HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
[2010] WASAT 66
•13 MAY 2010
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2010] WASAT 66
MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD: 4 MAY 2010
DELIVERED : 13 MAY 2010
FILE NO/S: DR 490 of 2009
BETWEEN: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Metropolitan Region Scheme Public housing Public work Orderly and proper planning of the locality Determination of 'the locality' in the context of an application for development approval under a region scheme Whether a public work development must comply with the purpose and intent of a local planning scheme in a planning assessment under a region scheme Whether local planning scheme provisions are relevant in consideration of a public work development application under a region scheme
Legislation:
City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No 5, cl 2.4.1(c)
Metropolitan Region Scheme, cl 30(1)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 4(1), s 5(2), s 6, s 6(1), s 6(2), s 252(1)
Public Works Act 1902 (WA)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008), Table 1
Result:
Development approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Dr SJ Willey with Mr R Mascarenhas
Respondent: Ms CA Ide
Solicitors:
Applicant: Minter Ellison
Respondent: State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Buildex Construction Company and City of Melville [2008] WASAT 86; (2008) 59 SR (WA) 76
Mirvac Mandurah Pty Ltd and City of Mandurah [2006] WASAT 44
Wellard Pty Ltd and Town of Cottesloe [2009] WASAT 160
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This case concerned a development application for approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme to demolish eight one bedroom single storey asbestosclad public housing units now in a poor condition and construct 12 two bedroom single storey public housing units on a 3,365 square metre property in Bicton. The site is approximately 300 metres north of Canning Highway, a major transport corridor, and approximately 250 metres north of the Melville Plaza Shopping Centre, a District Centre in the Perth metropolitan hierarchy. As public housing is a public work, development approval is not required for the proposal under the local planning scheme, but only under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.
The two issues for determination were:
1)Whether the proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
2)Whether the proposed development is consistent with the preservation of the amenities of the locality.
In order to address the first issue, the Tribunal had to resolve two threshold matters for the purposes of the region planning assessment: first, the proper delineation of 'the locality'; and secondly, the effect, if any, of s 6 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). The Tribunal found that the relevant locality in the region planning assessment was broader than the local precinct defined under the local planning scheme and comprised a single interconnected area including the District Centre and the frame area to the north of Canning Highway. In relation to the effect of s 6 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), the Tribunal held that, contrary to the view of the Western Australian Planning Commission, the section did not require that a proposed public work development must comply with the purpose and intent of the local planning scheme in a planning assessment under a region planning scheme. However, contrary to the submission of the Housing Authority of Western Australia, s 6 did not make the provisions of the local planning scheme irrelevant in a region planning assessment of a proposed public work development. The Tribunal determined that provisions of a local planning scheme applying to land can properly inform the assessment of the orderly and proper planning of the locality under a region planning scheme, although they will rarely be the focus of the inquiry. The weight to be given to local planning scheme provisions and how these provisions are to be balanced against other planning considerations in assessing the consistency of a proposed public work development with the orderly and proper planning of the locality under a region scheme will depend on all the circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality. While the statement of intent for the precinct containing the site under the local planning scheme contemplated 'primarily low density residential', whereas the proposed development would have a residential density of approximately R35, which is medium density, the locality relevantly includes a broader area that contains a mix of densities up to and greater than R35. Furthermore, even the precinct under the local planning scheme includes a number of properties developed to R25 or R30 and also a medium density development at approximately R50 on the only comparably sized and shaped lot to the site a short distance to the north. In addition, the proposed development satisfies locational criteria for medium density housing under another provision of the local planning scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the site is very well located in terms of access to public transport and commercial and other facilities, and that the proposal is consistent with relevant environmental, economic and social factors. In particular, the Tribunal found that there is a pressing social need to provide more public housing of the nature proposed in the application in the area.
The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the preservation of the amenities of the locality. The relevant locality comprises a mixture of densities and forms of housing. The proposal is also consistent with the appearance of residential development in the surrounding area and will not create any unreasonable external impacts.
The Tribunal therefore set aside the decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission and granted conditional development approval for the proposed public housing development.
Background
In the 1950s, the Department of Housing (Department) constructed eight one bedroom public housing units on a property comprising four original lots with frontages to Murray Road (to the west) and Fifth Street (to the east) in Bicton (site). The site has an area of 3,365 square metres and frontages of approximately 35 metres to Murray Road and Fifth Street. The units are constructed in two rows of four units each stretching across the block at each street frontage and occupying, in total, only approximately 11% of the site. The residential density is approximately R25. The buildings are of asbestos construction and now in a poor condition.
The site is located approximately 300 metres north of Canning Highway which is a major transport corridor providing for a high frequency bus route between Perth City and Fremantle. The site is located approximately 250 metres north of the Melville Plaza Shopping Centre which is identified as a District Centre under State Planning Policy 4.2 Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the Perth Metropolitan Region.
The site is located in the BC2 Bicton Living Area Precinct (BC2 precinct) under the City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No 5 (CPS 5). The BC2 precinct is subject to a residential density coding of R17.5. The southern part of the same street block that contains the site and areas to the east and west is located in the MF Melville Frame Commercial Centre Frame Precinct (MF precinct) under CPS 5. The MF precinct is subject to a residential density coding of R50. The Melville Plaza Shopping Centre is located within the DC3 Melville Centre District Centre Precinct (DC3 precinct) under CPS 5. The DC3 precinct is subject to a residential density coding of R60.
The Housing Authority of Western Australia (Authority), which is responsible for the construction and management of public housing in this State, is seeking to progressively upgrade its older housing stock and to replace asbestosclad dwellings. Furthermore, in the Department's Fremantle Zone, which includes the site, there are currently 1,446 applicants seeking one or two bedroom dwellings. The waiting time for two bedroom units in the Fremantle Zone is approximately seven years. The Authority also builds purposebuilt housing for people who are mobility impaired and has a steady demand for this form of accommodation.
Development application
In December 2008, the Authority lodged an application for development approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for demolition of the eight existing units and construction of 11 single bedroom dwellings and eight two bedroom two storey dwellings on the site. The residential density of this proposed development was approximately R50. However, following discussions between the Authority, the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission) and the City of Melville (City), on 5 August 2009, the Authority withdrew the original development application and submitted a development application for the demolition of the eight existing one bedroom dwellings and the construction of 12 two bedroom single storey dwellings, of which one is designed for mobilityimpaired residents. Three dwellings are proposed along the Murray Road frontage and three along the Fifth Street frontage. A vehicular accessway is proposed at each street frontage to provide access to the remaining dwellings. The residential density of the proposed development is approximately R35.
The Commission referred the proposed development to the City, which objected to the proposal, citing provisions of CPS 5 and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes). As public housing is a 'public work' under the Public Works Act 1902 (WA) and, hence, under s 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), development approval under CPS 5 is not required for the proposed development in consequence of s 6(1) of the PD Act. However, in consequence of s 5(2) of the PD Act, development approval is required to construct a public work under the MRS.
On 24 November 2009, the Commission resolved to refuse development approval for the proposed development for the following four reasons:
1.The proposal seeks to develop the land with medium density (R35 equivalent) housing in an area predominantly consisting of low density (R17.5 equivalent) housing.
2.The development requirements of the [Codes] for land coded R17.5 have not been satisfied.
3.The proposal fails to comply with the purpose and intent of [CPS 5] (as required by the provisions of s 6 of the [PD Act]). In this regard the conflict with the local planning scheme for low density housing within the Living Area Precinct BC2 Bicton is significant resulting in adverse residential amenity from unplanned and ad hoc medium density housing development.
4.Approval to the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for the development and subdivision of surrounding lots.
On 21 December 2009, the Authority sought review by the Tribunal of the Commission's decision under s 252(1) of the PD Act. Following the commencement of the proceeding, the Authority provided additional information to the Commission, including clarification from the City as to its position and six comments from adjoining landowners objecting to the proposal. While the City reiterated its objection to the proposed development, it recognised that the proposal has the following positive aspects:
•it complies with front setback requirements for land coded R17.5;
•it presents to the street as an R17.5 development consistent with the streetscape of the surrounding locality;
•it will replace degraded housing stock with new housing and remove asbestos from the locality;
•it will include new landscaping; and
•it will improve the amenity and streetscape of the surrounding locality.
On 16 March 2010, the Commission's Statutory Planning Committee received a report from its town planning officers. Whereas the officers had previously recommended refusal of the proposed development, in light of the additional information and further analysis, the officers recommended that the Commission should grant conditional development approval, because, 'on balance in this instance, the overall merits of the proposed development (as expressed in this report and previous reports) could be viewed to outweigh the relevance of the inconsistency with the density provisions of the City's CPS 5'. The officers advised that the Commission 'is not fettered by the provisions of the City's CPS 5 in respect of its ability to approve developments under the MRS' and referred to the following factors in relation to orderly and proper planning and amenity:
(a)the proposed development supports the objectives, intent and planning direction of [the Commission] high order strategies such as Network City Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel and Directions 2031 Draft Spacial Framework for Perth and Peel and State Planning Policy No. 3 Urban Growth and Settlements to promote the efficient and effective use of residential land including suitable infill development in appropriate localities.
(b)The proposed development is appropriate for the site (contemporary dwellings, appropriate interface to the streetscapes, layout and single storey being compatible with surrounding housing development with landscaping inclusive of new trees to replace existing trees).
(c)The City's CPS 5 was gazetted on 14 December 1999 and may not be viewed to now be responsive to changing housing needs and priorities in the interim period.
(d)The presence of [Department] landholdings is not significant in Bicton with no strategic plan to identify the progressive upgrading of the existing housing stock within the locality.
However, without giving any specific reason for rejecting the planning officers' recommendation, the Statutory Planning Committee resolved to reinstate its decision of 24 November 2009 to refuse the development application.
Issues for determination
Clause 30(1) of the MRS provides as follows:
The Commission or a local authority exercising the powers of the Commission so delegated to it under the [PD Act] may consult with any authority that in the circumstances it thinks appropriate; and having regard to the purpose for which the land is zoned under the [MRS], the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality may, in respect of any application for approval to commence development, refuse its approval or may grant its approval subject to such conditions if any as it may deem fit.
The site is zoned Urban under the MRS. The town planning expert witnesses, Mr Richard Elliott, the Department's Manager, Planning Acquisitions and Assets, and Mr Ray Haeren, a consultant town planner, who each gave evidence on behalf of the Authority, and Ms Amanda Butterworth, a consultant town planner who gave evidence on behalf of the Commission, agreed that the proposed development is consistent with the zoning of the site under the MRS. The Tribunal concurs. Public housing is consistent with Urban zoning.
The parties agreed that the following two issues arise for determination in this review:
1)Whether the proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
2)Whether the proposed development is consistent with the preservation of the amenities of the locality.
The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.
Is the proposed development consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality?
Two threshold matters were debated between the parties in relation to this issue: first, the proper delineation of 'the locality' for the purposes of cl 30(1) of the MRS; and second, the effect, if any, of s 6 of the PD Act on the consideration of 'orderly and proper planning' under cl 30(1) of the MRS.
What is 'the locality'?
The town planning experts disagreed in relation to the proper delineation of 'the locality'. Ms Butterworth considered that the locality is confined to the area of the BC2 precinct under CPS 5. Ms Butterworth suggested that a 'locality' must have an homogenous character. In contrast, Mr Elliott and Mr Haeren considered that the locality includes not only the BC2 precinct, but also the areas of the MF precinct and the DC3 precinct to the south and east. Mr Elliott and Mr Haeren explained that, in a region planning assessment, such as under cl 30(1) of the MRS, 'the regional nature of this assessment means that you need to look more broadly' than would be the case in a planning assessment under a local planning scheme. They said that the southern and eastern boundaries of the locality are demarcated by the key physical barriers of Canning Highway and Stock Road.
The Tribunal agrees with the evidence of Mr Elliott and Mr Haeren. The areas to the north and west of Canning Highway and Stock Road in the DC3, MF and BC2 precincts under CPS 5 form a single interconnected area that includes the site and, hence, the locality, for the purposes of the region planning assessment. As a reflection of the interconnected nature of the area, while the site is in the BC2 precinct, the southern part of the street block, only eight properties to the south of the site, forms part of the MF precinct, and the DC3 precinct is located just a further short distance to the south. The BC2, MF and DC3 precincts are connected to one another by Murray Road and Fifth Street as well as other streets. As Mr Haeren said, it is not necessarily the case that a 'locality' must have a homogenous character. The locality in this case contains a variety of residential density codings under CPS 5, ranging from R17.5 and R60. Even within the BC2 precinct, there is a mix of densities and housing forms, including predominantly single houses on original lots, but also including a number of properties developed to R25 or R30 densities. Furthermore, the only other residentially developed property of comparable size and shape to the site in the BC2 precinct (between No 78 Murray Road and No 46 Fifth Street, five properties to the north of the site) is developed with 13 grouped dwellings at a residential density of approximately R50.
Effect of s 6 of the PD Act
Section 6 of the PD Act states as follows:
(1)Subject to section 5(2) and subsections (2) and (3) of this section, nothing in this Act interferes with the right of the Crown, or the Governor, or the Government of the State, or a local government
(a)to undertake, construct or provide any public work; and
(b)to take land for the purposes of that public work.
(2)Rights referred to in subsection (1) are to be exercised having regard to
(a)the purpose and intent of any planning scheme that has effect in the locality where, and at the time when, the right is exercised; and
(b)the orderly and proper planning, and the preservation of the amenity, of that locality at that time.
(3)The responsible authority is to be consulted at the time when a proposal for any public work, or for the taking of land for a public work, is being formulated to ensure that the undertaking, construction, or provision of, or the taking of land for, the public work will comply with subsection (2).
As noted earlier, one of the reasons for refusal of the application by the Commission was:
The proposal fails to comply with the purpose and intent of [CPS 5] (as required by the provisions of s 6 of the [PD Act]).
Similarly, Ms Butterworth assessed the application on the basis that s 6(2) of the PD Act requires that the proposed development must comply with the purpose and intent of CPS 5 on a planning assessment under cl 30(1) of the MRS. Ms Butterworth considered that the proposed development does not comply with the purpose and intent of CPS 5, because it involves a residential density approximately double that contemplated by CPS 5 for land in the BC2 precinct, and the statement of intent for that precinct refers to 'primarily low density residential' which, according to Table 1 of the Codes, is limited to codings of R25 and below, whereas codings of R30 and above are considered to be 'medium density' according to Table 1 of the Codes.
However, the obligation in s 6(2) of the PD Act is directed to the authority undertaking, constructing or providing a public work. The subsection is not directed to an assessment of whether the construction of a public work is to be approved under a region planning scheme. Furthermore, the obligation under s 6(2) of the PD Act is to be observed 'at the time when, the right is exercised'. In this case, the purpose and intent of CPS 5 may have changed between the assessment of the proposed development under the MRS and the construction of the proposed public housing. Indeed, CPS 5 may have been replaced by another local planning scheme by that time.
The Authority submitted that the effect of s 6 of the PD Act is that the provisions of a local planning scheme applying to the land are irrelevant to the assessment of whether a proposed public work development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality under cl 30(1) of the MRS. Dr SJ Willey, who appeared with Mr R Mascarenhas on behalf of the Authority, reasoned that, as development approval is not required for a public work under CPS 5, s 6 of the PD Act precludes consideration of any provisions of CPS 5 in a region planning assessment. The Authority submitted that, were this not the case, it would interfere with the right of the Crown to construct a public work.
However, s 6 of the PD Act does not have the effect contended by the Authority. Section 6(1) specifically states that the provision that 'nothing in this Act interferes with the right', relevantly, to construct a public work, is 'subject to s 5(2)'. Section 5(2) of the PD Act states that '[a] region planning scheme binds the Crown' and, therefore, requires a public authority proposing to construct a public work within the Perth Metropolitan Region to obtain development approval under the MRS. It is well established that the provisions of a local planning scheme may be relevant in considering whether a proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality under cl 30(1) of the MRS: Mirvac Mandurah Pty Ltd and City of Mandurah [2006] WASAT 44 at [89] and Wellard Pty Ltd and Town of Cottesloe [2009] WASAT 160 at [34]. While s 6(1) of the PD Act has the effect that approval is not required to undertake, construct or provide any public work under a local planning scheme, as this subsection is subject to s 5(2) of the PD Act, local planning scheme provisions may be considered in a region planning assessment.
Provisions of a local planning scheme applying to land can properly inform the assessment of the orderly and proper planning of the locality under a region planning scheme. Local planning scheme provisions are certainly not determinative of orderly and proper planning in a region planning assessment and, indeed, will rarely be the focus of the inquiry. However, local planning scheme provisions can be a piece of the jigsaw that together forms the picture of the orderly and proper planning of the locality, particularly because of the broader-brush nature of most region strategic planning. However, the weight to be given to local planning scheme provisions and how these provisions are to be balanced against other planning considerations in assessing the consistency of a proposed public work development with the orderly and proper planning of the locality under a region planning scheme, will depend on all the circumstances of the case.
Consistency with orderly and proper planning in this case
In this case, while it is correct that the contemplation of CPS 5 is that the BC2 precinct will be 'primarily low density residential', that is, that it will primarily comprise residential development with a density of R25 or below, the relevant locality under cl 30(1) of the MRS is broader than the BC2 precinct and includes a mix of densities up to and greater than R35. Even the BC2 precinct, while predominantly single houses on original lots, includes a number of properties developed to R25 or R30 densities. Significantly, also, the only comparably sized and shaped residential property in the BC2 precinct contains a medium density development with a residential density of R50. Furthermore, as the City observed, the proposal presents to the street as an R17.5 development consistent with the streetscape of the surrounding locality. While one additional dwelling to the three street front dwellings on each street could be viewed down the driveway, as Mr Haeren pointed out, this is not unusual in the locality or even in the BC2 precinct where there are a number of battleaxe style grouped dwelling or green title developments.
Mr Haeren also referred to cl 2.4.1(c) of CPS 5 which states as follows:
To provide a rational basis for density allocation, criteria for medium housing densities shall be:
(i)proximity to commercial centres;
(ii)proximity to tertiary education institutions;
(iii)proximity to major public transport routes; and
(iv)compatibility with surrounding development.
As noted earlier, the site is proximate to a District Commercial Centre and to a major public transport route along Canning Highway. The development proposed for the site is also compatible with surrounding development. The words 'compatible with' mean 'capable of existing in harmony with': Buildex Construction Company and City of Melville [2008] WASAT 86; (2008) 59 SR (WA) 76 at [53]. Medium density development in the form and scale proposed in the development application is compatible with surrounding development, because it will present in a manner consistent with surrounding development, will not have any material amenity impacts on surrounding development and is proposed a short distance to the south of a medium density development with a residential density of approximately R50.
The Tribunal does not, therefore, accept Ms Butterworth's evidence that the proposed development is inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality, having regard to provisions of CPS 5.
Two other planning considerations referred to by Mr Elliott and Mr Haeren are also relevant in determining whether the proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality. First, the site is very well located in terms of access to public transport and commercial and other facilities. While this would be a material consideration in relation to any medium density residential development, it is particularly important, as Mr Elliott explained, in the context of public housing in which residents are more likely to be dependent on public transport and pedestrian proximity to commercial and other services.
Secondly, cl 3.1 of the Commission's Development Control Policy 1.2 Development control General principles states that the Commission will have regard to 'relevant planning considerations in making decisions on development applications' including 'relevant environmental, economic and social factors'. As Mr Elliott explained, the proposed development is appropriate having regard to each of these factors. In environmental terms, while the proposal would result in the loss of trees and other vegetation growing in the central part of the site, mature landscaping is to be provided, some 66% of the site would remain open space, and modern, fivestar energy rated dwellings would replace asbestosclad dwellings in a poor condition. In economic terms, the Authority has a public responsibility to manage its resources and utilise its land assets efficiently. The current number and configuration of units on the site is hardly an efficient use of this public asset. In social terms, the Authority's function is to house people on low incomes who are less able to access housing in the private market. Having regard to the demand and waiting time for two bedroom units in the area, there is plainly a pressing social need to provide more public housing of the nature proposed in the area.
Having regard to all of these considerations, the proposed development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
Is the proposed development consistent with the preservation of the amenities of the locality?
Ms Butterworth considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the preservation of the amenities of the locality, because the BC2 precinct has a low density character, whereas the proposed development is medium density in character. However, for reasons discussed earlier, 'the locality' of the site comprises not only the BC2 precinct, but also the MF precinct and the DC2 precinct to the north of Canning Highway and to the west of Stock Road. The locality includes a mixture of densities and forms of housing. Furthermore, even restricting the analysis to the BC2 precinct, the proposed development is consistent with the preservation of the amenities of that locality for the following reasons given by Mr Haeren:
a.The proposal provides for new contemporary housing fronting both abutting streets, and replaces outdated and poorer quality housing with development more in keeping with the quality of development exhibited in the surrounding area (in addition to improving housing choice and variety by providing 2 bedroom dwellings, which would be generally smaller than the prevalent housing type in the area).
b.The development is consistent with the appearance of residential development in the surrounding area, and actually reduces the number of existing residences fronting the street, with the balance [of] dwellings occupying the mid-block area. Setbacks are consistent with those provided within the surrounding area[.]
c.The two bedroom, single storey residences provide minimal site cover and building bulk and as their footprint would be similar to larger dwellings developed under at R17.5 Code, I am comfortable that the nature of development would be a similar intensity to that provided under that Code[.]
d.The development will not create an unreasonable overlooking or overshadowing concern by virtue of its single storey nature[.]
e.The development maintains the balance of vehicle access points accessing each abutting street, and therefore balances traffic flow between the two streets. I don't consider the increased traffic flow, from a planning perspective, would be so substantial as to cause amenity impacts for nearby residents. Care has been taken to locate access points central to the site to minimise impact on neighbours[.]
f.The nature of the development, being residential land use, is consistent with that of its neighbours and of the immediate locality in general.
g.There is a significant amount of grouped dwelling development in the locality already.
Conclusion
As Mr Elliott said, the proposed development of 12 two bedroom single storey grouped dwellings on the site achieves 'a balanced outcome'. In the form that is now proposed, an increase in residential density at the site from R25 to R35 is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality.
As Ms Butterworth pointed out, the solar access of the courtyards of two of the proposed units can be improved by amending the plans. With a condition to this effect, and other conditions agreed between the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development warrants approval under the MRS.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision made by the respondent on 24 November 2009 and on 16 March 2010 is set aside and in its place a decision is substituted granting development approval for the demolition of eight grouped dwellings and the construction of 12 grouped dwellings at Lot 85 Murray Road, Bicton subject to the following conditions:
1)The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans drawn by Kenz Building Design Studio job no KZ0907HW dated 8/6/09 except as varied by the following conditions.
2)Any fill to support the development on the subject land shall be compatible with the existing levels on adjoining sites.
3)All stormwater is to be retained on site or connected to the local stormwater system.
4)The development shall be appropriately landscaped with mature plantings.
5)All buildings are to be set back a minimum of 6 metres from Murray Road and Fifth Street.
6)Unit 1 and Unit 2 on Fifth Street shall be redesigned so that their courtyards have a northern orientation.
I certify that this and the preceding [41] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
3
5