LOMMOND PROPERTIES PTY LTD and TOWN OF VINCENT
[2007] WASAT 144
•5 JUNE 2007
LOMMOND PROPERTIES PTY LTD and TOWN OF VINCENT [2007] WASAT 144
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 144 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:378/2006 | 1 MARCH 2007 & 9 MARCH 2007 | |
| Coram: | MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) | 5/06/07 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review allowed and conditional development approval granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LOMMOND PROPERTIES PTY LTD TOWN OF VINCENT |
Catchwords: | Town planning – Development application – Change of use – Motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office – Desire future character of locality as identified in Policy 3.3.27 – Town of Vincent Economic Development Strategy 2005-2010 – Amenity impacts – Streetscape – Car parking and traffic demand |
Legislation: | Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31, S 91 Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1, cl 6, cl 6(3)(a), cl 6(3)(c), cl 6(3)(e), cl 10, cl 13(2)(e), cl 18, cl 37, cl 38(3), cl 38(3)(b), cl 38(5), cl 47, cl 47(9), Zone Table, Schedule 1 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent to refuse planning approval for change of use from motel to office and associated alterations and relocation of swimming pool on Lot 10 (No 103) Harold Street, Highgate is set aside and a decision is substituted that planning approval is granted for a change of use from motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office, associated alterations, and the relocation of swimming pool, subject to the following conditions:,(i) The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans A101 (Issue 2), A102 (Issue 2) and A103 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh.,(ii) Any new street/front wall, fence and gate between the Harold Street boundary and the Stirling Street boundary and the main building, including along the side boundaries within this front setback area, shall comply with the following:,(a) the maximum height of posts and piers being 1.8 metres above the adjacent footpath level;,(b) decorative capping on top of posts and piers may extend the total maximum height of the posts and piers to 2.0 metres above the adjacent footpath level;,(c) the maximum width, depth and diameter of posts and piers being 350 millimetres;,(d) the maximum height of the solid portion being 1.2 metres above the adjacent footpath level, and the section above this solid portion being visually permeable, with a minimum 50% transparency;,(e) the provision of a minimum 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres truncation where walls, fences and gates adjoin vehicle access points, or where a driveway meets a public street or right of way; and a minimum 3.0 metres by 3.0 metres truncation where two streets intersect. Walls, fences and gates may be located within this truncation area where the maximum height of the solid portion is 0.65 metre above the adjacent footpath level; and,(f) the solid portion adjacent to the Stirling Street boundary from the above truncation(s) can increase to a maximum height of 1.8 metres, provided that the fence and gate have at least two significant appropriate design features to reduce the visual impact. Examples of design features may include significant open structures, recesses and/or planters facing the street at regular intervals, and varying materials; and the incorporation of varying materials, finishes and/or colours are considered to be one design feature. Details of the design features shall be submitted to and approved by the Town of Vincent prior to the issue of a Building Licence.,(iii) All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non standard type), radio and other antennas, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive.,(iv) The relation of the swimming pool is subject to a separate Swimming Pool/Building Licence application to be submitted to and approved by the Town of Vincent.,(v) A detailed landscaping plan, including a schedule of plant species, the retention of the existing lemon tree adjacent to the eastern boundary, the landscaping and reticulation of the Harold Street and Stirling Street verges adjacent to the subject property shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Building Licence. All such works shall be undertaken prior to the first occupation of the development, and maintained thereafter by the owner(s)/occupier(s).,(vi) All signage that does not comply with the Town of Vincent's policy relating to signs and advertising shall be subject to a separate planning application, and all signage shall be subject to a Sign Licence application, being submitted and approved prior to the erection of the signage.,(vii) Prior to the issue of a Building/Swimming Pool Licence, a management plan shall be submitted and approved addressing the rules and regulations including signage relating to appropriate behaviour and use of the swimming pool area and the restriction of the usage of the swimming pool area between 7 am and 9 pm inclusive. All such works and rules and regulations relating to the use of the swimming pool area shall be detailed in the "Strata Management Plan" for the development, and undertaken and maintained thereafter by the owner(s)/occupier(s) in accordance with the approved management plan.,(viii) The gross floor area of the office use shall accord with the area designated on plan A102 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : LOMMOND PROPERTIES PTY LTD and TOWN OF VINCENT [2007] WASAT 144 MEMBER : MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) HEARD : 1 MARCH 2007 &
- 9 MARCH 2007
- Applicant
AND
TOWN OF VINCENT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning – Development application – Change of use – Motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office – Desire future character of locality as identified in Policy 3.3.27 – Town of Vincent Economic Development Strategy 2005-2010 – Amenity impacts – Streetscape – Car parking and traffic demand
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31, S 91
(Page 2)
Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1, cl 6, cl 6(3)(a), cl 6(3)(c), cl 6(3)(e), cl 10, cl 13(2)(e), cl 18, cl 37, cl 38(3), cl 38(3)(b), cl 38(5), cl 47, cl 47(9), Zone Table, Schedule 1
Result:
Application for review allowed and conditional development approval granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr KA Adam
Respondent : Mr SJ Bain
Solicitors:
Applicant : KA Adam & Associates
Respondent : SJB Planning and Urban Design
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Lommond Properties Pty Ltd applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the decision of the Town of Vincent refusing planning approval for a change of use for portion of a building on Lot 10 (No 103) Harold Street, Highgate from motel to office. The application also included associated alterations and the relocation of the swimming pool to the north-east portion of the site.
2 The parties agreed that the relocation of the swimming pool was not in dispute, and as such the following principal issue emerged for consideration in the review:
• Whether the proposed office use would adversely impact upon the amenity of the locality, having regard to:
(i) the desired future character of the locality as identified in Policy No 3.3.27 – Brigatti – Locality Plan 27;
(ii) the Town of Vincent Economic Development Strategy 2005-2010; and
(iii) the impact of car parking and traffic demands on the amenity of residents of the locality.
4 The Tribunal also considered whether the proposed development would affect the strategies identified in the Town of Vincent Economic Development Strategy 2005-2010, with particular focus on the Beaufort Street precinct. The Tribunal found that the proposed
(Page 4)
- development was unlikely to undermine the Beaufort Street precinct or result in the development of a further commercial precinct or nodes.
5 The impacts of car parking and traffic demand of the proposed use on the amenity of the locality were considered, and on the available evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal would have minimal impact on the amenity of the locality.
6 The Tribunal determined that the application did not warrant refusal and that the discretion available under cl 13(2)(e) should be exercised. The application for review was allowed and planning approval was granted subject to conditions.
Introduction
7 Lommond Properties Pty Ltd (applicant) lodged a development application with the Town of Vincent (respondent or Council) on 29 May 2006 for change of use from motel to office, associated car parking and relocation of swimming pool on Lot 10 (No 103) Harold Street, Highgate (subject land).
8 The development application was refused by the respondent at its meeting of 12 September 2006 for the following reasons:
"1. The development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area.
2. The application is not consistent with the Brigatti Locality.
3. The proposed development is considered to be an intrusion of commercial components into the residential area.
4. The extent of the commercial component is excessive."
9 The applicant, on 6 October 2006, made application under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) to have the decision reviewed.
10 During the course of the proceedings, the applicant formed the view that no approval was necessary because an existing planning approval, granted in 1997, permitted the proposed use. In light of this assertion, the Tribunal, pursuant to s 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004
(Page 5)
- (WA) (SAT Act), invited the respondent to reconsider that matter at its meeting of 19 December 2006.
11 The respondent reconsidered the matter and resolved not to support the application for the following reasons:
"1. The development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area.
2. The application is not consistent with the Brigatti Locality.
3. The proposed development is considered to be an intrusion of commercial components into the residential area.
4. The extent of the commercial component is considered excessive.
5. Insufficient documentary evidence that the condition of the existing building is acceptable for the office use in terms of the building and health requirements.
6. Insufficient documentary evidence that the office use and space approved in 1997 actually commenced and operated on-site in accordance with that approval."
12 Subsequently, the applicant sought a declaration from the Tribunal, under s 91 of the SAT Act, that:
"• portion of the application development [sic] for which a change of use has been sought by the applicant was previously the subject of approval by the respondent;
• the approval was acted upon and the relevant portion of the building used for the approved purposes; and
• consequently, there is a current approval in place for the proposed use."
13 The Tribunal heard evidence from the parties on this matter and concluded that the 1997 approval did not authorise the use proposed by the applicant and declined to make a declaration (see Lommond Properties Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2007] WASAT 25). The matter was listed for a hearing as to the merits of the application. The matter
(Page 6)
- proceeded to hearing on 1 March 2007. The Tribunal was assisted by a view of the subject land during the course of the hearing.
Background
14 The historical use of the subject land and circumstances leading to the approval in 1997 and its terms were considered by the Tribunal in Lommond Properties Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent. The considerations and findings of the Tribunal are relevant to understanding the background to this matter.
15 Prior to August 1997, the site was occupied by the "Pacific Motel and Reception Centre". The respondent, at its meeting of 11 August 1997, considered an application for the refurbishment of the existing motel, including the addition of a new foyer and the change of use of a reception centre area to offices, staff facilities and warehouse/storage. It would appear from the officer's report that:
" ... the existing motel and reception centre have established non-conforming use rights and as such are required to be considered by the Council for any changes of use, and/or alterations/additions to existing buildings."
16 At that meeting, the Council adopted the officer's recommendation which was in the following terms:
"Recommendation:
That:
in accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the Council APPROVES the application submitted by Bollig Design Group on behalf of the landowners Pacific Motel (WA) Pty Ltd for the refurbishment of the motel and the addition of a new foyer and change of use of a reception centre to office, staff facilities and warehouse/storage on Lot 10 (No 103) Harold Street corner Stirling Street, Mount Lawley and as shown on plans received on 17 June 1997, subject to:
(i) the submission of a schedule of finishes for approval (including materials, colour scheme and details) at the time of submitting a Building Licence Application;
(Page 7)
- (ii) the submission of a detailed landscaping plan prior to the issue of a Building Licence; and
(iii) compliance with Environmental Health conditions;
to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Office."
17 The following observations were made by the Tribunal in Lommond Properties Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent at [21] and [22]:
" … Although it is not clear from the minutes, it does appear that the respondent treated the application as an application for a change of non-conforming use under cl 31 of the CPS.
It would appear, therefore, that as at December 1998, the approved office use was a non-conforming use under the CPS."
18 The Tribunal in relation to the 1997 approval found that:
" … there is insufficient foundation to make the declaration sought. That is because I have reached the view that on the proper construction, the 1997 approval was, as the respondent contends, for the use of the office portions of the building as part of the motel business. …
In my view, the 1997 approval was, in substance, an approval for modifications to the existing motel business having the effect of removing the reception centre, and replacing it with additional office and storage facilities for use in the context of the motel business. …
It follows that there is no current approval that would permit to [sic] proposed use as an architectural office by the applicant."
19 Given this finding, the parties agreed that the current application should be described as a change of use from motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office, associated alterations and relocation of swimming pool as shown on plans A101 (Issue 2), A102 (Issue 2) and A103 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh.
Subject land
20 The subject land is referred to as Lot 10 Harold Street, Highgate and is 2478 square metres in area. The subject land is situated on the south-eastern corner of Harold and Stirling Streets, adjacent to the St
(Page 8)
- Mark's International College. The lot to the south of the subject land (along Stirling Street) contains the Progressive Spiritualist Church. The lots to the east of the subject land fronting onto Harold Street and the lots on the adjacent side of Harold Street are used for residential purposes and contain examples of original cottages.
21 The existing three storey building on the subject land is in a dilapidated state and has been vacant for some time. The ground floor of the building comprises reception area, manager's accommodation, lounge and meals area, office/warehouse area and associated car parking for 40 vehicles. Sixty-two motel units occupy the first and second floor of the building.
The proposal
22 The proposal involves a change of use of that portion of the ground floor of the existing building that was originally the reception centre and approved in 1997 for use as an office/warehouse/storage, in conjunction with the existing motel business, to office use (approximately 318 square metres). In order to provide an additional six car parking bays to service the office use, it is proposed that the existing swimming pool, which is located in the north-west portion of the Harold Street frontage, be relocated to the north-east portion of the Harold Street frontage.
Planning framework
23 The subject land is zoned "Urban" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and "Residential" with a permitted density of R80 under the Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1 or Scheme). As Table 1 – General Site Requirements (Table 1) to the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (Codes) recognises, R80 is a "high density" coding.
24 Clause 6 sets out the "Objective and Intentions" of TPS 1. The general objectives of the Scheme that are of particular relevance to this matter are:
"6(3)(a) to cater for the diversity of demands, interests and lifestyles by facilitating and encouraging the provision of a wide range of choices in housing, business, employment, education, leisure, transport and access opportunities; …
(Page 9)
- 6(3)(c) to ensure that the use and development of land is managed in an effective and efficient manner within a flexible framework which –
(i) recognises the individual character and needs of localities within the Scheme zone area; and
(ii) can respond readily to change; … and
6(3)(e) to promote and safeguard the economic well-being and functions of the Town;"
25 Clause 10 of TPS 1, which reinforces the objective stated in cl 6, divides the scheme area into precincts and notes that for each precinct there is a planning policy contained in the Council's policy manual. The subject land is located in precinct "P14 Forrest".
26 The proposal involves a change of use of portion of the building for office use. The Zone Table contained in TPS 1 includes the use class "Office Building" which is defined in "Schedule 1" of the Scheme as meaning:
" ... premises used for:
(a) the conduct of the administration requirements or the secretarial or accounting services of a business or industry:
(b) the practice of a profession; or
(c) the provision of business services;"
27 The proposed use would fall within the defined use class "Office Building", which is an "SA" in the "Residential" zone and therefore not permitted unless the Council (or Tribunal), has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with cl 37 of the Scheme. The proposed change of use has been advertised in accordance with cl 37 and no submissions were received. Given that the proposed use may be approved under the Scheme, the provisions of the Scheme relating to "Non-conforming Uses" do not arise.
28 Clause 18 of TPS 1 requires the development of land to be in accordance with the standards and requirements contained in the following documents:
(Page 10)
- " … Scheme Text, the Scheme Map, the policy applying to the land proposed to be developed, the planning policies and the Residential [Design] Codes."
29 Subclause 38(3) of the Scheme provides the authority for the Council to refuse or approve an application. Without limiting the scope of the discretion to determine an application, cl 38(5) of the Scheme sets out the matters to which regard is to be given in the determination of an application. The pertinent matters relating to this application are as follows:
"(a) the provisions of this Scheme and of any other written law applying within the Scheme area including the Metropolitan Region Scheme;
(b) any relevant planning [p]olicy;
(c) the Scheme Map; …
(f) any submission accompanying or related to the application; and
(g) the orderly and proper planning of the locality."
30 Clause 18 and cl 38(3)(b) both require consideration of planning policy in the determination of an application. Clause 47 of the Scheme empowers the Council to make planning policies relating to an aspect or aspects of development control or any other matter relevant to the Scheme. These policies may be applied to all or part of the Scheme area. A policy of the respondent that is relevant to this review is Policy No: 3.3.27 – Brigatti – Locality Plan 27 (Policy 3.3.27), which has been formulated and adopted by the Council under cl 47 of the Scheme.
31 Policy 3.3.27 includes a section "Desired Future Character" which includes the following reference to non-residential uses within this locality area:
"A limited number of non-residential uses which serve the day-to-day needs of local residents (such as local shops and childcare facilities) are also appropriate where they are not likely to cause and [sic] significant disturbance to adjacent residences."
(Page 11)
32 Clause 47(9) of the Scheme provides that a planning policy prepared under cl 47 "shall be consistent with the Scheme Text and where any inconsistencies arise, the provisions of the Scheme Text prevail".
33 A further document referred to by respondent was the Town of Vincent Economic Development Strategy 2005-2010 (Strategy). The respondent's witness, Cr Ian Ker, indicated that the Strategy had been formally adopted by the Council and was taken into consideration in the determination of applications relating to non-residential uses in residential areas. However, he was unsure if the Strategy had been adopted as a policy under the provisions of TPS 1. The section of the Strategy relied on by the respondent is contained on page 6 and states, inter alia:
"The Town is well-serviced by commercial nodes in that it has five significant centres, Leederville, Mount Hawthorn, North Perth, William Street and Beaufort Street (Mt Lawley), as well as three lesser centres in London Street, Charles Street and Newcastle Street. With such well distributed development, there is no requirement to add new commercial precincts or nodes, with all Vincent residents living within one kilometre of a commercial centre."
Issues
34 The parties agreed that the relocation of the swimming pool was not in dispute, and as such, the following principal issue emerged for consideration in the review:
• whether the proposed office use would adversely impact upon the amenity of the locality, having regard to:
(i) the desired future character of the locality as identified in Policy No 3.3.27;
(ii) the Strategy; and
(iii) the impact of car parking and traffic demands on the amenity of residents of the locality.
(Page 12)
- be considered as serving the day-to-day needs of the local residents and would therefore be contrary to the expected future amenity of the locality.
36 The applicant drew attention to the fact that the immediate locality contains a mixture of uses, namely, St Mark's International College, the Progressive Spiritualist Church, and the bulk of the existing building will be used, as previously, as a motel. The applicant contended that Policy 3.3.27 should not be read as to deny the existing diversity of use in the locality, which is recognised in the "Background" section of the policy, or the future desirability of diverse uses compatible with predominant uses. The applicant further submitted that recognition should be given to the fact that the application does not deal with vacant infill or a redevelopment site and that the major policy imperative that should apply to the subject land, given the current use and development, is that the development be one "not likely to cause any significant disturbance to local residents".
37 The Tribunal, in determining this matter, is required under TPS 1 to have regard to any relevant planning policy. Policy 3.3.27 is a relevant planning policy and generally envisages the "desired future character" of the locality as residential with limited non-residential uses servicing the day-to-day needs of the community. However, in applying the policy, recognition must be given to the existing character of the immediate locality and the circumstances of the subject land. While mindful that an office in this location may not serve the day-to-day needs of the locality, it is unlikely to undermine the residential character of the locality, particularly given its location to non-residential uses that do not serve the day-to-day needs of the locality or cause any significant disturbance to adjacent residences.
38 The respondent also argued that the approval of an office within a residential precinct was contrary to the Strategy, which encourages the location on non-residential use within the existing commercial hubs within the Town. Counsellor Ker was called by the respondent to give evidence. Counsellor Ker told the Tribunal that it had been the practice of the Council to discourage commercial activities in residential areas and that this proposal would result in the intrusion of a significant commercial use in the residential area, which would not be consistent with orderly and proper planning of the locality. Counsellor Ker contended that the floor area for use as office (318 square metres) sought by this application was more than five times the size of the previously approved office component (1997 approval) and more than twice the total previously approved commercial component. Under cross-examination Cr Ker accepted that
(Page 13)
- the plans approved in 1997 showed a new office area of 35 square metres and an area of 252 square metres labelled "new office/back of house".
39 The applicant argued that the Strategy is not particularly relevant given that it does not make any reference to the desirability or otherwise of ensuring that office uses are co-located on Beaufort Street and asserted that the proposal would not conflict with the Beaufort Street precinct as the predominant land use, in that precinct, is identified as shopping and other retail in the Strategy.
40 The Strategy identifies the economic hubs within the Town and provides strategies on how to promote and develop each of these areas. To ensure the economic development of these areas there is an underlying principle that any commercial development outside the identified hubs should not undermine the future planning of these areas and in particular should not lead to the development of further commercial precincts or nodes. Given the context and setting of this proposal it is unlikely to undermine the Beaufort Street precinct or result in the development of a further commercial precinct or nodes.
41 The specific amenity impacts identified by the respondent in its statement of issues, facts and contentions included streetscape and car parking. During the hearing, the issue of streetscape was not argued by the respondent and Cr Ker, under cross-examination, agreed that compliance with the "without prejudice" draft conditions in respect to the front fence would, in fact, improve the streetscape.
42 During the hearing, counsel for the respondent sought to agitate the amenity impacts of the proposal as car parking and traffic demand, although the documentation submitted by the respondent did not identify any issue regarding the number of car parking bays to be provided on site and no evidence was produced that demonstrated there would be a deficiency in the number of bays provided thereby resulting in an adverse impact on amenity of the residential area. The respondent submitted that an office independent of the motel use would generate additional traffic to an office that was associated with the motel. Of particular concern was vehicular access to the business through the residential streets. The respondent did not present any objective, scientific evidence to support the assertion or to demonstrate how the quantum increase would affect the amenity of the locality.
43 The applicant drew the Tribunal's attention to the undisputed evidence provided in the previous determination in Lommond Properties
(Page 14)
- Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent, which established a travel agency had operated from the subject portion of the building from April 1998 to August 2003. It was noted that during the period of operation, the travel agency did not attract any complaints from the residents in the locality. The applicant argued that a travel agency, which is a quasi-retail use, could be expected to attract more traffic movement than most office uses and therefore it can be deduced that the proposed office use was likely to have less impacts on the locality than a use, which during its operation, attracted no complaints from the local residents.
44 The respondent did not adequately address the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality and as such the Tribunal prefers the arguments of the applicant. On the evidence, the Tribunal considers that the proposal will have minimal impact on the amenity of the locality.
45 The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality for the reasons expressed above and therefore, considers that the discretion available under cl 13(2)(e) of TPS 1 should be exercised and planning approval for a change of use from motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office, associated alterations and the relocation of swimming pool as shown on plans A101 (Issue 2), A102 (Issue 2) and A103 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh, be granted subject to conditions.
Conditions
46 As required by direction of the Tribunal, the respondent prepared "without prejudice" draft conditions to be imposed if the Tribunal considers that approval of the application subject to conditions is appropriate. The respondent suggested seven conditions, to which the applicant agreed, with the exception of the area designated for office being limited to 287 square metres. It would appear that the 287 square metres reflects the office/warehouse floor space designation in the 1997 approval. The applicant contended that the area should reflect the area calculation of the current application, which equates to 318 square metres. There is a different internal arrangement of service facilities between the two plans, which would account for the floor area variation. The Tribunal is of the view that the floor area of the office should reflect that which is shown in the plans attached to this application.
Orders
47 For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
(Page 15)
- 1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent to refuse planning approval for change of use from motel to office and associated alterations and relocation of swimming pool on Lot 10 (No 103) Harold Street, Highgate is set aside and a decision is substituted that planning approval is granted for a change of use from motel and associated office and storage facilities to motel and office, associated alterations, and the relocation of swimming pool, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans A101 (Issue 2), A102 (Issue 2) and A103 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh.
(ii) Any new street/front wall, fence and gate between the Harold Street boundary and the Stirling Street boundary and the main building, including along the side boundaries within this front setback area, shall comply with the following:
(a) the maximum height of posts and piers being 1.8 metres above the adjacent footpath level;
(b) decorative capping on top of posts and piers may extend the total maximum height of the posts and piers to 2.0 metres above the adjacent footpath level;
(c) the maximum width, depth and diameter of posts and piers being 350 millimetres;
(d) the maximum height of the solid portion being 1.2 metres above the adjacent footpath level, and the section above this solid portion being visually permeable, with a minimum 50% transparency;
(e) the provision of a minimum 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres truncation where walls, fences and gates adjoin vehicle access points, or
- where a driveway meets a public street or right of way; and a minimum 3.0 metres by 3.0 metres truncation where two streets intersect. Walls, fences and gates may be located within this truncation area where the maximum height of the solid portion is 0.65 metre above the adjacent footpath level; and
- (f) the solid portion adjacent to the Stirling Street boundary from the above truncation(s) can increase to a maximum height of 1.8 metres, provided that the fence and gate have at least two significant appropriate design features to reduce the visual impact. Examples of design features may include significant open structures, recesses and/or planters facing the street at regular intervals, and varying materials; and the incorporation of varying materials, finishes and/or colours are considered to be one design feature. Details of the design features shall be submitted to and approved by the Town of Vincent prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
- (iii) All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennas, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive.
(iv) The relation of the swimming pool is subject to a separate Swimming Pool/Building Licence application to be submitted to and approved by the Town of Vincent.
(v) A detailed landscaping plan, including a schedule of plant species, the retention of the existing lemon tree adjacent to the eastern boundary, the
- landscaping and reticulation of the Harold Street and Stirling Street verges adjacent to the subject property shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Building Licence. All such works shall be undertaken prior to the first occupation of the development, and maintained thereafter by the owner(s)/occupier(s).
- (vi) All signage that does not comply with the Town of Vincent's policy relating to signs and advertising shall be subject to a separate planning application, and all signage shall be subject to a Sign Licence application, being submitted and approved prior to the erection of the signage.
(vii) Prior to the issue of a Building/Swimming Pool Licence, a management plan shall be submitted and approved addressing the rules and regulations including signage relating to appropriate behaviour and use of the swimming pool area and the restriction of the usage of the swimming pool area between 7 am and 9 pm inclusive. All such works and rules and regulations relating to the use of the swimming pool area shall be detailed in the "Strata Management Plan" for the development, and undertaken and maintained thereafter by the owner(s)/occupier(s) in accordance with the approved management plan.
(viii) The gross floor area of the office use shall accord with the area designated on plan A102 (Issue 2) prepared by Doepel Marsh.
I certify that this and the preceding [47] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS M CONNOR, MEMBER
(Page 18)
0
1
3