Keene and Town Of Cambridge
[2008] WASAT 96
•8 MAY 2008
KEENE and TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE [2008] WASAT 96
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 96 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:447/2007 | 8 APRIL 2008 | |
| Coram: | MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 8/05/08 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review dismissed Decision of respondent affirmed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JULIE KEENE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE |
Catchwords: | Development application Three level dwelling Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines Performance criteria and acceptable development standards Wall height Assumed natural ground level Building height, scale, bulk and character Green streetscape Overlooking and privacy |
Legislation: | Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.8.1 Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines, cl 2.3 Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 22 November 2007 to refuse development approval for a three storey dwelling at No 10 (Lot 85) Lowanna Way, City Beach is affirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : KEENE and TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE [2008] WASAT 96 MEMBER : MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 8 APRIL 2008 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 447 of 2007 BETWEEN : JULIE KEENE
- Applicant
AND
TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Development application Three level dwelling Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines Performance criteria and acceptable development standards Wall height Assumed natural ground level Building height, scale, bulk and character Green streetscape Overlooking and privacy
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.8.1
Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines, cl 2.3
(Page 2)
Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1
Result:
Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr H Dykstra (Acting as Agent)
Respondent : Ms A Butterworth (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Dykstra Planning (Town Planners)
Respondent : Town of Cambridge
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This is a review of the Town of Cambridge's decision refusing development approval for a three storey dwelling in City Beach.
2 The Town of Cambridge submitted that the proposed development should not be allowed because it did not conform with its Residential Design Guidelines in respect of wall height and did not meet the relevant building height performance criteria of the Residential Design Guidelines.
3 The development was inconsistent with the scale of surrounding properties and out of character with the streetscape in general. Additionally, the design of the building gave rise to the need to resolve overlooking and privacy issues in relation to the interests of an adjoining property.
4 The applicant accepted that the proposed development exceeded wall height requirements marginally but argued that the proposed development was otherwise consistent with the building height performance criteria of the Residential Design Guidelines such that the development ought to be allowed.
5 The applicant sought to demonstrate that on the basis of properly assumed natural ground levels, the height of the building was actually less than that contended by the Town of Cambridge.
6 The applicant also sought to demonstrate that the scale, bulk and character of the building was similar to other buildings in the vicinity and that the development could be landscaped in a manner consistent with the prevailing "green streetscape" of the locality.
7 The Tribunal was of the opinion that the excessive wall height at the front of the building was significant, and would be visually prominent regardless of the choice of assumed natural ground levels contended by the parties.
8 The Tribunal was not persuaded by the applicant's arguments that the proposed building was comparable to the height, scale, bulk and character of other buildings in the immediate locality.
9 The Tribunal was not satisfied that the design of the setback area lent itself to landscaping in a manner complementary to the prevailing green streetscape.
(Page 4)
10 Accordingly, the proposed development did not meet the relevant performance criteria of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines.
11 The Tribunal therefore concluded that there was insufficient justification to allow the development and the application for review was dismissed.
Introduction
12 This is a review of the Town of Cambridge's (respondent) decision not to grant approval for construction of a three storey dwelling at No 10 (Lot 85) Lowanna Way, City Beach (site).
13 Mrs J Keene (applicant) submitted the application for approval of the dwelling to the respondent on 30 May 2007.
14 Following referral of the proposal to the proprietors of neighbouring properties and the subsequent receipt of three submissions, the respondent determined not to approve the application on 20 November 2007.
15 A letter documenting the decision of refusal and the reasons for the decision was issued to the applicant on 22 November 2007.
16 The applicant lodged an application for review of the respondent's decision with the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 14 December 2007.
The proposed development and its context
17 The site is a residential property located in the north-western sector of a neighbourhood bounded by The Boulevard to the north, West Coast Highway to the west and Oceanic Drive to the south.
18 The immediate locality is characterised by an elevated landform with opportunities for views westward to the ocean. Lot sizes are large and houses built in the area are generally substantial.
19 The site is 923 square metres in area and is situated on the northern side of the street with a 'north-south' orientation.
20 The frontage to the site is 22.13 metres. The depth of the site on the western boundary is 40.23 metres and a little deeper at 43.25 metres on the eastern side. The back boundary is 22.33 metres.
(Page 5)
21 Ground levels rise about 8.6 metres from the south-west corner fronting the street, towards the north-east rear corner.
22 The site is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling with an undercroft garage.
23 Number 8 Lowanna Way, City Beach (No 8), adjoining the site on the higher eastward side, is also occupied by a single storey dwelling with an undercroft garage, set well back from the street.
24 Number 12 Lowanna Way, City Beach (No 12), adjoining the site on the lower western side, has been developed with a substantial two storey house with an undercroft garage, set further forward towards the street than the existing dwellings at No 8 and the site.
25 The proposed development of the site involves demolition of the existing residence and replacing it with a three storey dwelling. The new dwelling will comprise four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a gym, an upper level swimming pool on the western side and an adjoining "cabana" (a room to be used for recreation and entertainment next to the pool). The main entrance to the house and two undercroft garages will be cut into the natural ground formation at the lower level facing the street.
26 The new dwelling will be set back 9 metres from the front boundary. The maximum height of walls to the living area of the building will be 8.3 metres, although a column at the front of the dwelling, described as a "natural stone" feature, rises to 8.75 metres.
27 The new dwelling will be constructed of rendered brick walls and with a pitched tile roof formation.
Site viewing
28 At the suggestion of the respondent, the Tribunal member attended the site of the proposed development between 2.30 pm and 2.45 pm on 10 April 2007 in order to appreciate the nature of the property at the site and its surrounds.
29 Although expressly invited, neither of the parties saw need to accompany the member.
Statutory and policy instruments
30 The site is zoned "Residential R12.5" under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1).
(Page 6)
31 Development of land within the zone is governed by the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (Codes) and a planning policy entitled Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) adopted by the respondent in accordance with provisions of TPS 1 and the Codes.
32 Provisions of the Codes that are relevant to this application are:
"• Clause 3.6.1 Excavation or Fill - The acceptable development standard for filling within one metre of a common boundary should be not more than 0.5m above the natural level at the boundary or else the fill should be retained by a wall set back in accordance with the relevant setback provisions of the Codes.
• Clause 3.8.1 Visual Privacy - The acceptable development standard for visual privacy requires that major openings to active habitable spaces which have a floor level more than 0.5m above natural ground level and positioned to overlook another residential property should be set back to comply with at least one of the following:
• 6.0 metres in the case of habitable rooms other than bedrooms; and
• 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces (balconies, decks, verandahs and the like); or
• are provided with permanent vertical screening to restrict views within the cone of vision from any major opening of an active habitable space; or
• are provided with permanent horizontal screening or equivalent, preventing direct line of sight within the cone of vision to ground level of the adjoining property if closer than 25m to the opening or equivalent."
(Page 7)
- "• Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape;
• Buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing development within the locality;
• Where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and
• Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:
• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;
• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and
• access to views of significance."
• Top of an external wall with hipped and/or gabled roof above that does not exceed 6.5 metres in height.
• Top of a hipped and/or gabled roof that does not exceed 10.5 metres in height.
• Top of a skillion, curved or flat roof that does not exceed 7.5 metres in height.
The respondent's decision
35 The respondent's decision to refuse the proposed development of a three storey dwelling at the site was expressed in the following terms:
"... Council did not accept that the development satisfied the performance criteria for the Town's Residential Design
(Page 8)
- Guidelines in relation to building height and as such was not prepared to support the proposed variation to the acceptable development criteria. It was considered that the resulting development would be inconsistent with the scale of surrounding properties and the streetscape in general."
The respondent's argument
36 The respondent argued that by virtue of its height, bulk and proposed setback from the street, the proposed three level dwelling would be incompatible with policy and design guidelines prescribed for the area. Additionally, the design of the proposed dwelling manifested concerns in relation to overlooking of an adjoining property and in meeting acceptable standards of privacy.
37 Witness for the respondent, Mr Bradley, who resides at No 12 immediately west of the site, expressed his concern in relation to the potential for overlooking of his property from windows in the proposed new dwelling facing his home.
38 Mr Bradley also pointed out that because of the excessive height of the proposed dwelling and the relatively lower elevation of his property, there would be an unacceptably greater degree of overshadowing of his garden and swimming pool area.
39 Mr Bradley disagreed with the applicant's contention that the "feature wall" at the front of the proposed dwelling, which projects about 2.25 metres above the 6.5 metre maximum wall height requirement, constitutes a minor projection such as a chimney. Mr Bradley argued that the "feature wall" contains habitable spaces and should be recognised as a wall like any other in terms of the need to comply with standards.
40 Mr Bradley stated that other houses in the area have complied with Council building height requirements. Because the proposed dwelling is to be located closer to the street, it will be a more prominent structure and serve to diminish the "garden suburb" nature of the neighbourhood.
41 Mr J Meggitt, a qualified and experienced town planner, provided evidence on behalf of the respondent.
42 Mr Meggitt noted that the proposed development does not comply with acceptable development criteria in relation to visual privacy. Major openings to the mid floor and upper floor living areas overlooking active habitable rooms, spaces or living areas on the adjoining property to the west should have a sill height of 1.6 metres or be treated
(Page 9)
- in a satisfactory manner in order to comply with acceptable development criteria of cl 3.8.1 of the Codes.
43 On the question of building height, Mr Meggitt referred to an attachment to his witness statement, JLM5, which showed the extent to which wall heights associated with the proposed dwelling would not comply with the respondent's policy Guidelines. The height of the wall at the front of the building enclosing the "master suite" is measured as 7.7 metres above natural ground level (as illustrated on the applicant's plans), whilst the height of the wall to the "dining area" at the south-west corner is 8.3 metres.
44 Mr Meggitt further noted that the height of the "feature wall" at the front south-east corner of the building measured 8.75 metres above natural ground level, situated at a street setback of 8.1 metres.
45 Mr Meggitt was of the opinion that the proposed variations to wall height were significant.
46 With respect to street setbacks, Mr Meggitt observed that the adjoining dwellings at No 8 and No 12 were set back respectively 30 metres and 12 metres from the street boundary.
47 The dwellings in the vicinity are predominantly one and two storey.
48 Although No 12, adjoining to the west, is a two storey house with an undercroft, the upper level is set further back and does not extend the width of the ground level.
49 In the circumstances observed, Mr Meggitt was of the opinion that the proposed dwelling at the site, with its excessive wall height and lesser street setback, would not respect the height, bulk and scale of buildings in the locality.
50 Under examination, Mr Meggitt accepted that a number of dwellings in the area were two or more levels.
51 Comparing the well-treed front setback landscape at No 12 with the potential for similar landscaping at the site, Mr Meggitt acknowledged the possibility for establishment of mature trees in the proposed landscape areas, but emphasised that in his opinion, such landscaping would not reduce the prominence of the building behind. Mr Meggitt observed that the "feature wall" was designed as a "look at me" architectural statement, which at a height of 9.7 metres
(Page 10)
- above finished ground level and a setback of 8.1 metres, would still create a visual impact.
52 Mr Meggitt also noted that the width of the driveway proposed in front of the site substantially exceeded that in front of No 12 and thus limited the extent of comparable landscaping possible in association with the proposed development.
53 Responding to further examination, Mr Meggitt acknowledged that in accordance with the respondent's Guidelines for Acceptable Development Standards in City Beach, the adjoining house at No 8, which is presently set back some 30 metres, could be redeveloped as a "skillion" roofed building with a height of up to 7.5 metres at a setback of 7.5 metres from the street.
54 The respondent sought to supplement the evidence suggesting the apparently excessive height of the proposed dwelling by tendering to the Tribunal a plan of the site - Lot 85 - showing relevant cadastral and contour data obtained from the Water Corporation. According to the respondent, the plan reasonably illustrates the natural landform of the site prior to excavation associated with building on the land, and is a consistent basis for the measurement of wall height above assumed natural ground levels as described by Mr Meggitt.
The applicant's argument
55 The applicant argued to the effect that whilst the proposed dwelling in certain respects marginally exceeds the acceptable development wall height standards as set out by the respondent's Guidelines, it nevertheless meets the relevant performance criteria for building height. In this regard, the proposal is responsive to the topography of the site and is compatible with the scale and character of development in the area.
56 The applicant strongly argued that the issue of building height should be considered in relation to accurately identified natural ground levels. In this regard, the respondent's contour plan referred to in the "respondent's argument" should not be accepted as in any way accurate because it was not prepared at a scale suitable for design or construction use.
57 Mr L Di Virgilio, whose company Lou Di Virgilio Designs prepared and submitted plans for the proposed development at the site, gave evidence on behalf of the applicant.
(Page 11)
58 Mr Di Virgilio explained that the proposal was prepared in liaison with the respondent's town planning staff and that staff had supported the resultant outcomes in relation to site fill and wall heights.
59 Visual privacy provisions in relation to the "cabana" had been accepted by the staff, but further "obscuring" would be required in order to meet visual privacy requirements associated with "mid floor" windows.
60 Mr Di Virgilio explained that the existing landform is artificial, particularly on the left (western) side of the block. There is an overall 8 metre fall from top to bottom of the block over a distance of 50 metres. In order to establish a natural ground level, a "smoothing out" of the contours is necessary. On this basis, the proposed wall heights when measured from the "smoothed out" natural contours of the site should not be considered excessive.
61 Questioned as to the possibility of reducing the height of the proposed dwelling to conform with acceptable development standards, Mr Di Virgilio advised that this would entail a deeper cut and greater extent of retaining walls. The proposed new garage floor level has been designed to match the existing garage floor level.
62 Mr D Maiorana, a qualified and experienced town planner, also provided evidence on behalf of the applicant.
63 On the question of building height, Mr Maiorana accepted that the proposed building exceeded the acceptable development standard at the south-west (front) corner by a margin of about 1.2 metres. Additionally, the "feature natural stone wall" at the south-east (front) corner was about 2.25 metres higher than the 6.5 metre height requirement.
64 The "feature wall" is comparable to a minor projection, such as a chimney, which under the provisions of the Codes would be exempted from compliance with the height limit requirement.
65 Mr Maiorana was of the opinion that the height variations were relatively minor and that the new development met the performance criteria of the Guidelines in relation to height.
66 The performance criteria for height refer to the expectation that the proposed building will respect the scale of buildings in the vicinity in terms of height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape.
(Page 12)
67 Mr Maiorana noted that the design of the proposed dwelling respects the natural slope of the site and accordingly reduces the appearance of height and bulk. The highest point of the roof is well within the 10.5 metre maximum elevation allowable and is comparable to the height of other three storey dwellings in the area.
68 The proposed dwelling would be set back between 9 metres and 11 metres, well in excess of the minimum 7.5 metres setback requirement. Accordingly, there would be opportunity to maintain and augment the vegetation and landscape qualities of the green streetscape.
69 Mr Maiorana referred further to the relevant performance criteria and argued that the proposed dwelling was "respectful" of the character and style of development in the locality. Mr Maiorana noted that new development is replacing older housing in the area, resulting in dwellings of different styles and an informal streetscape that defines the character of the area. Photographs appended to his witness statement illustrated this point.
70 Mr Maiorana also identified that the proposal met the remainder of the performance criteria relevant to building height.
71 The building presents an interesting frontage to the street with stepped back elements and varied features.
72 The height of the building is not so significantly varied over the 6.5 metre limit as to be inconsistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality.
73 The building will have minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to adequate daylight and direct sun because of its north-south orientation. The proposal complies with the solar access provisions of the Codes.
74 Mr Maiorana addressed the issues relating to compliance with the visual privacy requirements of the Codes. In this regard, he concluded that the applicant's position varied from that of the respondent in relation to the degree of screening that would be appropriate to the west-facing windows as specified in the respondent's draft conditions of development approval.
75 Examined on issues arising, Mr Maiorana expressed the view that there would be inevitable change to the nature of the area and that large, two to three storey houses would become a dominant feature.
(Page 13)
76 The site could be redeveloped to accommodate a 7.5 metre high skillion roofed dwelling at a 7.5 metre setback.
77 In order to ensure a well-vegetated front setback for the site, it may be appropriate to attach a landscaping condition to any development approval.
78 Questioned on whether the "feature wall" at the front of the proposed dwelling constituted a minor projection exempted from height control, Mr Maiorana accepted that the "feature wall" did not precisely comply with the definition of a minor projection offered by the Codes.
79 Mr Maiorana was unable to confirm whether any other buildings in Lowanna Way had been permitted to exceed the 6.5 metre wall height standard.
Supplementary evidence
80 In response to orders of the Tribunal, the applicant submitted a detailed plan of assumed natural ground level contours compared against the respondent's Water Corporation contour data.
81 The applicant's contour data and assumed natural level spot heights provided three relevant points of comparison with the respondent's contention of excessive wall height. The points identified on the plan are:
• B (south-west front corner of building) The height of wall above 6.5 metres according to the applicant is 1.0 metre. According to the respondent, the height of wall above 6.5 metres is 1.99 metres.
• C (centre front of building) The height of wall above 6.5 metres according to the applicant is 1.2 metres. According to the respondent it is 1.29 metres.
• D (south-east front) The height of wall above 6.5 metres according to the applicant is 1.0 metre. According to the respondent it is also 1.0 metre.
82 The respondent provided a commentary on the applicant's plan in the following terms:
"• The applicant appears to have prepared the assumed ground levels using a 'deemed' natural ground level interpretation.
(Page 14)
- • The Codes detail that 'deemed' natural ground levels are used where the terrain is irregular, being either fractured, convex (humped) or concave (hollowed).
• In the respondent's view, it is not considered that the ground levels are fractured, convex or concave and that therefore natural ground levels should be used as illustrated by the plan prepared using Water Corporation data.
• Examining portions of the site where building has not occurred, the natural ground levels derived from Water Corporation data are similar to the 'ground level as per feature survey' prepared for the applicant. The comparison illustrates that the ground levels were not fractured, convex or concave.
• Ground levels did not change as a result of subdivision or a pre-existing development. Therefore in this case the natural ground levels (based on Water Corporation data) should be used to determine building height."
Draft conditions
83 The respondent has provided a list of three conditions which are recommended to be imposed in the event that the application for review is upheld and the proposed development approved.
84 The applicant has taken issue with two of the conditions.
85 The applicant argues that condition 1, requiring west-facing windows at the mid floor living area and computer room to be obscured or screened to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above finished floor level, is not agreed to because the windows do not result in significant overlooking of the adjoining lot.
86 The respondent takes the opposing view that there is a potential direct line of sight from these windows to the windows on the eastern side of the house at No 12 as well as overlooking the outdoor living area to the rear of the house.
87 The applicant argues that condition 2, requiring screening of the upper floor dining room windows, is achieved by a submitted revision of the plans which includes a solid wall on the southern elevation of the dwelling adjacent to the proposed swimming pool.
(Page 15)
88 The respondent acknowledges that the proposed wall will address overlooking from portion of the dining room windows, but is still of the view that the two southernmost windows should be screened in the form of horizontal louvres or obscure glass to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above finished floor level.
Analysis
89 Although building height and overlooking are the two principal issues canvassed in this application for review, it is apparent that overlooking is not an issue that is critical to the fundamental success or failure of the proposal.
90 There appears to be practical scope for conditioning an approval of the development to effect resolution of overlooking issues. The appropriate conditions would be formulated by application of acceptable development standards of screening provided for by the relevant privacy requirements of the Codes.
91 The question of building height is more profoundly critical to the success or failure of the application for review.
92 The applicant has acknowledged that the proposed building exceeds acceptable development standards prescribed by the respondent's Guidelines.
93 In particular, the applicant accepted that walls at the front of the building, facing the street, variously exceeded the allowed 6.5 metre wall height by between 1.0 metre and 1.2 metres, based on an assumed natural ground level. The wall heights would thus range from 7.5 metres to 7.7 metres. Put another way, the walls would be about 15% to 18% higher than the allowed limit.
94 The applicant contended that the additional wall height was a minor variation when measuring the proposal against the relevant performance criteria of the Guidelines.
95 The applicant also suggested that the "feature wall" should not be included in the measurement of wall heights because it should be characterised as a "minor projection".
96 The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the wall heights of the building were somewhat higher, based on natural ground level data obtained from the Water Corporation. In this respect, the respondent contended that the comparable wall heights at the front of the building ranged from 7.5 metres to 8.49 metres. This would equate to the
(Page 16)
- walls being about 15% to 30% higher than the allowed limit.
97 The respondent also rejected the proposition that the "feature wall" should be excluded from consideration.
98 The Tribunal agrees with the respondent that the "feature wall" should not be excluded from height calculation. The Codes provide guidance in terms of definitions of a "wall" and a "minor projection". The "feature wall" is designed to be a substantial structure constituting the vertical external face of the building and comprising solid building material. In relation to the height of the building, the "feature wall" does not constitute a chimney, vent pipe, aerial or other appurtenance of like scale that would qualify it for exclusion.
99 On the other hand, the "feature wall" element of the frontage should perhaps be more properly measured as a flat roofed building component with an allowable height of 7.5 metres according to the respondent's Guidelines. The wall still exceeds this height by 1.25 metres.
100 Clearly, the proposed development would be unable to meet the acceptable development standards in relation to the height of the building. Whichever ground level base is correct, the margin of noncompliance of wall heights at the front of the building will be of a substantial proportion (that is, 15% or more).
101 The Tribunal notes the significance of the frontal perspective of the building in the context of the streetscape.
102 The applicant has suggested that the proposed building is not untypical of the area. There are a number of three level dwellings in the immediate locality. The area is undergoing change with larger, contemporary style houses supplanting the older, smaller, low profile buildings of the previous era. The proposed building would therefore be in character in terms of height, scale and bulk.
103 The positioning of the building will allow generous landscaping to the foreground, thus respecting the green streetscape of the area.
104 The Tribunal notes and agrees with aspects of the applicant's argument to the extent that a larger, modern, three level home would be acceptable and compatible with the character of the area as intended by the respondent's Guidelines.
(Page 17)
105 Nevertheless, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the specified performance criteria in relation to height, as set out in the Guidelines, have been met in order to warrant setting aside the acceptable development standards.
106 In particular, the Tribunal notes that the design of the building results in an emphasis of excessive height at the front of the property where it will be most visually prominent in the streetscape. Whilst it is accepted that a skillion or flat roofed building, compliant with the height and setback requirements of the Guidelines, could potentially achieve a high prominence in the streetscape, such a building would still be less in overall height, scale and bulk than the presently proposed dwelling.
107 Given the existing character of the high side of the street, the substantial setback of the adjoining building at No 8 and the stepped back elevation of the building at No 12, the additional height of the front of the proposed building at the site would be greatly accentuated.
108 The reference by the applicant's witness to other comparable three level buildings in the vicinity is acknowledged, but with the exception of the house at No 12, these appear not to characterise the immediate streetscape surrounds of the proposed development. Indeed, several of the dwellings identified as comparable are quite remote from the site.
109 The applicant was unable to identify any other buildings in the immediate locality that exceeded the prescribed building height limits.
110 The proposition that the street setback is adequate for landscaping of substance compatible with the character of landscaping of other properties on the same side of the street is doubtful. According to the lower floor plan, the front setback area is fragmented and heavily devoted to two driveways (associated with two vehicle crossovers) as well as expansive hard surface walking areas intended to access the front and side of the house.
111 The Tribunal is of the opinion that vegetating such a limited and fragmented arrangement of landscape areas would struggle to achieve the Guideline's objective to maintain the quality of the "green streetscape".
112 In summation of the circumstances described, the Tribunal is of the view that without substantial redesign, the proposed development would not meet the relevant performance criteria in relation to building height prescribed by the respondent's Guidelines.
(Page 18)
113 It follows that it is unnecessary to address the supplementary issue of overlooking and privacy screening in the event that the application fails the fundamental test of compliance with development requirements set by the Guidelines 731 2006.
Conclusion
114 Based on the preceding analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the application for review of the respondent's decision to refuse the proposed development of a three storey dwelling at No 10 (Lot 85) Lowanna Way, City Beach should be dismissed.
Order
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 22 November 2007 to refuse development approval for a three storey dwelling at No 10 (Lot 85) Lowanna Way, City Beach is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [114] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J ADDERLEY, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
0
4