| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : JOINT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP PTY LTD and CITY OF SUBIACO [2013] WASAT 76 MEMBER : MR J JORDAN (MEMBER) HEARD : 24 AND 30 OCTOBER AND 2 NOVEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : Decision delivered 21 DECEMBER 2012 Reasons published 28 MAY 2013
FILE NO/S : DR 262 of 2012 BETWEEN : JOINT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP PTY LTD Applicant
AND
CITY OF SUBIACO
Respondent
Catchwords: Town planning Development refusal Mixed use development Predominantly office use with shop and residential uses Town Centre zone History of exercise of discretion to grant development approval on site Earlier approvals granted for mixed use development on site and neighbouring lots in excess of minimum plot ratio standard Objectives for zone Impact on amenity of occupants of site and abutting lots Casual surveillance of public places Orderly and proper planning
(Page 2)
Legislation: City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 14(2), cl 27, cl 27(4), cl 27(4)(g), cl 28, cl 53, cl 54, cl 54(1), cl 54(1)(a)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) Result: Application for review upheld
Conditional approval granted for mixed use development at plot ratio of 2.1:1 with office use and two dwellings on third floor
Summary of Tribunal's decision: The site had been the subject of three earlier development approvals where the Council had exercised discretion to approve a four story building of mixed use comprising shop, office and residential uses at a plot ratio in excess of 2.0:1.
The respondent refused a further application for a development with a smaller proportion of residential and greater proportion of office use, again with a plot ratio in excess of 2.0:1, because it considered the development failed to satisfy the objectives for the zone as expressed in the Local Planning Scheme and the Council's policies.
The Tribunal determined that the history of development approvals for the site and the approvals granted for development nearby were relevant considerations and that the proposed mix of uses for the development and the plot ratio proposed would satisfactorily meet the planning objectives for the zone and the locality.
The Tribunal determined that discretion should be exercised and granted conditional approval for the proposed development.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P McQueen with Ms C Gleeson
Respondent : Mr S Allerding (Acting as Agent)
(Page 3)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Lavan Legal
Respondent : Allerding & Associates (Planning Consultants)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 The Tribunal issued its decision in this matter on 21 December 2012. The Tribunal determined that conditional approval be granted for the development. Following are the reasons for that decision. 2 The development was proposed at No 334 Barker Road, corner Rowland Street, Subiaco (site). The site is zoned Town Centre under City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4), as are the lots adjoining to the west, north and east across Rowland Street. Lots to the south are zoned Residential with a density coding of R80. 3 The site falls from Barker Road to the northern boundary. Similarly, the lot abutting to the north, currently used as a public car park, slopes down from its rear boundary to the northern boundary at Forrest Street. Abutting to the west on the corner of Barker Road and Dennis Street is a four storey mixed use building. To the east across Rowland Street are two storey buildings containing a pub and office uses and beyond which are the commercial and retail uses of Rokeby Road. The houses to the south are a mix of one and two storeys. 4 Under TPS 4, office and multiple dwelling uses are designated 'AA' in the Town Centre zone. Pursuant to cl 14(2) of TPS 4, these uses are not permitted unless discretion is exercised and approval is granted, taking into consideration the objectives of TPS 4 and the relevant City of Subiaco (City or respondent) planning policies. Clause 27(4) of TPS 4 requires regard to be had to various matters, including orderly and proper planning and the conservation of the amenity of the locality. 5 Objectives for the Town Centre zone are found at cl 53 of TPS 4, and these include: (a) to encourage the development of high quality buildings of special character commensurate with their location within the Town Centre of Subiaco; (b) to encourage vibrant and diverse uses, including residential, which promote the area as the Town Centre of Subiaco; … (e) the protection of the amenity of areas adjacent to the Town Centre Zone[;] … (Page 5)
(k) to promote and encourage design that incorporates crime prevention through environmental design principles including but not limited to … casual surveillance of public open spaces and adequate pedestrian movement sightlines. 6 Clause 54 of TPS 4 lists standards applicable in the Town Centre zone. Clause 54(1) states: Plot Ratio: Buildings are to have a maximum plot ratio of 1.33 except where a mixed-use development comprising residential uses is proposed. In this instance, the maximum plot ratio may be increased to 2 provided that in any development not more than 25% of the excess relevant floorspace will be used for nonresidential purposes. 7 Central to the consideration of this matter is cl 28 of TPS 4 which provides that approval might be granted for a development despite noncompliance with a scheme standard or requirement. Clause 28 reads, relevantly: (1) Except for development in respect of which the Residential Planning Codes apply, if a development is the subject of an application for planning approval and does not comply with a standard or requirement prescribed under the Scheme, the Council may, despite the noncompliance, approve the application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit. … (3) The Council cannot grant development approval for a noncomplying application unless, if so required by the Council under clause 26, the application has been advertised and the Council is satisfied that:
(a) if approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with: (i) the orderly and proper planning of the locality; (ii) the preservation of the amenity of the locality; and
(iii) the planning objectives of the particular zone and relevant precinct planning policies; and (b) noncompliance would not have any undue adverse effect on: (i) the occupiers or users of the development;
(ii) the property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or
(iii) the likely future development of the locality.
8 The City had also adopted two directly relevant policies; Local Planning Policy 4.4 – Development in the Town Centre Zone (LPP 4.4) and Local Planning Policy 8.4Town Centre Precinct Policy (Page 6)
(LPP 8.4). Reference was also made to the City's Subiaco Central Development Plan (SCD Plan). Broader planning documents referred to included State Planning Policy 4.2– Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP 4.2) and 'Directions 2031' published by the Western Australian Planning Commission. 9 In determining the matter, the Tribunal had the expert evidence of expert witnesses Ms Amanda Butterworth and Mr Murray Casselton, town planners, Mr Malcolm McKay, an urban designer and Mr Graham Taylor, the architect for the development. Also appearing as a witness was Mr Timothy Mack, for the applicant.
The proposed development 10 The application by Joint Property Development Pty Ltd (applicant) was for review of the refusal by the City to grant planning approval for development on the site, using virtually the same building as the development previously approved in 2010, but with use of the third floor for office and residential and not just residential. The structure approved in 2010 is now largely complete. 11 In March 2012, the applicant applied to the City for approval to use the top floor entirely for office purposes. Following discussions with the City, the applicant lodged amended plans in July 2012. These were different from the 2010 approval by way of the following third floor variations: • removal of two dwellings that occupied the whole floor; • addition of two one bedroom apartments extended across the southern elevation; • using the remainder of the floor for office use; • modification to the building façade to the north and east (except for one balcony at the southern end) by replacing balconies with office floor space; and • increasing the height of the roof in one section to house equipment. 12 In July 2012, the respondent refused the development application because of, in summary, the proposed development being in conflict with the objectives and requirements for the Town Centre zone as set out in cl 28(3), cl 53 and cl 54(1) of TPS 4 and the related City policies. (Page 7)
13 It was the July 2012 plans refused by the City that were then before the Tribunal.
Issues 14 The Tribunal identified the following issues, which overlap and interrelate, from the statements of issues, facts and contentions filed by the parties. 1) Whether approval to the development in the form proposed would be consistent with the respondent's planning framework. 2) The extent to which discretion can be exercised for a noncomplying application under the respondent's TPS 4 and whether it is appropriate to exercise that discretion in this instance. 3) Whether the developments and changes proposed that give rise to the change of use, or any other changes in the proposed development, would be acceptable. 4) Whether it would be orderly and proper planning for approval to be granted to the proposed development.
Discussion 15 There was no dispute between the parties that there had been three earlier approvals granted by the respondent for development on the site. 16 In August 2007, the City granted development approval for a four storey development on the site incorporating a basement carpark, retail and parking on the ground floor, offices on the first and second floor, and on the third floor, two dwellings covering the entire floor. It was common ground between the parties that this development would have a plot ratio of 2.1:1. 17 In December 2007, the City granted a second development approval for alterations to the western façade and modifications to the floor area. A condition of the approval required that there be a reduction from a proposed plot ratio of 2.2:1 to 2.1:1, as previously approved. 18 In December 2009, a further application for development approval was submitted to the City because the approval granted in December 2007 was about to expire and the development had not substantially (Page 8)
commenced. The City granted development approval for that application in January 2010. The respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions stated that the mixed use building approved in 2010 would have a plot ratio of 2.1:1. 19 Subsequent to the January 2010 approval, a building licence was issued and construction commenced. The Tribunal noted when it viewed the site during the hearing that the applicant had acted on the approvals, and the external shape of the building approved in 2010 was largely complete at that stage. The interior fit outs and petitioning were underway, with work halted on the third floor. 20 The ground and first floors were effectively built to the site boundary. The two upper floors were set back from the street frontages and from that part of the western boundary opposite the eastfacing balconies of dwellings on the lot to the west. The upper floors were built to the northern boundary, with a balcony at the third floor level consistent with the 2010 approval. 21 The amended plans that included the two one bedroom dwellings with the office space on the third floor of the building that were refused by the City in July 2012 proposed a plot ratio for the development of 2.13:1. 22 The parties agreed that the applicant had applied for and received from the City three approvals for development on the site with a plot ratio of 2.1:1. The parties further agreed that the City made use of the discretion available at cl 28 of TPS 4 for each of these approvals. 23 The respondent argued that for this proposal, it was appropriate to use the control that would best achieve the objectives for the Town Centre zone. It was submitted that the proposed residential proportion of the floor space was not sufficient to warrant a relaxation of the plot ratio standard of 1.33:1 cited in cl 54(1) of TPS 4. 24 The respondent argued that the building approved for the Forrest Street lot abutting the site to the north and the existing building on the lot to the west of the site included a significant area of residential floor space, and it was therefore appropriate that they be approved with a plot ratio in excess of 1.33:1, as provided by cl 54(1) of TPS 4. There was no dispute that the City, as landowner, was the applicant for the Forrest Street development with a plot ratio greater than 2.0:1. The Tribunal considers relevant the development approvals issued for neighbouring sites. (Page 9)
25 The Tribunal in determining this matter adopted the approach that it was necessary that there be consistency in the decisionmaking associated with the development of this site. It was decided that the consequences of the earlier approvals for the site were relevant and were to be taken into account. The Tribunal took the view that there was before it, for the site, a proposal by the same landowner with the same underlying mix of commercial, office and residential uses. The Tribunal determined to follow the precedent of the earlier decisions and to exercise discretion in determining this matter in the light of the particular circumstances of this case. The Tribunal considered that it would not necessarily follow as a matter of course that a similar approach to the exercise of discretion would be available for other sites and developments that had a different background. 26 The question that then fell to be determined was whether the variation of the floor area of office use and residential use could be supported, having regard to the application of appropriate town planning objectives, as enunciated in the objectives for the zone at cl 53, and in s 28(3) of TPS 4 and the relevant policies that bear upon the development of this site.
Issue 1: whether approval to the development in the form proposed would be consistent with the respondent's planning framework 27 Clause 53(b) of TPS 4 lists as an objective for the Town Centre zone: to encourage vibrant and diverse uses, including residential, which promote the area as the Town Centre of Subiaco[.] This objective is in the same vein as Objective 1 and Desired Future Character Item 2 in LPP 8.4. 28 The respondent said the current and likely future character of this precinct of the Town Centre was represented by the dwellings to the south, and the proportion of dwellings in the development to the west and approved for the development on the Forrest Street lot abutting to the north. The respondent argued that the location was 'suited and intended to accommodate mixed residential land use'. Reducing the residential component to two one bedroom dwellings which were a 'token' percentage of the proposed development would not provide vibrancy and diversity in the Town Centre. The respondent said this change did not meet the intent of the zone objectives of a vibrant and diverse centre. (Page 10)
29 The Tribunal did not accept the zone objective was to be interpreted solely as an intention to 'promote the residential Town Centre elements of Subiaco', as expressed by Ms Butterworth. 30 The Tribunal formed the view that this was not a locality intended only to accommodate development with a predominance of residential use. The objectives for the locality appear directed towards mixed land use, and the Tribunal noted the submissions of Mr Casselton and Mr McKay that nonresidential use, including office use, could also add to a diverse locality with a particular vibrancy. The contribution to vibrancy by any particular development would ultimately be a consequence of the mix of tenants and the type of activity carried out. 31 In this regard, the Tribunal considered that the continued presence of two dwellings and the proposed commercial tenancies suitable for shop use on the ground floor was significant, as these would make a contribution to a diversity of uses and that illusive concept 'vibrancy'. Adding the additional office floor space was not seen by the Tribunal to remove to any significant degree any vibrancy that would otherwise have been generated if the 2010 development was to remain. 32 The respondent highlighted the objective for the zone at cl 53(k) of TPS 4, which referred to the promotion and encouragement of design that incorporates crime prevention measures including, but not limited to, 'casual surveillance of public open spaces and adequate pedestrian movement sightlines'. LPP 8.4 and SPP 4.2, at cl 5.4(2), have a similar objective. 33 There was no dispute between the parties that the sightlines at street level resulting from the development were adequate and that there would remain the capacity for casual surveillance from the third floor residences after hours along Barker Road and at the Rowland Street corner. The concern of the respondent was that removal of much of the residential interface along Rowland Street would remove from the development the potential for casual overlooking, as well as what was described as a 'sense' and appearance that the Town Centre was lived in after hours. The respondent said that, in addition, this would be inconsistent with TPS 4 at cl 54(1)(a) which encouraged residential development and, as a consequence, casual surveillance, particularly of Rowland Street. 34 The Tribunal formed the view that there was merit in the objective of each building providing casual surveillance of public places at all hours. (Page 11)
However, that this might not be comprehensively achieved was not, of itself, considered a basis for rejecting a particular use within a building or necessarily a reason for refusal. It must be accepted that under TPS 4, in the Town Centre zone, certain uses are permitted, and discretion is available to grant approval for others, none of which would provide 24 hour casual surveillance. The Tribunal did not accept that such uses should only be allowed if they were included in a mixed use development that also included residential use that might provide for casual surveillance in each direction after business hours. 35 The Tribunal formed the view that the proposed development sufficiently addressed these objectives for the Town Centre zone. 36 Issue 2: to the extent that discretion can be exercised for a noncomplying applicationunder TPS 4, would it be appropriate to exercise that discretion in this instance? 37 The respondent argued that if there was discretion to approve the noncomplying use then the discretion should not be exercised in this instance. It was the respondent's submission that LPP 8.4 and LPP 4.4 supported the importance of providing a residential component within significant development in the Town Centre. LPP 8.4 referred to including residential uses rather than solely retail or commercial development and LPP 4.4 referred to encouraging 'diverse uses including residential, which promote the area as the Town Centre of Subiaco'. The objectives from the two policies were said to be consistent with the objectives for the Town Centre zone at cl 53 of TPS 4 and also with the SCD Plan, which identified 'some limited residential' in its preferred uses for the Town Centre zone precinct in which the review site was located. In the respondent's view, while the planning documents did not seek to have residential development as the dominant use and discretion could be exercised with respect to the arrangement and layout of such uses within a development, a significant proportion of residential development was required. 38 The respondent referred to the 'context' of the proposed development referring to the constructed building abutting to the west that was largely residential and the approved building to the north, which was also largely residential. It was submitted that in this context it would be appropriate that the residential proportion of the proposed building be greater than applied for. (Page 12)
39 The respondent referred to the examples given by the applicant where no residential was included in developments approved in the Town Centre zone with a plot ratio exceeding 1.33:1. The respondent said the two developments emphasised in Railway Parade and in Catherine Street could be distinguished from the current proposal because of the 'context' for those two approvals. This was explained as, respectively, a small site of awkward shape in a largely commercial area and, in Catherine Street, the development, including a contribution to the pedestrian circulation system that would be open to the public at large. 40 The respondent said it was not 'wedded' to the size of the dwellings previously approved for the third floor and would support the third floor being developed for a range of dwellings of different sizes. The respondent said that the applicant's submission that it would now be more economic to develop office space was not, of itself, a ground for setting aside the planning objective of providing a significant proportion of residential floor space in this locality. 41 In this regard, the Tribunal would comment that a commercial preference to have residential floor area replaced by office floor area was not a basis for ignoring planning objectives. The Tribunal's interest was in arriving at what it considered to be a correct and preferable outcome consistent with the planning objectives found in the instruments. For the reasons outlined in this decision, the Tribunal formed the view that the mix of use types now proposed for the building achieves the planning objectives for this locality. 42 A further reason advanced by the applicant for the change from residential to office at the northern end of the top floor was because the building approved on the Forrest Street lot would block views to the north from the residential balcony approved in 2010. Clause 28(3)(b)(i) of TPS 4 required consideration of the impact of the development on the occupiers or users of the development. 43 The Tribunal formed the view that there always existed for any development on the site the potential for the view to the north from the balcony of a top floor residence to be interrupted by a building on the Forrest Street site. From the evidence provided, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was sufficient known about the height proposed, and ultimately approved for the building to the north to be able to ascertain what impact there would be on the development of the site. The impact is illustrated by the 15 metre height line on the Rowland Street elevation at Annexure MC 5 of Mr Cassleton's statement. The approval of that (Page 13)
neighbouring development was not seen by the Tribunal to be determinative of whether the proposed mix of land uses on the upper floor of the building on the site should be allowed. 44 Another aspect to this line of argument by the applicant was in respect of overshadowing of the dwelling's balcony on the northern edge of the third floor because of the proximity of the building approved on the site to the north. Ms Butterworth pointed out, and the Tribunal accepted, that any balcony would still benefit during the winter solstice from direct light in the morning and with light penetration improving beyond the winter solstice. Reasons cited by the applicant for redesigning the upper floor were inconsistent with the now proposed southfacing balconies on the third floor of the development. Similarly, there are dwellings with balconies facing other than north in the building to the west, what would be in the building to the north, and in other buildings in the locality that do not have access to northern light but contain acceptable living environments. 45 The Tribunal found that there were sufficient of the other objectives for the zone addressed satisfactorily to support discretion being granted in favour of the proposed development.
Issue 3: whether the development changes proposed to give rise to the change of use, or any other changes, are acceptable 46 Mr Taylor, the architect who designed the building, explained that earlier approvals on the site had included what was termed a 'green wall' to the western façade to provide visual privacy for residents within the building adjoining to the west that faced eastward toward the site. Mr Taylor said, and it was not disputed, that following discussions between the applicant and the neighbour, the green wall was removed and the setback of the proposed building from the boundary was increased. To achieve an adequate level of privacy, obscure glazing was proposed for the western windows. The condition imposed to ensure this occurred was appropriate in the circumstances. 47 Similarly, the parties agreed that the increase in height for a limited section of the roof to house equipment was also acceptable. 48 A concern raised by Ms Butterworth related to the proposed northern and eastern elevations of the third floor of the development. The parapet to the balcony along the northern elevation would be replaced with a blank wall, and it was considered this would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the proposed building to the north, which had windows (Page 14)
and balconies set back from, but overlooking, the northern wall of the proposed development. This was said to be in conflict with the objective to preserve amenity of the neighbours and the locality, found at cl 27(4)(g), cl 28(a)(ii) and cl 53(e) of TPS 4. 49 The Tribunal noted Mr Casselton's submission that the impact on the proposed residences to the north from the wall on the boundary of the site would be limited by the setback of those dwellings. The Tribunal considers that while any building to the north might take into account what it knows to be a neighbouring proposal, such a building must not rely solely on a specific form of development on the neighbouring lot to achieve an acceptable environment for the occupants of any dwelling, particularly as the approved development might not proceed and an alternative approval might be sought, as has occurred in this instance. A change from a balustrade to a wall on the common boundary was a design change that might be expected on an abutting building. In this regard, the change to a blank wall now proposed for the site was not considered to be, of itself, a reason the development proposed should not be approved. 50 Balconies along Rowland Street at the third floor level and the casual surveillance they might have provided was discussed above. Balconies instead of a wall with windows might be considered by the respondent to be preferable to achieve the objectives being sought by the respondent such as a more strongly articulated façade but not having that preferred design was considered by the Tribunal to not, of itself, be unacceptable. The difference in appearance the design changes bring to Rowland Street were determined by the Tribunal to be acceptable in a contemporary building. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development was not likely have an undue adverse effect on the amenity of property in, or inhabitants of, the locality, as required under cl 27, cl 28 and cl 54 of TPS 4.
Issue 4: having regard to the above issues, would it be orderly and proper planning for approval to be granted to the proposed development? 51 Subiaco was referred to in both SPP 4.2 and in 'Directions 2031' as a 'secondary centre' which is said to be an important mixed use and employment centre in the hierarchy of 'activity centres' in the metropolitan area. The experts were of the common view that TPS 4 and the respondent's planning framework had not 'evolved' in response to broader higher level State planning objectives that relate to Subiaco as an activity centre. It was Mr McKay's opinion that to achieve the objectives of the regional planning documents, greater plot ratios, densities and heights (Page 15)
were required than currently stipulated in the respondent's planning controls. 52 The Tribunal considered there was some substance to the submission that a plot ratio of 1.33:1 was not likely to achieve the intensification of mixed use in activity centres indicated in the regional planning documents, including high density residential development. The Tribunal accepted that any of these higher planning documents were a relevant consideration. The Tribunal was concerned, however, to ensure that the proposed development was weighed against the provisions of TPS 4 and the objectives of the local planning policies. This was required to ensure the development was consistent with orderly and proper planning. 53 Clause 27(4)(f) and cl 28(3)(a)(i) of TPS 4 require development to be consistent with orderly and proper planning. The respondent's submission was that, as argued in relation to the issues above, the proposed development would be in conflict with the objectives for the City Centre zone under TPS 4 and the policies, and would have an adverse impact on the current and likely future amenity of the area. That is, an increase in plot ratio above 1.33:1 without a larger residential component than now proposed would not be consistent with orderly and proper planning. 54 As set out above, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the proposed development would sufficiently address the objectives of the planning framework to allow discretion to be exercised and approval to be granted. That is, the Tribunal formed the view that, as required by cl 28(3)(a)(iii) of TPS 4, the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives for the Town Centre zone under TPS 4 and the related policies and therefore would be consistent with orderly and proper planning.
Conclusion 55 The consistent use of the discretion available at cl 28 of TPS 4 by the respondent in approving applications for development on the site prior to the current approval to achieve plot ratios greater than 2.0:1 was of assistance to the Tribunal in identifying the appropriate considerations for determining the proposed development. The Tribunal, as set out in its comments on the issues above, formed the view that the relative uses proposed in the development adequately addressed the objectives of the planning instruments. (Page 16)
56 The Tribunal formed the view that the development at the plot ratio proposed would not have an undue adverse effect on the current and likely future local amenity and would be consistent with likely future development of this locality. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal was mindful of the fact that the development included outlets suitable for retail activity on the ground floor along the Barker Road frontage and at the Rowland Street corner. This provided continuity with the City Centre character of Barker Street extending westward from Rokeby Road. The Tribunal was also satisfied that in the context of the history of development approvals for the site, the proportion of office use applied for in the proposed building was appropriate and the retention of two dwelling units was considered to make an acceptable contribution to this mixed use development. The relative proportions of these uses were considered acceptable in the context of the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal therefore resolved to uphold the application and to grant conditional approval of the development.
Orders 57 The Tribunal's decision as issued included the following orders: 1. For reasons that will be published in due course, the application for review is allowed. 2. The decision of the respondent on 24 July 2012 to refuse the proposed change of use within Level 3 of the development at No 334 Barker Road, corner Rowland Street, Subiaco, and associated structural changes, is set aside and development approval is granted subject to the following conditions: (a) The development is to be carried out in accordance with the plans and drawings, those being: (Page 17)
(iii) SK06, being the south elevation, dated 10 July 2012 (received by City of Subiaco on 10 July 2012 and contained on page 66 of the respondent's Section 24 Bundle of Documents); (iv) SK07, being the east elevation, dated 10 July 2012 (received by City of Subiaco on 10 July 2012 and contained on page 67 of the respondent's Section 24 Bundle of Documents); (v) SK08, being the north elevation, dated 22 March 2012 (received by City of Subiaco on 27 March 2012); and (vi) SK09, being the west elevation, dated 22 March 2012 (received by City of Subiaco on 27 March 2012). (b) All stormwater generated on site is to be retained on site. No stormwater will be permitted to enter the City of Subiaco's stormwater drainage system unless otherwise approved. (c) One unisex shower is to be provided within the third level of the development for use by employees within the building to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services. (d) The proposed treatment to all glazing on the western façade of the development is to be installed prior to the occupancy of the development and maintained for the duration of the development to protect the privacy of neighbouring residents to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services. (Page 18)
|