Del Giacco and City Of Melville
[2008] WASAT 134
•28 MAY 2008
DEL GIACCO and CITY OF MELVILLE [2008] WASAT 134
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 134 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:35/2008 | 28 MAY 2008 | |
| Coram: | MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER) MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 28/05/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Conditional development approval granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALBERTO JAMES DEL GIACCO CITY OF MELVILLE |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Storage yard Site adjoins residential properties Use commenced without approval causing adverse amenity impacts Impacts reduced in interim Additional physical and management measures would further reduce impacts Noise Whether compliance with Environment Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) is adequate to ensure that noise impact is acceptable in planning assessment 3.6 metre high wall set back from boundary required together with other measures to further mitigate noise Visual impact Costs Matters discussed at mediation |
Legislation: | City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No 5, cl 4.2(a), cl 7.8, cl 9.6 Environment Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 55 |
Case References: | Land Alliance Pty Ltd and City of Belmont [2005] WASAT 100; (2005) 39 SR (WA) 119 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision made by the respondent on 24 December 2007 to refuse development application DA2007-823 for retrospective planning approval for change of use from ceramics to storage at No 1 Thurso Road, Myaree is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted for the development subject to the following conditions:,(1) The pressure cleaner being relocated to and being used at all material times on the eastern side of the existing building.,(2) The reversing beepers on all vehicles being modified or replaced with lower pitch and decibel alternatives within one month to the approval of the Manager Planning and Development Services so as to reduce the noise of the reverse beepers.,(3) The openings in the western wall of the existing building being closed at all times when there are activities being carried out in the existing building in order to assist in containing the noise generated by those activities inside the existing building.,(4) A 3.6 metre high wall, masonry in type, being constructed by 28 July 2008 parallel to the western boundary of the site from the south-west corner of the adjoining building at No 33 McCoy Street to the northern wall of the existing building on the site. This wall must be treated by the applicant on both sides to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning and Development Services who must consult with the owners of No 92 and No 94 Rome Road.,(5) Hours of operation of the approved development other than office activities to be limited to 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays, inclusive of deliveries and collection of equipment to and from the property.,(6) Any alarm system for the activity to be a silent monitored system in order to reduce the impact on adjoining and adjacent residential properties.,(7) Any security lighting is to be designed and located so as not to cause disturbance to adjoining and adjacent residential properties.,(8) The area between the western boundary of the site and the wall required to be constructed by condition (4) and between the western boundary of the site and the western wall of the existing building on the site until the prolongation of the southern boundary of Lot 34 Rome Road must be landscaped with advance species to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning and Development Services. In particular the applicant must submit a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape consultant for approval by the Manager Planning and Development Services by 27 June 2008 and must implement the approved plan within 28 days of written approval by the Manager Planning and Development Services.,(9) The landscaped area referred to in condition (8) must not be used for any purpose other than landscaping.,(10) Storage within the rear yard is to be limited to a height of 3.6 metres.,(11) No telephone amplifier is to be used on site.,(12) Radio/stereo music is not permitted to be played in the rear yard of the site or in the existing building on the site with the exception of the office.,(13) All forklift vehicles used on site are to be electrically powered.,(14) This approval expires on 31 January 2010. If the applicant wishes to use the site beyond this date, a fresh development application must be lodged for approval by the Council.,(15) All manual loading and unloading of metal objects at the site must take place within the existing building and not in the rear yard. The doors on the western and northern sides of the building must be closed during loading and unloading.,(16) Trucks must be idled between the existing building and the eastern boundary of the site and must not be idled in the rear yard.,3. Each party is to pay its own costs of the proceedings. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : DEL GIACCO and CITY OF MELVILLE [2008] WASAT 134 MEMBER : MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
- MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF MELVILLE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Storage yard Site adjoins residential properties Use commenced without approval causing adverse amenity impacts Impacts reduced in interim Additional physical and management measures would further reduce impacts Noise Whether compliance with Environment Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) is adequate to ensure that noise impact is acceptable in planning assessment 3.6 metre high wall set back from boundary required together with other measures to further mitigate noise Visual impact Costs Matters discussed at mediation
(Page 2)
Legislation:
City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No 5, cl 4.2(a), cl 7.8, cl 9.6
Environment Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 55
Result:
Conditional development approval granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr WJ Chesnutt
Respondent : Mr A Roberts
Solicitors:
Applicant : MacKinlays
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Land Alliance Pty Ltd and City of Belmont [2005] WASAT 100; (2005) 39 SR (WA) 119
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Statewide Corporation Pty Ltd commenced use of a site as a storage yard for its equipment hire business without development approval and in a manner that was inconsiderate to adjoining residential properties. When residents complained, Statewide Corporation Pty Ltd lodged a development application, obtained acoustical advice, and implemented a number of noise attenuation measures that considerably reduced the impact of the use. The City of Melville refused to grant development approval for the use and Statewide Corporation Pty Ltd sought review of that decision by the State Administrative Tribunal.
2 Following the hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral decision in which it granted conditional development approval for the storage use for a limited term. The Tribunal required a 3.6 metre high masonry wall to be constructed within two months to further mitigate noise impacts and to preclude adverse visual impact. The wall is to be set back 6 metres from the common boundary with the residential properties, and the setback area is to be landscaped with advanced species.
3 The Tribunal's reasons, taken from the transcript and edited in minor respects to aid clarity, were as follows.
Introduction
4 These proceedings involve an application brought by Mr AJ del Giacco under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) for review of the decision of the City of Melville (City or Council) to refuse development approval for the use of Unit 3, No 1 (Lot 41) Thurso Road, Myaree (site) for storage and related purposes.
5 Mr del Giacco is the managing director of Statewide Corporation Pty Ltd trading as Statewide Staging Systems (Statewide). Statewide is an event equipment hire business providing stages, ground support systems, marquees, lighting and other equipment for concerts, exhibitions, festivals and the like.
Background
6 On 1 February 2007, Statewide leased the site for a period of three years, and in early March 2007, commenced use of the site for storage of hire equipment, loading and unloading of trucks, cleaning and general maintenance of hire equipment and administration.
(Page 4)
7 Contrary to the City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No 5 (CPS 5 or Scheme), Statewide did not obtain development approval for use of the site. Furthermore, it initially carried out its operations in an unreasonable and inconsiderate manner that caused considerable and understandable distress and annoyance to the owners and residents of three adjoining residential properties.
8 Statewide's operations would often commence at 5 am or 6 am and sometimes finish as late as 11 pm. The operations took place throughout the week, including weekends and public holidays. Statewide's activities had a number of negative impacts on the residential amenity of adjoining properties including noise from the forklift engine and reversing beeper, noise from trucks, amplified telephone and music in the yard, sharp echoing noise from metal equipment banging together, noise from trucks idling in the yard, annoying light spill from security lights, the smell of exhaust fumes, and the adverse visual impact of steel frames and stacked equipment immediately adjoining the 1.8 metre high boundary fence.
9 These impacts forced the residents and owners of adjoining residential properties, two of whom have lived in their houses for over 40 years, to have to take refuge in their house, and on occasion, to take refuge elsewhere. Understandably, the residents complained to the Council.
10 On 6 June 2007, Mr del Giacco lodged the development application which is now the subject of these proceedings.
11 Over the following months, Council officers requested further information, and Statewide supplied further information and documents to illustrate the use.
12 On 25 October 2007, Statewide commissioned Mr Daniel Lloyd, an acoustical engineer, to undertake a noise assessment of the operation. On 12 November 2007, Mr Lloyd provided a report in which he concluded that the operation did not comply with the Environment Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) (Noise Regulations).
13 Mr Lloyd recommended a number of noise attenuation measures, including modification of the petrol forklift or replacement of that forklift with an electric model, and the erection of a 3 metre high masonry wall at the common boundary with the residential properties.
14 Statewide implemented a number of noise attenuation measures, including replacing the petrol forklift with an electric forklift, inserting carpet and wood in storage racking to reduce metal impact noise, removing the telephone
(Page 5)
- amplifier, ceasing the playing of radio music outside the building, confining working hours of the business generally to 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Friday, avoiding working on Saturdays whenever possible and using tape to muffle the reverse beeping sensors on trucks.
15 In addition, importantly, the storage of stacked equipment was moved away from the residential properties towards the eastern boundary of the site. Also, more recently, Statewide has ceased using the driveway along the common boundary with the adjoining residential properties to mitigate remaining noise and fume issues.
16 During the proceedings, Statewide has also proposed or has accepted, although in some instances as a last resort, a number of physical and management measures that would, on the evidence, further improve amenity impacts.
17 These measures, which can be imposed by way of condition, include:
• reducing the hours of operation to 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Friday with no operation on Saturday, Sunday or public holidays;
• landscaping a 4 metre to 6 metre wide strip adjoining the common boundary with the residential properties;
• erecting a 3 metre high boundary wall; and
• reducing the height of storage.
18 In addition, Statewide now seeks a limited consent until 31 January 2010 only.
19 On 18 December 2007, the Council's officers recommended that the Council grant approval to the proposed development. However, the Council resolved on that day to refuse the development application for the following reasons:
"(1) The proposal does not satisfy cl 7.8 of [CPS 5] in that it is inconsistent with orderly and proper planning and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.
(Page 6)
- (2) Noncompliance with the Statement of Intent for the Mixed Business Frame Precinct, namely, that 'all uses are to be compatible with the adjoining residential area - primarily commercial offices, showrooms, consulting rooms and the like'.
(3) The proposal is inconsistent with the future planning direction of the locality which proposes to remove storage and warehousing uses from the 'frame' surrounding the Myaree Business Area precinct to reduce amenity impacts on adjacent residential properties."
20 For reasons discussed below, the Tribunal considers that the development, as it now operates and subject to further conditions, is acceptable and merits approval. However, it is extremely unfortunate that residents, and particularly residents who have lived in their homes for in excess of 40 years, were subjected to such unreasonable and intrusive behaviour as occurred on the part of Statewide for eight months or so from March 2007. Planning laws and the reasonable expectations of residents should be respected rather than ignored.
Site and locality
21 The site contains two brick and iron warehouse buildings surrounded by bitumenised hardstand. In particular, the northern part of the site is an open paved area which is utilised by Statewide as a storage yard. The site has an area of 4081 square metres.
22 To the rear - or north - of the site is a warehouse factory unit. To the east of the site are more industrial units.
23 To the west of the site are residential properties referred to earlier. The residential properties are all single dwellings.
Planning framework
24 The site and surrounding area is zoned "Urban" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Under CPS 5, the site and the property to the north is zoned "Mixed Business Frame". The properties to the east are zoned "Mixed Business Precinct". The properties to the west are zoned "Living Areas", which is essentially a residential zoning.
25 The proposed use is classified as storage under CPS 5. Storage is a use that is capable of approval in the exercise of discretion under the Scheme.
(Page 7)
26 Part 4 of the Scheme details development requirements.
27 The site is zoned "Mixed Business Frame" and the Statement of Intent for this zone is as follows:
"Primarily commercial including offices, showrooms, consulting rooms, medical centres and the like. Buildings shall not use reflective materials that impact on the amenity of the area and all uses are to be compatible with the adjoining residential uses. Council Policy is to apply to manage the interface between non-residential and residential uses."
28 Clause 7.8 of the Scheme sets out matters for consideration in relation to the proposed development including the objectives of the Scheme, the orderly and proper planning of land within the area, the existing and likely future amenity of the area, and planning policies adopted by the Council under cl 9.6 of the Scheme.
29 Clause 4.2(a) of the scheme states that:
"Development of land is to conform with the Statement of Intent and the development requirements stipulated for the precinct in which the land is located."
30 Clause 9.6 of the Scheme requires the Council and the Tribunal on review to have "due regard" to the provisions of policies and to be satisfied that the application is not prejudicial to the objectives of the policy before making a decision in relation to a development application.
31 The Council has adopted a policy as foreshadowed in the statement of intent for the Mixed Business Frame zone. That policy, known as Local Planning Policy 07-PL-028 - Mixed Business Frame Precinct Additional Development Requirements (Mixed Business Frame Policy), contains the following statement:
"In the precinct page for the Mixed Business Frame the Statement of Intent stipulates that Planning and Building policy is to apply to manage the interface between non-residential and residential uses. This is an important aspect addressed by the measures below."
32 Clause 2.5 of the Mixed Business Frame Policy discusses the utilisation of setback areas having regard to the impact on residential property. Clause 3.3 recommends the landscaping be provided "where feasible [at] boundaries with residential property (for visual amenity and privacy)".
(Page 8)
Issues for determination
33 The Council has identified the following four issues for determination in this review:
(1) Whether the proposed development would have unacceptable noise impacts on adjoining residential properties.
(2) Whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of adjoining residential properties.
(3) Whether the proposed development would be compatible with adjoining residential uses and therefore the Statement of Intent for the Mixed Business Frame Precinct under CPS 5.
(4) Whether the proposed development is consistent with future planning direction of the locality as provided by proposed Amendment 47 to the Scheme.
34 The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.
Noise
35 The Tribunal had the benefit of expert evidence in relation to noise from three acoustical engineers. Mr Lloyd and Dr Jie Pan gave evidence on behalf of Mr del Giacco, and Mr George Watts gave evidence on behalf of the City. All three acoustical engineers carried out noise assessments based on the worst case operations, although Dr Pan undertook a predictive assessment rather than an assessment based on actual measurements at adjoining properties.
36 The acoustical engineers agree that, because of the implementation of some of Mr Lloyd's recommendations made in November 2007, and other measures that I have referred to, the development complies with the Noise Regulations. The adjoining residents also agreed in oral evidence that the adverse noise impacts of the development have been considerably reduced over the past six months.
(Page 9)
37 However, as the Tribunal said in Land Alliance Pty Ltd and City of Belmont [2005] WASAT 100; (2005) 39 SR (WA) 119 at [39]:
"Compliance with the Noise Regulations does not necessarily mean that the noise does not constitute an adverse impact on the existing amenity of the locality in a planning sense."
38 This is a case in which mere compliance with the Noise Regulations is not adequate, in our opinion, to properly mitigate adverse impact on the existing amenity of the locality for two reasons.
39 First, there is, in some respects, only marginal compliance with the Noise Regulations. In particular, the operation of the forklift just meets the applicable assigned level at one affected property, and is only two decibels less than the applicable assigned level at another property. The forklift beeper is one to four decibels less than the assigned level at affected properties.
40 Second, the use, at least as currently carried out, generates the potential for metal-on-metal noise, which has been described by residents as "intrusive, sudden and unpredictable".
41 However, the Tribunal considers that the noise impact of the development would be acceptable if the following four additional measures were implemented.
42 First, a 3.6 metre high wall should be built between the southwest corner of the building on the property to the north and the northern wall of the building on the site. The wall should have a setback of approximately 6 metres from the common boundary with the residential properties. This setback is necessary in order to avoid adverse visual impact from the wall itself, to provide sufficient area for a substantial landscaped buffer strip between the wall and the common boundary, and to address the fact that No 94 Rome Road, which is one of the affected residential properties, is located at a topographically higher level.
43 The noise experts agree that this wall will further mitigate noise by five to 10 decibels for operations in the vicinity of the wall. While the mitigation will be reduced for operations further away from the wall, the experts explained that the increased distance in itself reduces noise impact.
44 Second, the storage in the rear yard of the site should be limited in height to 3.6 metres. The noise experts indicated that a physical barrier is most effective to mitigate noise if it breaks the line of sight between the noise source
(Page 10)
- and the receptor. The residential property at No 94 Rome Road is, as we have said, physically higher than the site. Consequently, if the storage is limited to 3.6 metres, the wall referred to earlier will be adequate to mitigate noise impact to an acceptable degree.
45 Third, all manual loading and unloading of metal objects must take place within the building and not in the rear yard, and the northern and western doors of the building must be closed during loading and unloading.
46 Fourth, trucks must be idled between the building and the eastern boundary in a position shielded from the residential properties by the building itself.
47 Mr Stephen Allerding, a consultant town planner who gave evidence on behalf of the City, observed, correctly, that physical structures to mitigate impacts are preferable to management practices. The wall that is required is a physical structure that will appropriately mitigate noise impact. The other three measures are in the nature of management practices but are readily achievable and enforceable. Furthermore, as the consent that is sought will only last for 20 months, if Statewide wishes to continue operations beyond that period at the site, the Council can consider any further development application in light of experience of Statewide's compliance with these measures.
Visual impact
48 Mr WJ Chesnutt, counsel for Mr del Giacco, suggested that it would be adequate for the operation to be screened by landscaping.
49 We do not consider that landscaping alone is an adequate response to the significant visual impact of the operation, particularly given that even advanced species landscaping is unlikely to significantly mitigate impact within the lifetime of the consent.
50 If a 3.6 metre high wall, set back approximately 6 metres from the common boundary within the site, is built, and if storage is limited to 3.6 metres, then the visual impact of the development on the adjoining residential properties would be acceptable.
Compatibility with the adjoining residential uses
51 As noted earlier, cl 4.2(a) of the Scheme requires development to conform to the Statement of Intent, which states that:
(Page 11)
- "all uses are to be compatible with the adjoining residential uses."
52 The Tribunal finds that the development is compatible - that is, capable of existing in harmony - with the adjoining residential uses if the development is appropriately conditioned.
53 The effect of measures already taken and the conditions we have foreshadowed is to, in effect, create a 6 metre wide buffer area within the site between the use in the open yard and residential properties, preclude view of the storage materials from the residential properties, further reduce noise impacts to an acceptable level, preclude loading or unloading of trucks on weekends and public holidays, and preclude trucks passing adjacent to the residential properties, thereby reducing the potential for fumes.
54 Mr Chesnutt suggested that, if the Tribunal requires a wall to be built, it should be located closer to the common boundary with the residential properties.
55 The Tribunal recognises that a condition requiring a wall to be built 6 metres from the residential properties, and for the area between the wall and the common boundary to be landscaped, involves the reduction in the available area of the site for commercial use. Nevertheless, we consider that the physical separation of the proposed development from the residential properties by the creation of this buffer area within the site is required in order to meet the Statement of Intent for the zone and the further refinement of that intent through the policy. Additionally, a wall of the height that is required to mitigate noise and visual amenity impacts located any closer than 6 metres to the common boundary would have adverse visual impacts in itself.
56 Ultimately, we consider that the location of a wall in the position that we have said is what is reasonably required to ensure that the development is compatible with adjoining residential uses.
57 The development, as conditioned in this way, is compatible with the Statement of Intent and is consistent with the Mixed Business Frame Policy. It is also consistent with orderly and proper planning and has an acceptable amenity impact.
(Page 12)
Future planning
58 Draft Amendment 47 to CPS 5 proposes to rezone the site to Mixed Use Frame. This draft is a seriously-entertained planning proposal, although the Tribunal has no evidence before it as to the attitude of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure or of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure in relation to the draft.
59 The Statement of Intent for the proposed Mixed Use Frame states as follows:
"Land and buildings used to form a buffer between business and commercial uses and adjoining residential areas. May include offices, residential, low intensity business."
60 However, storage, including storage in a yard area, will remain a discretionary use under draft Amendment 47, and would therefore have to be assessed on its merits, even if draft Amendment 47 is made. Furthermore, the conditions that we have outlined will create a 6 metre wide buffer area on the site between the use and residential properties.
61 The combined effect of this buffer, a 3.6 metre high wall and the other conditions we have foreshadowed including, in particular, the limitation on trading hours, satisfy the Statement of Intent in the draft. If ultimately the Council wishes to achieve a different planning outcome than the decision to which the Tribunal has come, it must critically review its planning instrument and policies.
Conclusion
62 One of the fundamental tasks of town planning is to avoid or minimise land use conflicts. As originally carried out from March 2007 until November or December 2007, Statewide's use of the site clearly involved an acceptable land use conflict. However, the use of the site for storage, including external storage, is a discretionary use that is capable of approval in the exercise of discretion, and as now carried out and as further conditioned in the way that we have foreshadowed, the storage use will be undertaken in a manner that reduces land use conflict to the point that it is acceptable in the circumstances.
63 The approval the Tribunal grants is limited to 20 months. If Statewide exercises an option or otherwise obtains a further lease and wishes to continue use of the site, it must submit a further development application to the Council in the interim. The determination of that development application will no doubt be materially informed by whether
(Page 13)
- Statewide complies with the conditions of development approval that the Tribunal now grants.
64 The 20 months will also allow the Council an opportunity to critically review its planning instrument and policy for the site at a strategic level in order to effectively manage the interface between residential and non-residential uses in the manner that it considers to be appropriate in the community interest.
65 Statewide seeks an order that the Council pay its costs of the proceedings. It wishes to refer to matters that occurred in mediation. However, s 55 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) states that, subject to presently immaterial exceptions, evidence of anything said or done in the course of a mediation is not admissible at any later stage of the proceeding. There is no reason in this case to depart from the Tribunal's usual practice in planning review proceedings that each party should pay its own costs.
Orders
66 The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision made by the respondent on 24 December 2007 to refuse development application DA2007-823 for retrospective planning approval for change of use from ceramics to storage at No 1 Thurso Road, Myaree is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted for the development subject to the following conditions:
(1) The pressure cleaner being relocated to and being used at all material times on the eastern side of the existing building.
(2) The reversing beepers on all vehicles being modified or replaced with lower pitch and decibel alternatives within one month to the approval of the Manager Planning and Development Services so as to reduce the noise of the reverse beepers.
(3) The openings in the western wall of the existing building being closed at all times when there are activities being carried out in the existing building in order to assist in containing the noise generated by those activities inside the existing building.
- (4) A 3.6 metre high wall, masonry in type, being constructed by 28 July 2008 parallel to the western boundary of the site from the south-west corner of the adjoining building at No 33 McCoy Street to the northern wall of the existing building on the site. This wall must be treated by the applicant on both sides to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning and Development Services who must consult with the owners of No 92 and No 94 Rome Road.
(5) Hours of operation of the approved development other than office activities to be limited to 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays, inclusive of deliveries and collection of equipment to and from the property.
(6) Any alarm system for the activity to be a silent monitored system in order to reduce the impact on adjoining and adjacent residential properties.
(7) Any security lighting is to be designed and located so as not to cause disturbance to adjoining and adjacent residential properties.
(8) The area between the western boundary of the site and the wall required to be constructed by condition (4) and between the western boundary of the site and the western wall of the existing building on the site until the prolongation of the southern boundary of Lot 34 Rome Road must be landscaped with advance species to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning and Development Services. In particular the applicant must submit a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape consultant for approval by the Manager Planning and Development Services by 27 June 2008 and must implement the approved plan within 28 days of written approval by the Manager Planning and Development Services.
- (9) The landscaped area referred to in condition (8) must not be used for any purpose other than landscaping.
(10) Storage within the rear yard is to be limited to a height of 3.6 metres.
(11) No telephone amplifier is to be used on site.
(12) Radio/stereo music is not permitted to be played in the rear yard of the site or in the existing building on the site with the exception of the office.
(13) All forklift vehicles used on site are to be electrically powered.
(14) This approval expires on 31 January 2010. If the applicant wishes to use the site beyond this date, a fresh development application must be lodged for approval by the Council.
(15) All manual loading and unloading of metal objects at the site must take place within the existing building and not in the rear yard. The doors on the western and northern sides of the building must be closed during loading and unloading.
(16) Trucks must be idled between the existing building and the eastern boundary of the site and must not be idled in the rear yard.
- 3. Each party is to pay its own costs of the proceedings.
- I certify that this and the preceding [66] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
(Page 16)
5