Koong and City Of Subiaco
[2008] WASAT 7
•10 JANUARY 2008
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: KOONG and CITY OF SUBIACO [2008] WASAT 7
MEMBER: MR R EASTON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2008
FILE NO/S: DR 243 of 2007
BETWEEN: JEANETTE KOONG
Applicant
AND
CITY OF SUBIACO
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application for a single hardstand car parking bay - Rear access - Right of way - Front setback - Streetscape - Amenity of the locality - Surrounding development - Whether the proposed hardstand will have undue adverse impacts on the existing streetscape and amenity of the locality
Legislation:
City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 22, cl 23, cl 27, cl 28(3), cl 37, cl 39, cl 72(4), cl 74, cl 78
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 3.5.4
Result:
Application for review allowed and development approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr S Allerding (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Mr M Cornell (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Allerding Associates (Town Planners)
Respondent: City of Subiaco
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Tooth and City of Subiaco (2005) 41 SR (WA) 198
Trickey and City of Subiaco [2005] WASAT 256
Waller and City of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 328
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This matter involved an application for review of the City of Subiaco's refusal of a development application for a new hardstand car parking bay in front of an existing dwelling at No 66 (Lot 44) Evans Street, Shenton Park.
The issue was whether the proposed hardstand car parking bay would have an undue adverse impact on the existing streetscape and the amenity of the area.
The respondent argued that the proposal failed parts of its Town Planning Scheme and failed both the acceptable development standards of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) that require rear access and car parking where rear access is available, and the associated performance criteria of those Codes.
The respondent further argued that it had a comprehensive Residential Car Parking and Vehicle Access Policy which had been consistently applied and which prevented approval of the proposal.
The applicant argued that discretion existed within the planning framework that enabled approval of the proposal because the proposal would be consistent with the established streetscape pattern.
The Tribunal found that the respondent's Residential Car Parking and Vehicle Access Policy was a detailed document that the Tribunal applied in the past. The policy permits an exemption where more than 50% of surrounding development establishes an acceptable pattern of parking in the front setback area. The Tribunal found that such a pattern was established and that, because this proposal did not involve a car parking structure, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on either the streetscape or the amenity of the locality. Therefore, the Tribunal determined the matter in the applicant's favour.
Introduction
These proceedings involve an application brought by Ms Jeanette Koong (applicant) pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) for a review of the decision of the City of Subiaco (City or respondent) made on 22 June 2007 to refuse development approval for a proposed hardstand car parking area in front of an existing dwelling at No 66 (Lot 44) Evans Street, Shenton Park (subject land or site).
In 2006, the applicant submitted a proposal to the respondent to construct a single storey family room at the rear of the existing dwelling together with other minor additions. The proposal included a double width car parking bay in front of the existing dwelling. The respondent approved the application in December 2006 but deleted the proposed car parking from the approval.
In February 2007, the applicant made a new application for a single car parking bay in front of the existing dwelling.
The proposal was advertised and there were no objections to the proposal. The City's Planning Committee considered the proposal at a meeting on 15 May 2007. The applicant was advised that:
"The Committee resolved that your application be deferred to a future Planning Committee meeting to allow you to submit an alternative with the crossover on the opposite side of the site."
On 25 May 2007, the applicant submitted a revised plan with the hardstand and crossover shifted to the other side of the site.
The revised application was considered at a Planning Committee meeting on 18 June 2007. In a notice dated 22 June 2007, the respondent advised the applicant that the application had been refused. The reasons for refusal are set out in full below.
Site and locality
The site plan shows the subject land has a rectangular shape with a street frontage of 13.64 metres and a depth of 30.30 metres with a calculated area of 413 square metres. The area of the site is elsewhere described as 423 square metres. The small discrepancy has no significance to the outcome of this review.
The site is located on the north side of Evans Street, Shenton Park in between the cross streets of Fortune Street to the west and King Street to the east. There is a paved right of way at the rear of the site.
The site currently accommodates a single storey dwelling which was built in approximately 1950. The front setback is 6.0 metres and the aerial photograph of the locality indicates that this setback is a consistent existing front setback pattern in the street. The side setbacks are too narrow to facilitate the parking of a car at the side of the dwelling.
The site plan shows that before the additions, the dwelling consisted of three bedrooms, one bathroom, a study, kitchen, laundry and dining or living room facing a backyard approximately 8.4 metres by 9.4 metres deep for the width of the site.
The additions comprise a new en suite and walk-in robe to be built in the side setback and a new family room (4.75 metres by 5.3 metres) to be built in the back garden, thus reducing the effective back yard to a space of 9.4 metres by 6.7 metres which does not include the 3.4 metre setback between the family room addition and the right of way.
It is the respondent's argument that the car parking should be located at the rear of the dwelling with access from the right of way.
The respondent's planning framework (described later) requires consideration of the "surrounding development" which is described as five houses on either side of the subject land together with houses on the opposite side of the street; a total (including the subject land) of 22 dwellings. The car parking patterns and streetscape of these 22 dwellings is relevant to this review.
Based on the evidence of Mr Cornell, a senior planner working for the respondent, eight of those dwellings are located on the corners of Evans, Fortune and King Streets. The planning framework permits those dwellings to access parking from the secondary streets (King and Fortune). Seven of these dwellings have car parking in the secondary streets and one has a double carport in the front setback of Evans Street.
Of the remaining dwellings, seven (including the subject land) are located on the north side of Evans Street and have access available from a rear right of way. All of these dwellings (with the exception of the subject land) have car parking accessed from Evans Street, and in some cases, the parking consists of hardstands in the front setback area. Numbers 76 and 70 also have car parking accessed from the right of way.
The seven remaining dwellings on the south side of Evans Street do not have access to a rear right of way, and all have car parking accessed from Evans Street and some of the car parking is located within the front setback area.
The photographic evidence of the 22 dwellings indicates they are all modest single storey dwellings, and generally, not recently constructed. It is possible that some may include two-storey components that are not visible in the photographs. Nevertheless, despite that qualification, the significance of the photographs is that they show a generally consistent streetscape pattern.
Planning framework
The site is zoned "Urban" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is zoned "Residential" and has a residential density coding of "R20" under the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4 or Scheme) and is located in the Shenton Park Planning Precinct as identified in cl 37 of TPS 4.
Clause 22 of the Scheme requires development approval for the proposed hardstand. The exemptions listed in cl 23 do not apply because the approval requires the exercise of discretion by the Council.
Clause 27 of the Scheme lists matters the Council is required to consider when considering a planning application; the matters include planning policies, orderly and proper planning, and the amenity of the locality.
Clause 28(3) of the Scheme provides that a non-complying application must be advertised and that approval cannot be granted unless the Council is satisfied the proposal is consistent with, amongst other factors, the relevant precinct planning policies.
Clause 39 of the Scheme requires, in effect, residential development to conform to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (R Codes).
Clause 74 of the Scheme describes access requirements for car parking.
Clause 78 of the Scheme enables the Council to make planning policies.
The Residential Car Parking and Vehicle Access Policy (Parking Policy) has been adopted under the provisions of cl 78 of TPS 4. The detailed provisions of this policy are significant to the outcome of this review and are discussed later in these reasons.
Clause 3.5.4 of the Codes describes Vehicle Access requirements. Both the Performance Criteria and the Acceptable Development Standards for cl 3.5.4 are relevant to the outcome of this review, and the detailed provisions are discussed later in these reasons.
Proposed development
The proposed development consists of a 6.0 metre by 3.0 metre brick paved car parking bay within the front setback area in front of the existing dwelling on the east side of the subject land, together with a crossover. The proposed location of the crossover enables the retention of an existing street tree.
Council's decision
The Council advertised the development application and received no objections.
The Council refused the application for the following six reasons:
"[1]The proposed hardstand is contrary to the City's Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access policy.
[2]The proposed hardstand area is contrary to Clause 27 (4)(b) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the development is inconsistent with the City's Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access policy.
[3]The proposed hardstand area is contrary to Clause 28 (3)(a)(i) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as the development is considered to be inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
[4]The proposed hardstand is contrary to Clause 72 (4) of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 as manoeuvrability is limited due to the proposed crossover being under size and the handstand [sic] area requires a vehicle to reverse directly into a public street.
[5]The proposed crossover does not meet the Acceptable Development standards outlined in Clause 3.4.5 of the Residential Design Codes or the relevant Performance Criteria.
[6]The City does not support the proposed hardstand and crossover at the front of 66 Evans Street due to it being contradictory to the City's Residential Car Parking and Vehicular Access policy. It is also in conflict with the City's Verge policy and crossing requirement specifications. The requirements of this policy and specifications cannot be met due to the location of a street tree."
The issue
The following main issue arises for determination in this review:
Whether the proposed hardstand will have undue adverse impacts on the existing streetscape and amenity of the locality.
The answer to this issue is to be found in the application of the planning framework to the facts as found by the Tribunal.
The streetscape and amenity of the locality
In its statement of issues, facts and contentions, the respondent identified four contentions; one was the proposal's failure to meet the standards of cl 28(3) of TPS 4 because of the hardstand's undue adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. Clause 28(3) states that after advertising a non-complying application, the Council cannot grant planning approval unless:
"… the Council is satisfied that:
(a)if approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:
(i)the orderly and proper development 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)non-compliance would not have an 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."
Consideration of streetscape is important because the parties have identified (and the Tribunal accepts) that streetscape is associated with the amenity of the locality because the proposal will form an element of the streetscape. TPS 4 defines streetscape as:
"(a)… the total visual impression gained from any one location within a street including natural and man-made elements; and
(b)is [sic] made up of the appearance of and the relationships between buildings in terms of design, scale, materials, colours, finishes, signs, external furniture, paving materials for roads, footpaths and landscaping."
From this definition, it is not immediately obvious how the hardstand is part of the streetscape except as to paving materials. The Tribunal will proceed on the basis that the primary concern is the visual impact of a car (a man-made element) parked on the hardstand, together with the appearance of the hardstand and the crossover.
Mr Cornell, agent for the respondent, referred to streetscape in his witness statement, when discussing the performance criteria of the Codes which in cl 3.5.4 require:
"Vehicle Access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, to be safe in use and not detract from the streetscape."
Mr Cornell stated:
"Whilst I concur that the hardstand area is safe to use, the proposed hardstand increases the number of crossovers to Evans Street … The matter of streetscape is addressed further within the body of this report [witness statement]."
Unfortunately, there was limited development of the matter of streetscape in Mr Cornell's witness statement except in reference to a possible exemption under the Parking Policy where the streetscape would be enhanced. Mr Cornell stated: "I believe that the streetscape would not be enhanced by the addition of another crossover."
There was some discussion about an existing pattern of access in surrounding development in the context of the Parking Policy. That matter will be considered later in these reasons.
The reports to the Planning Committee (which made the decisions under delegated authority) similarly do not develop the matter of streetscape. Reference is made to the intent of the Parking Policy to enhance the development of attractive streetscapes and to reduce the impact of parking structures within the front setback, but apart from referring to the proposal's adverse impact on streetscape, there is limited examination of why the respondent considers that there will be an adverse impact on streetscape.
Mr Stephen Allerding, a planner and witness for the applicant, observed that properties on the south side of Evans Street have no access to a rear right of way, and that car parking in the front setback area is an inevitable part of the streetscape character of this part of Evans Street.
Mr Allerding referred to the Precinct Policy and noted a general preference for the retention of dwellings contributing to streetscape character. The applicant referred to the desire to retain the existing dwelling as it contributed to the character of the area. The applicant observed that to achieve that objective and not demolish the existing dwelling, it was necessary for the dwelling additions to be in the rear yard, and thus remove rear parking opportunities if a reasonably sized north‑facing external living area was to be retained. The applicant's argument seems to be that the best outcome for the streetscape is to retain the existing dwelling and to accept a car parking bay in the front setback rather than demolish the dwelling and build a new dwelling (which, being a modern dwelling, will change the character of the streetscape) with a rear car parking bay.
The Tribunal finds that consideration of the streetscape and the amenity of the locality can only properly be resolved within the context of the existing streetscape and the reasonable expectations of the residents for future streetscape character.
Both the applicant and the respondent have made detailed submissions on the existing parking arrangements within the context of the character and amenity of the street. It is appropriate to now consider those submissions with reference to the planning framework as it applies specifically to parking.
Planning framework and parking
The Parking Policy is the most relevant of the framework because it deals specifically and in detail with car parking and vehicle access in Subiaco. However, there are a couple of other framework matters that must be addressed.
Clause 72(4) of TPS 4 was identified in the statement of issues, facts and contentions. It requires:
"All parking spaces should be provided with adequate access ways and manoeuvring space with bays provided in such a manner that it is not necessary to reverse directly into a public street to leave the parking area."
The Tribunal does not place much weight on this clause. This clause applies to all parking in Subiaco including parking areas for commercial and retail uses. The evidence provided is that the respondent regularly approves: parking that requires cars to reverse into the street. As noted above, Mr Cornell stated: "... I concur that the hardstand area is safe to use …" Therefore, the Tribunal finds the provisions of cl 72(4) have limited relevance in determining the location of car parking for single residences and will refer to the more detailed provisions of the Codes and the Parking Policy.
The parties agree that the proposal does not comply with Acceptable Development Standard A4.1 of cl 3.5.4 of the Codes which provides:
"Access to on-site parking to be provided where available, solely from a right-of-way available for the use of the relevant lot …"
The proposal complies with the other acceptable development standards of cl 3.5.4 of the Codes, including A4.4 which permits cars to reverse into the street if the driveway serves less than four dwellings.
However, failure to comply with A4.1 means the proposal must be assessed under performance criterion P4 of cl 3.5.4 which, as noted above, identifies three tests. Each one of these will be considered in turn.
(a)Vehicle access that minimises the number of crossovers
The proposal provides one crossover. The respondent argues that in this case, the minimum is zero because a rear right of way exists. However, the applicant argues that one crossover is the minimum because it is impractical to use the right of way. The test remains to be resolved later in these reasons.
(b)Vehicle access that is safe to use
This test is met because the proposal complies with A4.4 of cl 3.5.4, and furthermore, the respondent has conceded that the hardstand is safe to use.
(c)Vehicle access that does not detract from the streetscape
This test remains to be resolved and now leads to the Parking Policy.
The Parking Policy
The Parking Policy is detailed and comprehensive. The respondent argues that it has consistently applied the policy and has approved departures from the policy where appropriate. The respondent argues that it is not appropriate to depart on this occasion because a 6.0 metre wide paved right of way exists at the rear of the subject land and was used by the applicant prior to the recent house additions. Further, the respondent argues that although a car parking bay at the rear of the subject land will reduce the external living area from 86.6 square metres to 57.4 square metres, the area is still comfortably above the minimum requirement of 30 square metres.
The Tribunal accepts the respondent's argument that the policy in this case requires vehicle access from the rear right of way with no access from Evans Street, with the qualification concerning exemptions as discussed below. The Tribunal notes the submission from the respondent that cl 5 of the Parking Policy identifies the order of acceptability of five possible arrangements for car parking areas and structures, with rear access being the most acceptable, and with the least acceptable being, as proposed by the applicant, "car parking areas and structures (excluding garages) located forward of the primary building line (in front of the dwelling)". The Tribunal also accepts that the intention of the provisions of the Parking Policy is to protect the streetscape character and the amenity of the locality.
The question to be answered is whether the proposal meets any of the exemption provisions for the Parking Policy.
Section 7 of the Parking Policy describes 12 circumstances where the respondent may vary the standards of the policy. Several of the circumstances are not applicable. Mr Cornell, in his witness statement, presented arguments that none of the applicable circumstances warranted a variation from the standards. Mr Allerding, for the applicant, in his witness statement, only relied on one matter, and although some of the other matters had potential for argument, the Tribunal agrees with Mr Allerding's position that the exemption relating to established pattern of parking in the surrounding development is the critical issue.
Clause 7.2 of the Parking Policy which refers to parking, mirrors the provisions of cl 6.1 which states:
"Where a more acceptable method of access is available the Council will not approve access from a primary street unless such access is in accordance with the accepted existing pattern of access in the surrounding development (nominally greater than 50%)."
In his witness statement, when assessing a possible exemption under cl 7.2 of the Parking Policy, Mr Cornell stated:
"Annexure MJC 3 [a map, aerial photograph and table describing parking arrangements for each of the 22 dwellings in the surrounding development] demonstrates that in most examples, the car parking structures and locations in the surrounding development do not comply with the City's preferred location. Should any of these sites be redeveloped, the current location of the car parking would not be supported."
The statement contains three significant items of information: first, a concession that the grounds for a possible exemption (greater than 50%) are established; second, a presumption that the Parking Policy enables possible future parking arrangements to be considered in determining whether the 50% threshold is met; and third, a presumption that, with future redevelopment, the 50% threshold would not be met.
Mr Cornell's table lists all 22 properties in the area defined as "surrounding development". Of these properties, he lists 17 as properties where redevelopment is unlikely and five as properties where redevelopment is likely; of those five properties, three are corner lots.
The problem for the respondent is that, based on Mr Cornell's table and assuming that the five properties are redeveloped with complying car parking, and excluding the subject land, the 50% threshold is crossed and enables a variation. The list below summarises the information in Mr Cornell's table after cross-checking with the photographs, and assumes that five properties (50, 59, 60, 61 and 79) are redeveloped to comply with the policy.
•No 52 has a double hardstand in front of the dwelling.
•No 53 has a single carport on the side with tandem hardstand in the front setback area.
•No 54 has a tandem hardstand in front of the dwelling.
•No 55 has hardstand driveway in front of a garage on the side of the dwelling.
•No 57 has tandem hardstand parking in the front setback area.
•No 63 has a single car port with tandem parking in front of the dwelling.
•No 67 has a double carport on the side with a driveway in the front setback.
•No 70 has a single hardstand in front of the dwelling.
•No 73 has a hardstand on the side and in front of the dwelling.
•No 74 has a single garage on the side and hardstand in the front setback.
•No 75 has a hardstand on the side and in front of the dwelling.
•No 76 has a single hardstand in front of the dwelling.
•No 77 has a double carport in front of the dwelling.
Therefore, 13 of the 21 properties - or 61% - will have hardstand or car parking in the front setback area of Evans Street even if all five properties identified by Mr Cornell are redeveloped with complying car parking.
However, the Parking Policy refers to the existing pattern, and consequently, the existing percentage increases above 61.
On this basis, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept the argument that the proposed hardstand will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality or the streetscape when over 60% of dwellings in the surrounding development have the same or similar car parking arrangements.
Mr Allerding puts this in perspective when he observes that, disregarding corner lots which have street access to secondary streets:
"… if refused, the applicant will be the only mid-block landowner along this section without access from the primary street. Given the existing and well established pattern along this section of Evans Street, it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria under the Council's Parking Policy and will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape or introduce an adverse streetscape element. It is simply introducing a degree of consistency in the streetscape that is well established and likely to remain in the long term given the absence of an ROW for properties opposite the review site and the acceptance by the Council of development and parking structures on those properties. In this instance an absence of parking structures from the review site will ensure [that] the preservation of view access to the character dwelling on the Review Site will be fully retained."
The Tribunal agrees and finds that the proposal meets the requirements for an exemption under cl 6.1 and cl 7.2 of the Parking Policy. The proposal is also consistent with the performance criterion P4 of cl 3.5.4. The Tribunal finds the proposal is safe, that the proposed single crossover, while not the absolute minimum, is acceptable, and that the proposal will not detract from the streetscape.
Recent Tribunal decisions
The respondent mentioned three recent decisions by this Tribunal that had applied the respondent's Parking Policy and had dismissed applications for review where properties had rear vehicle access.
There were significant factual differences in those reviews, and a decision in this review to support the proposed hardstand is not inconsistent with those previous Tribunal decisions.
In Trickey and City of Subiaco [2005] WASAT 256, the matter involved a carport in the front setback over an existing hardstand, and where there was no established pattern of carports in the streetscape. The application for review was dismissed.
In Tooth and City of Subiaco (2005) 41 SR (WA) 198, the respondent had approved a rear garage but deleted approval for a carport over an existing hardstand in the front setback. The respondent did not require removal of the hardstand. There was no established pattern of carports in the street and the application for review was dismissed.
In Waller and City of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 328, the respondent had refused an application for a double carport in the front setback to replace an existing single width crossover and hardstand. The Tribunal found that because all houses in the street had consistent setback patterns of 9.0 metres - 11 metres with no carports in front of the established setback pattern, the proposal would be inconsistent with the streetscape. The application for review was dismissed.
In all of the above reviews, the Tribunal specifically applied the Parking Policy. The upholding of this review does not undermine support for the Parking Policy. This review requires the acknowledgment of an exemption that exists in the policy, and that in this instance, the exemption is appropriate. The three reviews mentioned have limited relevance; they all involved carports, none had an established streetscape pattern and, incidentally, all had an existing hardstand in the front setback.
Draft conditions
The respondent, as required by the Tribunal, submitted draft without prejudice conditions. The applicant has objected to condition i), which requires:
"A 1.5 [metre] x 1.5 [metre] visual truncation is to be provided at the south-western corner of the single hardstand and is to be maintained at all times. No walls, landscaping, or visually impermeable walls greater than 0.75m in height above the natural ground level are to be located in this truncation."
Mr Allerding presented various arguments that the truncation was unnecessary because existing fencing and landscaping provides adequate sightlines. However, none of the arguments presented indicated any reason to believe that the applicant would be inconvenienced by the condition. The respondent argued that the condition is required to ensure protection of sightlines in the future. The Tribunal agrees that the condition is a reasonable precaution and does not find any reason to vary or delete the condition.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has determined that TPS 4 does not prevent approval of the proposal and that the proposal was acceptable in terms of the performance criteria of the Codes. However, the Tribunal found that the most significant element of the planning framework was the Parking Policy.
The Parking Policy provides an exemption from rear car parking where there is an established existing acceptable pattern of car parking in more than 50% of the surrounding development. In this instance, even if five properties identified by the respondent were developed as complying with the Parking Policy, there would still be 61% of properties with hardstand or carports in the front setback. Significantly, if the application were to be refused, the review site would be the only mid-block (not corner lot) property in the surrounding development without car parking in the front setback. (The Tribunal notes that although some lots have car parking on the side of the house, the driveway in front of the side carports can be used for car parking in the front setback.)
The application is for a single width hardstand and does not involve a carport. The house, which, based on the photographs, contributes to the streetscape, will still be clearly visible and continue to contribute to the streetscape.
The Tribunal finds that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the locality.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision of the respondent made on 22 June 2007 to refuse development approval for a single hardstand car parking bay at No 66 Evans Street, Shenton Park is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
a)All stormwater generated on site is to be retained on site. No stormwater will be permitted to enter the City's stormwater drainage system unless otherwise approved.
b)Existing ground levels at lot boundaries are to remain unaltered or, alternatively, any fill or excavation required as a result of any alteration of these levels is to be retained. Details of any proposed retaining walls are required to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of the development. Development approval may also be required for any proposed retaining walls greater than 0.5 metres in height above natural ground level.
c)All infrastructure in the road reserve adjacent to and bounding the development site is to be protected from damage for the duration of the construction of the development, and at the conclusion of construction, reinstated to the condition that existed prior to the construction of the development commencing. The manner in which the infrastructure is to be protected and reinstated is to be to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
d)All car parking bay dimensions are to accord with Australian Standard AS 2890.1.
e)All ramps, crossovers, driveways and circulation aisles are to be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 and maintained to that standard.
f)Existing ground levels at all proposed vehicle and pedestrian access points are to remain unaltered. No change in footpath, verge or right of way levels will be permitted.
g)The existing level of the footpath is to be maintained.
h)Crossovers are to be provided and constructed in accordance with the City of Subiaco Policy No 14.2.3.
i)A 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre visual truncation is to be provided at the south-western corner of the single hardstand and is to be maintained at all times. No walls, landscaping or visually impermeable fences greater than 0.75 metre in height above natural ground level are to be located within this truncation.
I certify that this and the preceding [84] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR R EASTON, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
2
4