Inglewood Church Of Christ and City Of Stirling

The Inglewood Church of Christ sought approval for alterations and additions to their existing property, intending to use it as a church. The City of Stirling denied the application, leading to the Church filing for a review. The dispute was heard in the Western Australian Supreme Court. The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed use was adequately described, whether the place of public worship encompassed welfare services, whether the proposed use complied with town centre design guidelines, and if adequate car parking was provided. The court also had to determine if the existing planning consent for a restaurant, granted despite a 40 car bay shortfall, made compliance with the scheme minimum parking provision unreasonable.

The court examined the description of the proposed use, finding it inadequate. It considered whether the place of public worship included welfare services such as a soup kitchen or accommodation for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, concluding these were not adequately described. The court also assessed whether the proposed use would create an active and lively street frontage and provide adequate car parking, finding it did not meet the necessary standards. It noted that the existing planning consent for a restaurant was granted with a shortfall in car parking bays, which did not justify non-compliance in this instance. The court scrutinised the calculation of car parking generation, including whether offices, preparation areas, verandah, platform and walkways should be included. It also evaluated noise implications and the need for a management plan.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for review and refused development approval. The court found the proposed use did not sufficiently describe the welfare services and did not comply with the town centre design guidelines. It also concluded that the proposed use did not provide an active and lively street frontage nor adequate car parking. Consequently, the court upheld the City of Stirling’s decision, denying the approval for alterations and additions at the specified properties.