efficient use of land for commercial purposes and the applicant argued that increasing the setbacks was not an efficient use of land when having regard to the impact on the building and the car parking area.

  1. In relation to the Non­Residential Policy, the applicant submitted that this policy was particularly relevant given that it refers to future development on adjoining residential lots.  Under this policy, the residential lots adjoining the subject land are identified in a 'frame' where non­residential development will be encouraged.   The applicant argued that these lots are part of a transitional area around the 'Mixed Business' zone and implicit in that, is recognition that there will be interface issues where the two zones meet.  The applicant submitted that it is within this context that the relationship of the building with the adjoining residential properties and any consideration of amenity should be considered.

Tribunal's findings

  1. It is a generally accepted principle that at a zone interface, any development proposal in one zone needs to recognise and take into account the form of existing development and/or development likely to occur in an adjoining different zone.  More particularly, TPS 7 requires consideration of the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal (cl 10.2.1(o)), the compatibility of a development with its setting (cl 10.2.1(i)) and the possible impacts of the building height for a development within the Mixed Business Zone on the use and amenity of any adjoining residential land, (cl 5.9.4.4.1).

  2. The three local planning policies (refer to [20]) have been adopted by the respondent, pursuant to cl 2.2 of TPS 7, to guide development in the locality.  It is clear that the proposed use of the subject land for showroom/warehouse accords with the vision for the area and the only issue, as identified, is the interface between the two zones.  At present, the adjoining residential zoned lots are coded R15 and have limited residential development potential over and above what is existing on site; that is, an existing residence situated on the front of the property with an extensive rear yard which is under­utilised, particularly the area abutting the subject land.  However, these lots are located in a 'frame area' as designated in the Non­Residential Policy and as such, the location of non­residential uses is ideally supported in this area.  This policy recognises the need for transition between the two zones, however, as pointed out by the respondent, there is no restriction on lots within the 'frame area' being utilised for residential purposes.  It would also appear that it is the intention of the respondent to increase residential densities generally in the City, which is to be implemented through Amendment 38.  It was accepted by the respondent that this amendment could not be considered as a seriously entertained proposal as at this stage, the amendment has not progressed beyond initiation.  However, the Tribunal accepts that the amendment does indicate that residential densities for the adjoining residential lands may increase to R20/30, the higher coding being restricted by criteria unknown to the Tribunal.  On the evidence, it would appear that Amendment 38 would not prevent the application of the Non­Residential Policy.  It may even be an impetus for 'mixed use' development on the adjoining residential lots.

  3. The former Town Planning Appeal Tribunal in BP Australia Pty Ltd v City of Perth (Appeal No 16 of 1993) held the view that 'the residents adjoining a commercial site are to expect a diminished level of comfort', and in Gosatti Holding Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle (Appeal No 48 of 1999) delivered 17 March 2000, the former Tribunal stated that 'it barely needs to be said that residential uses in close proximity to non­residential uses cannot expect the same degree of amenity as would be found in a homogeneous residential suburb'.  This Tribunal concurs with these findings.  Similarly, as pointed out by the respondent, developments on the perimeter of the 'Mixed Business' zone cannot expect to develop land to the same extent as land within the heart of the 'Mixed Business' zone as there needs to be amelioration of impacts between the zones.

  4. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the appropriate measure for determining the side and rear setbacks in this instance is the application of the acceptable development provisions of the Codes relating to boundary setbacks for the following two reasons.  Firstly, the application of the Codes would, in fact, be applying a standard that is directly attributed to residential development and therefore would be, by de facto, extending the same level of amenity to lots abutting non­residential uses.  Secondly, given the potential for the location of non­residential uses on the adjoining lots, it may be more appropriate to apply the 'Mixed Use' development requirements of the Codes.

  5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the built form of the proposed development is responsive to the transitional nature of the area and will have minimal impact on the existing and future amenity of the adjoining residential lots and is acceptable.  The following three design details assist in reducing the impacts of the proposed development on the adjoining residential lots.  Firstly, by not attempting to develop to the full extent permitted on land zoned 'Mixed Business' there is recognition in the design of the need for a transition between the two zones.  Secondly, the articulation in the eastern side boundary will reduce the visual impact of the building on the adjoining properties and thirdly, the proposed trellising will significantly soften the visual impact of the walls.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the proposed 600 millimetres setbacks will be sufficient to service and maintain the landscaping associated with the trellising.

Conditions

  1. 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.  A document containing 17 conditions and 11 advice notes was filed by the respondent.

  2. The applicant initially took issue with conditions 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17 (inclusive).  However, during the hearing, the applicant withdrew its objections to conditions 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 and the City resiled from condition 16 and 17, leaving only condition 4 and condition 6 to be determined by the Tribunal.  These proposed conditions read as follows:

    4.All external surfaces of concrete tilt panel to be painted to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services; and

    6.The approved use shall be undertaken so that no undue nuisance or disturbance is caused to neighbouring properties by reason of the emission of dust, grit, slurry or other materials or liquids.

  3. In relation to condition 4, the parties agreed that a schedule of colours could be settled and submitted as part of the application and that a condition reflecting this intent was acceptable.

  4. In regards to condition 6, the applicant argued that the proposed condition was uncertain and, in any event, deals with matters that are covered by other statutory or regulatory requirements.  In response, the respondent argued notwithstanding that other legislation may deal with some of the issues identified; it was an appropriate matter to be identified in the context of a land use approval and should be imposed on a planning approval.  The Tribunal considers that the proposed condition is appropriate and should be imposed as amenity is a planning concern and the proposed condition reflects the need to ensure that the approved uses are carried out in a manner that does not cause 'undue' nuisance or disturbance to neighbouring properties in respect to specific emissions.

Additional condition

  1. The Tribunal, during the course of the hearing, raised the prospect of imposing a condition relating to the maintenance of the proposed landscaping, including the trellising and associated vegetation, if it were inclined to grant approval to the application.  The applicant indicated that there was no objection to such a condition being imposed.

Advice Notes

  1. The issue of appending advice notes to subdivision and development approvals has previous been considered by the Tribunal in Empire Securities Pty Ltd and Ors and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 98 and St Patrick's Community Support Centre and City of Fremantle [2007] WASAT 318, and for those same reasons the Tribunal will not append any of the suggested advice notes to this approval.

Orders

  1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

    1.The application for review is allowed.

    2.The decision of the respondent made on 25 June 2009 to refuse planning approval for an additional showroom/warehouse on Lot 38 (No 4) Mervyn Street, Bunbury is set aside and a decision is substituted that planning approval is granted for an additional showroom/warehouse on Lot 38 (No 4) Mervyn Street, Bunbury as shown on plan A1 of 1 dated 11 May 2009 prepared by Robert Nicholson Architects, subject to the following conditions:

    i)The premises being used only in accordance with the definition of 'Showroom/Warehouse' contained in Sch 1 of City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No 7 unless otherwise approved by Council.

    ii)All development shall be generally in accordance with the approved development plans, which form part of this Planning Approval.

    iii)This approval shall expire unless the works hereby authorised have been substantially commenced within 2 years of the date of issue of this approval or within any extended period for which Council has granted written consent.  Any application for such consent shall be received within one month prior to the expiration of the Planning Approval.

    iv)A schedule of colours, agreed between the applicant and the respondent, is to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence.

    v)All verge areas abutting the boundaries of the subject lot to remain clear at all times and shall not be used for the purpose of car-parking, trade display, storage and signage without prior written approval from Council's Planning Department.

    vi)The approved use shall be undertaken so that no undue nuisance or disturbance is caused to neighbouring properties by reason of the emission of dust, grit, slurry or other materials or liquids.

    vii)All loading and unloading to take place within the boundaries of the premises.

    viii)The access way(s), parking area(s), turning area(s) shall be constructed, kerbed, formed, graded, drained, line-marked and finished with a sealed or paved surface or equivalent by the developer to an approved design to satisfaction of the City Engineer.  Once constructed, the access way(s), parking area(s) and turning area(s) shall be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

    ix)Street lighting shall be provided for the access way(s), parking area(s) and turning area(s) by the developer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

    x)The applicant shall construct and maintain vehicle crossovers to the development.  Existing crossovers not required for the proposed development shall be removed, the verge made good and kerbing reinstated, immediately upon completion of the building.

    xi)The applicant shall dispose of stormwater onsite.  Plans and specifications relating to the disposal of stormwater and groundwater for the development shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issue of a building licence.

    xii)The applicant shall provide aged/disabled access to the existing Council path network and public transport network in accordance with Austroads Part 13: Pedestrians.  Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issue of a Building Licence.

    xiii)Any alterations or relocation of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall be carried out and reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City Engineer at the developer's expense.

    xiv)Road assets damage bond of $1,000 shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issue of the building licence as per Council's Local Planning Policy 'Bonds'.

    xv)Property shall be connected to Water Corporation sewer.

    xvi)All landscaping, including the trellising, is to be completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupancy of the building and maintained thereafter by the owner(s)/occupier(s) to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

I certify that this and the preceding [44] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MS M CONNOR, MEMBER

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0