Crystal Lakes Pty Ltd and City Of Subiaco
Case
•
[2006] WASAT 15
•27 JANUARY 2006
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Crystal Lakes Pty Ltd and City Of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 15
[2006] WASAT 15
27 JANUARY 2006
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Crystal Lakes Pty Ltd, as the applicant, sought approval for various alterations and additions to two properties located in Subiaco, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia. The City of Subiaco, as the respondent, opposed the application, leading to a review by the Planning and Environment Court of Western Australia. The primary dispute centred around the compliance of the proposed development with the Subiaco Local Planning Scheme No 15, specifically regarding the height of external walls and the calculation method for wall height in relation to the Residential Design Codes.
The court was required to decide whether the height of the external walls of the proposed two-storey extension at 105 Heytesbury Road exceeded the allowable height as per the planning scheme and the Residential Design Codes. A significant issue was the interpretation of the term "wall height," which was defined differently in the planning scheme and the codes. The applicant argued that the wall height should be measured from the natural ground level at the boundary, while the council contended that the height should be calculated from the natural ground level at the wall.
The court held that the planning scheme incorporated the definitions from the Residential Design Codes, and any qualification to these definitions must be explicitly stated in the planning scheme. The court found that the planning scheme did not qualify the definition of "wall height," which remained as the measurement from the natural ground level at the wall. The applicant's proposed height, calculated from the natural ground level at the boundary, exceeded the allowable height under the planning scheme. Consequently, the court determined that the application did not comply with the planning scheme and should be refused. However, the court acknowledged the applicant's efforts to mitigate the impact of the proposed development and granted approval subject to specific conditions. The court also allowed the return of the model of the proposed development as per the applicant's request.
The court was required to decide whether the height of the external walls of the proposed two-storey extension at 105 Heytesbury Road exceeded the allowable height as per the planning scheme and the Residential Design Codes. A significant issue was the interpretation of the term "wall height," which was defined differently in the planning scheme and the codes. The applicant argued that the wall height should be measured from the natural ground level at the boundary, while the council contended that the height should be calculated from the natural ground level at the wall.
The court held that the planning scheme incorporated the definitions from the Residential Design Codes, and any qualification to these definitions must be explicitly stated in the planning scheme. The court found that the planning scheme did not qualify the definition of "wall height," which remained as the measurement from the natural ground level at the wall. The applicant's proposed height, calculated from the natural ground level at the boundary, exceeded the allowable height under the planning scheme. Consequently, the court determined that the application did not comply with the planning scheme and should be refused. However, the court acknowledged the applicant's efforts to mitigate the impact of the proposed development and granted approval subject to specific conditions. The court also allowed the return of the model of the proposed development as per the applicant's request.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Planning & Development Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adverse Possession
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Easements & Covenants
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Alcock and Town Of Claremont [2013] WASAT 83
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Alcock and Town Of Claremont
[2013] WASAT 83
EVANS and CITY OF SUBIACO
[2012] WASAT 172
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
4
Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd
[1947] HCA 17
IW v City of Perth
[1997] HCA 30
Dumbleton & Anor and Town of Bassendean
[2005] WASAT 145