Grove and ORS and City Of Stirling
[2006] WASAT 136
•25 MAY 2006
GROVE & ORS and CITY OF STIRLING [2006] WASAT 136
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 136 | |
| TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:39/2004 | 27 AND 28 FEBRUARY 2006 | |
| Coram: | JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) MR J JORDAN (MEMBER) | 25/05/06 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Approval granted subject to conditions | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WILLIAM GROVE ALISON MAY SMITH JOHN WILLEM GROVE ANDREW HENDRIK GROVE CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Planning and development Existing five storey hotel Application to add four storeys Whether additional height acceptable Height within limits identified for future planning of area Effect on amenity Height limit eight storeys or 32 metres proposed nine storeys and 29.9 metres including lift overrun Parking Existing shortfall Adequacy of proposed additional car bays |
Legislation: | City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5.4, cl 1.4.3.1, cl 3.3, cl 3.3.10, cl 3.3.10.1, cl 3.3.10.2 |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
Orders | The application for approval to commence development of lot 2 (23) Hastings Street, Scarborough made in October 2003 is approved, subject to conditions 1 to 19 below.,1. The submission of a satisfactory report on wind studies and compliance with any recommendations made in this respect on the effect the additional floors will have on the amenity of the locality to the City's satisfaction.,2. The location of existing mature trees on site are to be confirmed by survey and the survey provided to the City with the landscaping plan referred to in condition ,3. A landscaping plan, which –, i. incorporates the retention of existing trees located in the parking area and adjacent to the Hastings Street boundary wherever reasonably possible, and, ii. includes the provision of new mature trees in and around the front car park area, shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.,4. The landscaping shown in the landscaping plans shall be reticulated to the satisfaction of the City and maintained in good condition thereafter. ,5. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair.,6. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the approved plan being closed, the kerb and the verge reinstated.,7. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residences or passing traffic.,8. All off street parking to be available on site for all employees and visitors, free of charge, to the satisfaction of the City.,9. The removal of all signage from the building including the roof sign and the wall signage facing west. A separate signage strategy in this respect to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.,10. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided.,11. Any reflective roof surfaces are to be treated to reduce glare where such surfaces adversely affects the amenity of the locality.,12. In areas where power is supplied by overhead street mains new installations must be serviced by underground service mains to the satisfaction of Western Power.,13. Internal traffic circulation and visibility issues are to be discussed and resolved with the Manager Engineering Design prior to the issue of a building licence. Any arrangements in this respect to be to the satisfaction of the City.,14. Traffic and access arrangements, involving crossovers, driveways and parking areas being to the satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Design, prior to the issue of a building licence.,15. Detailed site plans and details for the proposed car parking deck and parking layout below showing a total of 121 on site parking bays, shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.,16. All necessary barricades, warning light, sign posting and pedestrian details to be erected in accordance with Australian Standards. Particular attention should be given to provide clear visibility during works for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.,17. Bin enclosures being screened by a feature brick wall, not less than 1.5 metres in height, constructed of the same bricks as the building. Adequate gates are to be provided.,18. Full engineering documentation to be provided to demonstrate that the existing structure can support the new loadings prior to the issue of a building licence.,19. A plan of the proposed colour scheme for the external facade of the entire hotel shall be submitted for approval by the City prior to the issue of a building licence. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) CITATION : GROVE & ORS and CITY OF STIRLING [2006] WASAT 136 MEMBER : JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
- MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)
- ALISON MAY SMITH
JOHN WILLEM GROVE
ANDREW HENDRIK GROVE
Applicants
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Planning and development Existing five storey hotel Application to add four storeys Whether additional height acceptable Height within limits identified for future planning of area Effect on amenity Height limit eight storeys or 32 metres proposed nine storeys and 29.9 metres including lift overrun Parking Existing shortfall Adequacy of proposed additional car bays
(Page 2)
Legislation:
City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5.4, cl 1.4.3.1, cl 3.3, cl 3.3.10, cl 3.3.10.1, cl 3.3.10.2
Result:
Approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr G Rowe (As Agent)
Respondent : Mr A Roberts
Solicitors:
Applicants : N/A
Respondent : Minter Ellison
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of the Tribunal's decision
1 The owners of the five storey Indian Ocean Hotel in Scarborough applied to the City of Stirling for approval to develop the hotel by adding four storeys of accommodation units. The proposed building would have a height of 26.1 metres with a lift overrun extending to 29.1 metres. The existing building has a height of 15.6 metres with a lift overrun to 21.2 metres and a large roof sign that extends to 24.8 metres.
2 The application was refused and the owners sought a review of the decision. The Tribunal reviewed the provisions of the City's planning scheme and the recent history of planning for the Scarborough Beach locality. Government policy, which the City adopted in its planning for the area, is to limit development along the west to 32 metres or eight storeys. Although the proposed building would be nine storeys, it would be well below the 32 metre limit.
3 The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area, and was consistent with the planning proposals for the area. It also reviewed the proposed parking and landscaping for the development and concluded that the City's concerns in relation to those matters could be adequately dealt with by conditions of approval.
4 The Tribunal determined that the application should be approved subject to conditions.
Introduction
5 The applicants are the owners of a hotel building at lot 2, No 23 Hastings Street, Scarborough, known as the Indian Ocean Hotel which they purchased in 1985. At the time of purchase, the building had a number of faults, including a leaking flat roof. Attempts to repair the roof have been unsuccessful with the result that the top floor is uninhabitable in winter. On a couple of occasions the applicants have submitted plans to the respondent to add an additional floor to the building, a development which would have the benefit of enabling rectification of the roof problem. Ultimately, the applicants received approval in 2003 for an additional storey, but did not proceed with that development because new fire and emergency services regulations would have rendered the addition of a single storey uneconomic.
(Page 4)
6 The existing Indian Ocean Hotel is five storeys. Having regard to the economics of any proposed addition to the building, and having regard to the general direction of planning for the locality, on 22 October 2003 the applicants lodged an application for the construction of an additional four storeys to the hotel. The proposed additions include 29 one bedroom units, seven two bedroom units, a staff amenity area, a relocated telecommunication equipment room, reconfiguration and upgrading of car parking facilities and upgraded onsite and street verge landscaping. The development proposes to utilise the existing building footprint. The additional storeys would raise the height of the building to 26.1 metres, with the lift overrun extending to 29.1 metres.
7 The respondent did not determine the application within the 60 day period specified under its planning scheme, and the application was thereby deemed refused. The applicant instituted an appeal to the former Town Planning Appeal Tribunal on 16 February 2004, but the appeal was not dealt with by that Tribunal before its functions were assumed by this Tribunal in January 2005.
8 The respondent opposes approval of the proposed development on four grounds.
9 The first is that the height is excessive and would have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape and amenity of the locality.
10 The second is that the proposed development would have a shortfall of on site car parking bays.
11 The third is that the proposed additional parking would result in the removal of mature trees which provide screening of the hotel for nearby residents.
12 The fourth is that the plans of the proposed development do not make provision for bin storage or service areas.
13 It is clear that the question of height is the issue of greatest moment in consideration of this application.
Site description
14 The hotel is located on the western side of Hastings Street approximately 200 metres south of Scarborough Beach Road and 200 metres north of Brighton Road. It has a land area of 4517 square metres and a frontage to Hastings Street of approximately 61 metres. Hastings Street runs parallel to the coast, being the third street back from
(Page 5)
- Scarborough Beach. West Coast Highway is the second street back, and the Esplanade runs along the coast.
15 The existing five storey building is well set back from Hastings Street and the side boundaries of the lot. At present the roof height is 15.6 metres, with a lift overrun to a height of 21.2 metres and a roof sign that extends to 24.8 metres. The building's footprint occupies a relatively small proportion of the lot.
16 To the east and south of the building the lot is developed as paved parking area. The adjacent lot to the west of the appeal site is the site of the White Sands tavern.
Strategic planning for the locality
17 The hotel site is located in an area that has been the subject of significant strategic planning since 1999. In that year, the respondent commissioned the preparation of the Scarborough Environs Area Study (SEAS) with the view to the development of a long term strategic plan to guide the Scarborough coastal region. In 2000, a report was prepared for the respondent by O'Brien Planning Consultants (the O'Brien study). The O'Brien study proposed that the hotel site be rezoned for "mixed development". Following public advertising, Council workshops and staff comment, the respondent adopted SEAS in September 2001 as a working document for the purposes of further development. The SEAS "zoning and built form" concept plan identified the site as being within the "mixed use zone (12 metre height permissible as of right)".
18 There followed a further review of SEAS which was completed in October 2003. Following public advertising of the review, the Council of the respondent endorsed a built form scenario that allowed for limited high rise up to 16 storeys in selected locations on the west side of West Coast Highway. The height limit for development on the east side of West Coast Highway (which includes the hotel site) was envisaged to be nine storeys.
19 The respondent's Council then resolved to prepare two scheme amendments to modify its District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2) in relation to the Scarborough Beach area. Amendment 457 related to what was called the "special beach development zone" which was the area in the vicinity of the hotel, but to the west of West Coast Highway. Amendment 458 related to land predominantly located on the east side of West Coast Highway, including the hotel site.
(Page 6)
20 Amendment 457 was initially adopted by Council on 16 December 2003. In October 2004, the Council resolved to forward amendment 457 to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for final approval. The Minister declined to grant final approval on the basis that amendment 457 "provides for scope for development in excess of the height limits set out in the government's Better Beaches Policy", being five to eight storeys. The policy referred to was a policy expressed in the following terms:
"The Gallop government will limit high rise developments on the State's beaches so that development will generally be capped at five storeys, with local council's able to set lower maximums through town planning schemes.
Higher structures up to eight storeys may be permitted in some centres of high activity but only if the proposed development has broad community support and is based on appropriate and high quality design standards."
21 The Minister's letter refusing approval of amendment 457 advised that she would be prepared to consider modifications to the amendment which limited development to eight storeys "as I believe there is demonstrated community support to this height".
22 On 2 August 2005, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) made a resolution pursuant to cl 32 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), being "Resolution No 62 – Coastal Buildings above Specified Heights" (Resolution No 62). That resolution required a local government to refer for determination by the WAPC under the MRS all applications for approval to commence or carry out development for residential, office and hotel purposes above specified heights on land within 300 metres of the horizontal setback datum of the coast (the Indian Ocean Hotel site is not within that area). Those developments in respect of which referral was required were identified as:
"i. Where no building height limit is set out in the operative local government town planning scheme, development applications for the purposes indicated (or any combination of those purposes) exceeding five storey [sic] and 21 metres in height;
or
(Page 7)
- ii. Where the operative local government town planning scheme sets out a building height limitation of eight storeys or above in respect of the area, development applications for the purposes indicated (or any combination of those purposes) exceeding eight storeys and 32 metres in height."
23 In the light of the Minister's position and Resolution No 62, the respondent amended cl 2.5.1 of amendment 457 to specify that:
"Subject to clauses 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 below, the building height of any development within the Special Beach Development zone shall not exceed 8 storeys or 32 metres (whichever is the lesser).
Note: Height in relation to a 'building' refers to the vertical distance at any point from natural ground level to the uppermost part of the building above that point, and shall include all lift motor rooms, lift overruns, and architectural features."
24 The Minister expressed some further reservations about amendment 457 in its amended form, and suggested further modifications. Those modifications were adopted by the respondent which forwarded it to the Minister on 7 February 2006 for final approval. At the time of the hearing of this matter, amendment 457 had not been formally gazetted, but was subsequently given final approval and was gazetted on 3 March 2006.
25 Amendment 458 proposes to create a new "Scarborough Redevelopment Zone" and introduces five sub-zones. The hotel site is located within the residential (inner) frame sub-zone. The amendment initially specified that for development within that sub-zone, "the maximum wall height shall be 25 metres (eight storeys) or 40 metres AHD whichever is the lower…". The amendment was adopted by Council on 6 April 2004, but before any formal response from the WAPC was received to the proposed amendment, the Minister directed that it be modified to specify a maximum overall building height of "eight storeys" and Resolution No 62 was gazetted specifying eight storeys or 32 metres. Accordingly, references to eight storey buildings in amendment 458 were modified to refer to an overall building height of 32 metres to make the proposed amendment consistent with Resolution No 62. The revised amendment 458 also facilitated the ability for the adjoining White Sands Tavern site to have a maximum building height of 12 storeys or 44 metres
(Page 8)
- above natural ground level (whichever is the lesser) if a 7 metre wide public access way from Hastings Street to West Coast Highway is provided.
26 The modified amendment 458 was adopted by the respondent on 22 November 2005 and forwarded to the WAPC with a request for approval to commence public advertising. That approval had not been forthcoming at the hearing of this application.
District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2)
27 The site is zoned "hotel" under the provisions of DPS 2. Clause 1.3.5.4 empowers the Council to refuse to grant approval to an application for development having regard to the purpose for which land is zoned or reserved under DPS 2, the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenity of the locality.
28 DPS 2 imposes requirements for compliance with minimum development standards. In relation to a hotel, a minimum 9 metre setback is required, and a parking provision of "one bay per bedroom; plus one bay per 3 [square metres] of public floor space (including dining areas and functions room)". Clause 3.3 contains various standards and requirements in relation to commercial buildings.
29 Clause 3.3.10 sets out a height limit for commercial development. It provides:
"3.3.10.1 Any development, in a Commercial Zone contained within the Commercial Zone Height Limit Boundary shown on the Scheme Maps, which exceeds 12 metres in height above natural ground level at the base of the subject wall requires the special approval of the Council.
3.3.10.2 An application requiring the special approval of the Council under Clause 3.3.10.1 of the Scheme shall include information which addresses the impact of the proposal having regard to matters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk, scale and colour.
(Page 9)
- 3.3.10.3 Before determination of an application requiring the special approval of the Council under Clause 3.3.10.1, the Council shall:
(a) cause the provisions of Clause 1.3.5.3 of the Scheme to be invoked in respect of the application; and
(b) have due regard to the information provided under the provisions of Clause 3.3.10.2 of the Scheme and any submissions received in respect to the application being advertised under the provisions of Clause 1.3.5.3 of the Scheme."
30 The respondent's position at the hearing was that the proposed height of the building is unacceptable. Mr Simon Bain, a planner called by the respondent, contended that development should not exceed the proposed eight storey limit. Two local residents, Mr Ian Anderson and Ms Felicity Farrelly, contended that the increased height of the hotel would be completely out of character with single and two storey houses along Hastings Street. Ms Farrelly expressed concern about the impact of the building on views of the ocean from surrounding residences, although she conceded that her own ocean view would not be affected, although her view across the suburb would. She said that the hotel already stands out from other buildings in the area. Ms Farrelly was instrumental in collecting signatures on a proforma objection to the proposed development during a community event in December 2005. She produced a copy of the Perth Coastal Planning Strategy – Community Survey Report, prepared on the initiative of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in October 2005, which recorded a relatively high level of concern expressed by respondents to that survey concerning high rise development on the coast.
31 The applicants' position in relation to the height of the development is that, in substance, it meets the future planning objectives for the area, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the area.
32 Under cl 3.3.10.1 of DPS 2, a development which exceeds 12 metres in height above natural ground level requires the special approval of council. The existing building is, of course, well in excess of that height.
(Page 10)
- Clause 3.3.10.2 requires an application for special approval to address the impact of the proposal "having regard to matters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk, scale and colour".
33 Mr Bain expressed the view that the amenity of the locality would be detrimentally affected because the proposed development is grossly out of scale and excessively bulky when compared to the predominantly one and two storey residential units on Hastings Street. That is an observation which can be made in relation to the existing five storey building. We agree with Mr Matthew Turnbull, the planner called by the applicants, who expressed the opinion that issues associated with visual amenity, overlooking and privacy are unlikely to be detrimentally affected by the proposed additional floors. The photograph of the existing building demonstrates what Mr Turnbull described as "a tired building". We accept that the development is capable of rejuvenating the building, and the surrounding site. We think it unlikely that the additional storeys will have any significant effect on views, although the additional storeys will make the hotel a more prominent feature of the view to the south from Edgehill Street and the northern end of Hastings Street. We do not, however, consider that the impact on those views is of a degree of significance that would justify refusal of the application on an amenity ground.
34 Shadow diagrams submitted with the original applications suggest that the overshadowing resulting from the proposed additional four storeys affects a portion of the White Sands Tavern car parking area to the west of the Indian Ocean Hotel, and a portion of the Southside Holiday Units situated to the southwest. That effect is present in the morning in winter, and by midday, some shadow will fall on the adjoining three storey flat site to the south of the hotel. The respondent did not contend at the hearing that the additional storeys would create an unacceptable overshadowing effect, and we do not think that it will. The existing building with its roof sign at 24.8 metres already overshadows those adjoining lots to some degree.
35 Mr Bain expressed concern that insufficient information had been provided in relation to the wind impacts of the additional four storeys. He said that in his experience, high rise buildings can have significant impacts on wind circulation. Mr Turnbull expressed the opinion that the additional four storeys are unlikely to cause any detrimental wind impacts on adjoining land parcels, relying upon advice to that effect from the architects for the development. Given the generous setbacks of the high
(Page 11)
- rise portion of the building, we think it unlikely that the additional height of the building will affect wind impacts in the locality to a significantly greater extent than the existing structure. The applicants were prepared, however, to accept a condition requiring the submission of a satisfactory report on wind studies and compliance with any recommendations made in that report as a condition of approval. We consider that the matter can be adequately dealt with in that manner.
36 The issue of siting of the proposed development is of little significance in this case, simply because the existing building footprint will be utilised. As indicated, the building is sited on the lot with generous setbacks. As to building design, bulk, scale and colour, the development is likely to enhance the appearance of the existing building. The respondent proposed, and the applicants accepted, that if the application were to be approved, the plan of the proposed colour scheme to the external façade of the entire hotel should be submitted for approval by the City prior to the issue of a building licence. We agree that that is an appropriate way to deal with that issue.
37 Consideration of whether special approval for a building in excess of 12 metres in height should be given, requires consideration of the proposal in the context of planning for the area. The planning for the locality closer to the coast dealt with in amendment 457 proposes height limits of eight storeys or 32 metres. Amendment 458 contains a provision which would allow the development of the adjacent White Sands Tavern site to a maximum height of 12 storeys or 44 metres. Although in a far less advanced stage, amendment 458 contemplates building height for the subject site which would not exceed eight storeys or 32 metres (whichever is the lesser).
38 The proposal is for a building of nine storeys being 26.1 metres to the roof, and 29.1 metres to the lift overrun. The proposed building would therefore be well below the 32 metres contemplated in amendment 458. Neither of the planners who gave expert evidence at the hearing was able to provide any rational explanation for the imposition of height limitation by reference to storeys as an alternative to an absolute height limit in metres. Why, from the planning perspective, a nine storey building of 26.1 metres would be unacceptable when an eight storey building of 32 metres is acceptable, is not apparent. No explanation is found in the policy document relied upon by the WAPC and the Minister which formed the basis of the requirements for height limits found in amendment 457 and draft amendment 458.
(Page 12)
39 Having regard to the matters to which attention is drawn in cl 3.3.10 of DPS 2, and having regard to the seriously entertained proposals for the locality, we are of the view that special approval for the proposed development should not be refused on the basis of the height of the proposed development.
40 Consideration must therefore be given to the other matters raised by the respondent as grounds for refusing the application.
Parking
41 Table 3 of DPS 2 requires one parking bay for each bedroom, and one parking bay for each 3 square metres of public floor space. The existing hotel has 59 single bedroom units and 240 square metres of public floor space which gives rise to a requirement under the Scheme for 139 bays. The evidence was unclear as to precisely how many bays are presently provided. According to Mr Bain, there are 82 bays currently provided on site, the applicants asserted that there are currently 83 "functional" bays with a further five bays informally provided on site. Whatever may be the precise position, it is clear that the existing development does not meet the parking requirements specified in DPS 2.
42 Nor were the experts able to agree upon how many bays are able to be provided if the development proceeds. It was agreed that the Scheme requirement for parking if the development proceeded would be 182 bays. That is made up of one bay for each for the 59 existing single bedroom units, one bay for each of the 29 proposed single bedroom units, two for each of the seven proposed two bedroom units, and 80 for the 240 square metres of public floor space.
43 According to Mr Turnbull, the proposal is for 124 bays on site, and with four bays on the street frontage to the lot, a total of 128 bays can be provided. Adopting the figure of 83 existing bays, the proposed development would result in the addition of 41 new bays on site, and four bays on the street. The total additional parking requirement generated by the additional 29 single bedroom and seven double bedroom units would be 43 bays. Mr Turnbull argues that, if the bays on Hasting Street are included, the provision of 45 new bays would result in a reduced parking shortfall in the completed building compared to the existing position.
44 Mr Bain contended that there should be a further seven bays excluded from the calculation. They are six bays proposed on an existing landscaped area of the lot fronting Hastings Street, and a bay which abuts a bin storage area and, according to Mr Bain, is not available for parking.
(Page 13)
- On Mr Bain's calculations, therefore, there would be a total of 117 bays provided, excluding those on Hastings Street which he considers ought not be included in calculations. Mr Bain contends, therefore, only some 35 usable additional bays are proposed, and thus that the additional parking requirements from the proposed additions would not be met.
45 Clause 1.4.3.1 of DPS 2 provides a discretion to depart from a particular development requirement or standard if it is unreasonable or undesirable in the particular circumstances of the case. In our view, there is a strong case for departing from the full requirements of DPS 2 in relation to this proposed development. There is an existing shortfall in parking at the hotel at present. There was no suggestion in the evidence that there are any existing parking problems associated with the hotel. Mr Grove gave evidence that the existing parking was generally under utilised. He produced a survey which he undertook in August 2003 which, although somewhat unscientifically compiled, tended to support his evidence. Mr Grove said that his guests often arrived by taxi, bus or on foot, and he considered that the additional bays proposed would significantly exceed the additional parking requirements generated by the additional hotel accommodation rooms. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicants that the requirements for two bays for each two bedroom units are somewhat excessive. That is because those units are likely to be occupied by groups, such as family groups, which are likely to utilise only one vehicle, if any, while staying at the hotel. We accept Mr Grove's evidence that, in the context of this hotel, a two bedroom unit is unlikely to generate a need for two parking bays. If only one bay was to be required for the two bedroom units, then 36 additional bays would be necessary to meet the DPS 2 requirements in relation to the additional rooms.
46 In assessing the parking requirements, we consider that the four bays on Hastings Street can reasonably be taken into account for the purposes of exercising the discretion under cl 1.4.3.1. Hastings Street is a wide street, and the bays on Hastings Street adjoining the hotel site are recessed from the main carriageway. The length of the frontage is such that it would appear unlikely that the street bays would be required for any purpose other than visiting the hotel. There is ample parking on the eastern side of Hastings Street for visitors to the residences on that side, which all appear to provide adequate off street parking for their own domestic requirements.
47 The amount of parking that can be provided is potentially affected by the landscaping proposed for the redeveloped site. The plans as submitted
(Page 14)
- provide for six bays along the Hastings Street boundary but within the hotel land. It appears that the construction of all six of those bays would require the removal of some mature trees on that boundary. The respondent expressed concern that the loss of those trees would expose the hotel car park and building which the trees presently partially obscure. In our view, it is desirable that those trees be retained if possible, even at the cost of reducing the number of bays available on the lot along the eastern boundary. At the hearing, no survey of the precise location of the mature trees had been undertaken, and it was not possible to identify how many of the six bays might be lost by reason of the retention of those trees. The photographs tend to suggest that three or four bays might be comfortably provided along that boundary without loss of the mature trees.
48 Assuming the loss of some bays in order to maintain the trees, but taking into account the four bays on the Hastings Street frontage, we find that a total of at least 125 bays can be provided if the hotel is developed as proposed. There was some discussion about the retention of trees in a strip which runs through the centre of the existing car parking area, but the plans would suggest that those trees can all be retained in the proposed parking layout. If a total of 125 bays are available, the development will produce an additional parking facility in excess of the likely additional parking demand from the new hotel rooms. The precise configuration of the parking will be subject to the final form of the landscape plan which, the parties agree, should be submitted, as a condition of approval if approval is granted.
Landscaping
49 The applicants' position is that the question of landscaping is best dealt with by a landscaping plan which should be required as a condition of approval. We agree. The plan should involve the retention of mature trees where possible, and be consistent with the provision of not less than 121 bays on site (and four bays on Hastings Street).
Bin enclosure
50 The respondent raised as an issue the absence of a screened bin enclosure. We do not consider the absence of the identification of a bin enclosure on the plans to be a reason for refusal of the application. When building plans are submitted, provision will no doubt need to be made for an appropriate bin enclosure. The parking requirement will be such that the enclosure will need to be placed somewhere where it does not interfere with the proper use of parking bays. There is scope for placement of a bin closure underneath the ramp proposed to the new
(Page 15)
- upper level parking, but that is a matter which the Tribunal does not need to resolve. The draft conditions submitted by the City make provision for an appropriate bin enclosure and the applicants do not object to that condition. That is the appropriate way to deal with that issue.
Conclusion
51 It follows that the Tribunal is of the view that special approval for the proposed development should be granted subject to conditions. The conditions of approval should be as follows:
1. The submission of a satisfactory report on wind studies and compliance with any recommendations made in this respect on the effect the additional floors will have on the amenity of the locality to the City's satisfaction.
2. The location of existing mature trees on site are to be confirmed by survey and the survey provided to the City with the landscaping plan referred to in condition 3.
3. A landscaping plan, which –
i. incorporates the retention of existing trees located in the parking area and adjacent to the Hastings Street boundary wherever reasonably possible, and
ii. includes the provision of new mature trees in and around the front car park area,
shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.
4. The landscaping shown in the landscaping plans shall be reticulated to the satisfaction of the City and maintained in good condition thereafter.
5. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair.
6. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the approved plan being closed, the kerb and the verge reinstated.
(Page 16)
- 7. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residences or passing traffic.
8. All off street parking to be available on site for all employees and visitors, free of charge, to the satisfaction of the City.
9. The removal of all signage from the building including the roof sign and the wall signage facing west. A separate signage strategy in this respect to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.
10. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided.
11. Any reflective roof surfaces are to be treated to reduce glare where such surfaces adversely affects the amenity of the locality.
12. In areas where power is supplied by overhead street mains new installations must be serviced by underground service mains to the satisfaction of Western Power.
13. Internal traffic circulation and visibility issues are to be discussed and resolved with the Manager Engineering Design prior to the issue of a building licence. Any arrangements in this respect to be to the satisfaction of the City.
14. Traffic and access arrangements, involving crossovers, driveways and parking areas being to the satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Design, prior to the issue of a building licence.
15. Detailed site plans and details for the proposed car parking deck and parking layout below showing a total of 121 on site parking bays, shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.
(Page 17)
- 16. All necessary barricades, warning light, sign posting and pedestrian details to be erected in accordance with Australian Standards. Particular attention should be given to provide clear visibility during works for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
17. Bin enclosures being screened by a feature brick wall, not less than 1.5 metres in height, constructed of the same bricks as the building. Adequate gates are to be provided.
18. Full engineering documentation to be provided to demonstrate that the existing structure can support the new loadings prior to the issue of a building licence.
19. A plan of the proposed colour scheme for the external façade of the entire hotel shall be submitted for approval by the City prior to the issue of a building licence.
Orders
1. The application for approval to commence development of lot 2 (23) Hastings Street, Scarborough made in October 2003 is approved, subject to conditions 1 to 19 above.
I certify that this and the preceding [51] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE J CHANEY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
0
0
1