Medical Board of Australia v Woollard - [2013] WASAT 209

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: BRISEVAC and CITY OF VINCENT [2013] WASAT 209

MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 30 DECEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: DR 48 of 2013

BETWEEN: MIRIANA BRISEVAC
Applicant
AND
CITY OF VINCENT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development - Refusal - Proposed double carport in front setback of single house - Paved right of way at rear - Street setback alignment - Impact on streetscape - Single crossover to site - Existing single car space in front setback - Use of private open space in rear yard - Swimming pool approved in rear yard - Application of policy - Design principles Deemedtocomply provisions

Legislation:

City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1, cl 19, cl 38.5
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2010), cl 6.2.3 P1
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013), cl 5.1.2, cl 5.2, cl 5.2.1, cl 5.2.1 P1, cl 7.2, cl 7.3.1, Pt 5
State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) (WA), s 60(2)

Result:

Application for review dismissed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

This was an application for review of a refusal to grant planning approval for a double carport in the front setback of a house in a residential street in North Perth. The application was refused because the development was considered to be in conflict with policy objectives of not having vehicle related structures detract from the streetscape.
The applicant said that the carport was designed to be consistent with the existing house, would maintain sightlines and would not detract from the streetscape. The applicant said the carport in the front yard would enable open space at the rear of the house to be used for family activities.
The Tribunal found that the carport did not satisfy any relevant deemedtocomply provisions of the relevant policies to warrant an approval of a carport in the front setback. The Tribunal further found that the proposed carport would be in conflict with the design criteria for carports because it would detract from the streetscape. The Tribunal determined the development would be in conflict with the objective of conserving the amenities of the locality, and would not be consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for review.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr J Algeri (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Algeri Planning & Appeals (Town Planners)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Dalla Riva (Australia) Pty Ltd v Town of Vincent [2004] WATPAT 4
Nichols and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40
Sweetland and Town of Cambridge [2005] WASAT 278

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This was an application by Ms Miriana Brisevac (applicant) for review of the decision of the City of Vincent (respondent, City or Council) not to grant planning consent for the construction of a double carport, the widening of a single gate to double width and adjustments to fencing in the front setback of a single house at No 25 Commonwealth Avenue, North Perth (site).
At a directions hearing, the applicant applied to have the matter determined on the documents. On exchange between the Tribunal member and the parties, the applicant clarified that she understood the process involved and what was required. The Tribunal then issued orders that the matter was to be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
The Tribunal viewed the site, the Commonwealth Avenue streetscape and the right of way at the rear of the site, accompanied by the applicant and the respondent's agent on 27 August 2013.

Site and locality

The site has an area of 386.2 m² and is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 12.19 metres to Commonwealth Avenue at the eastern end and a depth of 31.68 metres. At the rear of the site is a 5 metre wide sealed right of way. The site has on it a single storey brick and tile dwelling with rendered and painted walls and modifications to the front verandah including tiling and steel pipe veranda supports. The house is set back approximately 6 metres from the front boundary with a northern side setback of 1.7 metres and a southern side setback of 970 millimetres.
There is in place a single bitumen crossover from Commonwealth Avenue to a hardstand parking space for one car in the front setback adjacent to the northern side boundary. On the verge, a brick paved parking space has been laid adjacent to and about the same width as the crossover.
At the rear, the house is set back about 9 metres from the rear boundary with the right of way. The rear verandah has been extended beyond the rear of the house to form a roofed patio open at three sides with about three steps down to the yard. A below ground swimming pool was approved by the Council in July 2012, and in December 2012, was installed between the rear verandah and the rear fence, adjacent to the northern boundary. The space between the swimming pool and southern boundary is cleared except for pool pumping equipment.
Commonwealth Avenue, between Anzac Road to the north and Chamberlain Street to the south, comprises 46 single dwellings, 23 on each side of the road. Mr Joe Algeri, a planning consultant who made submissions and provided expert evidence for the respondent, produced a plan showing that, of the 46 dwellings in Commonwealth Avenue:
•20 had no parking or accessway in the front setback;
•two had hardstand parking spaces existing at the side of the dwelling and a driveway;
•15 had hardstand parking spaces existing at the front of the dwelling;
•five had the carport existing at the side of the dwelling and a driveway;
•three had a carport at the front of the dwelling, including one directly opposite the site; and
•one had a garage at the side of the dwelling and a driveway.
No evidence was presented on how many dwellings also had parking at the rear, off the right of way.

Proposed development

Proposed is development in the front setback of the house on the site. The proposed development includes a double carport 5.5 metres wide with brick piers and a tiled roof with a Dutch gable at the front, 500 millimetres from the northern boundary and 300 millimetres from the front boundary. The carport would be separated from the verandah of the house by about 300 millimetres. The carport would cover an existing car bay and a proposed additional car bay.
The crossover would be widened to 4.8 metres. The gateway in the front fence for vehicle access would be widened to double width with a sliding metal gate. A new pedestrian access gate would be installed in the front fence adjacent to the carport.

Planning framework

On 2 August 2013, by notice in the Government Gazette, State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R Codes 2013) became operational, replacing Residential Design Codes 2010 (R Codes 2010).
The site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R30 under the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1). Clause 19 of TPS 1 requires residential development to comply with, now, R Codes 2013. Clause 38.5 of TPS 1 sets out various matters to be considered when determining an application for planning approval made under TPS 1. Matters to be considered include:
…
(b)any relevant planning policy;
…
(g)the orderly and proper planning of the locality;
(h)the conservation of the amenities of the locality[.]
The site is within the 'Smiths Lake Precinct' pursuant to City of Vincent Policy No 3.1.6 ‑ Smith's Lake Precinct ‑ Scheme Map 6. In relation to the residential area clause 1 of this policy statement provides:
All residential development is to comply with the Policies relating to Residential Design Guidelines, Residential Development, Design Guidelines for Richmond On The Park and Clause 20 of City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1[.]
The City has adopted City of Vincent Policy No 3.2.1 Residential Design Elements Policy (Policy 3.2.1). Clause 4.2 of Policy 3.2.1 states that the policy '… endeavours to complement the R Codes, by augmenting and further developing specific provisions …' The relevant provisions of R Codes 2013, R Codes 2010 and Policy 3.2.1, and the relationship between them, are discussed below.

The refusal

The respondent refused the application for the reason that:
The application does not conform with the City's policy.

Issues

From the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal has summarised the issues as:
1)whether the proposed development is consistent with the planning controls for the construction of a carport in the front setback area of a single dwelling; and
2)whether approval of the proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for the construction of parking structures in the front setback area of properties within the streetscape.

Discussion

The carport and the planning controls

The Tribunal was required under cl 38.5 of TPS 1 to consider the conservation of the 'amenities' of the locality and to make a decision consistent with orderly and proper planning. In making its decision, the Tribunal had to bear in mind that vehicles can continue to be parked on the hardstand within the front setback of the site and on the hardstand on the verge adjacent to the crossover, whatever the outcome of this application. The question in this matter was whether to grant planning approval for the double carport, proposed to be erected over the existing car space, and an additional parking bay, in the front setback on the site.
The Tribunal was required by cl 38.5 of TPS 1 to have regard to the relevant policies. For the carport, these were R Codes 2013, which have replaced R Codes 2010, and the respondent's Policy 3.2.1.
R Codes 2013 were gazetted subsequent to the parties filing their respective submissions. The parties took advantage of an opportunity afforded to them by the Tribunal to make further submissions, and then comments in reply, on whether R Codes 2013 made any difference to their positions on the matter. The parties each provided their comments, but maintained their respective positions on whether the proposed carport might be allowed.
The R Codes 2013 guidelines repeat from R Codes 2010 the comment that carport development in the front setback would be acceptable where 'no feasible alternative exists'. The guidelines of both also say that as rates of car ownership have increased, the provision of parking in the front setback of houses that were built prior to the standard provision of off street parking spaces has increased and, 'with increasing affluence', so has 'the desire to provide a roof over vehicles'.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that while many car owners may consider a carport desirable, this desire does not lead to a conclusion that a carport must be approved as a matter of course, particularly in the front setback of a house. Relevant planning controls must be satisfied.
R Codes 2013, R Codes 2010 (originally considered by the parties) and Policy 3.2.1 have some similarities in how they are structured in respect to the different design elements to be considered for residential development. In each instrument there are stated objectives for streetscape. Each also has tables of policy measures for various design elements of residential development, including carports. The tables comprise a lefthand column and a righthand column. The lefthand column sets out the design principle (or performance criteria) which a development must satisfy before it might be allowed. The design principle for carports has essentially remained consistent in Policy 3.2.1(adopted 2009), in R Codes 2010 and now the R Codes 2013.
In R Codes 2013, Pt 5 sets out the design elements for all single houses. Clause 5.2 'Streetscape' sets out as an objective:
To contribute towards the character of streetscapes including their views and vistas and [provide] security for occupants and passers-by, a landscape to ensure adequate shade, privacy and open space for occupants, and an attractive setting for the collection of buildings.
Under the heading 'Design principles', R Codes 2013 require that '[d]evelopment demonstrates compliance with the following design principles'.
Under 'Design principles', at cl 5.2.1 'Setback of garages and carports', it states:
P1The setting back of carports and garages to maintain clear sight lines along the street and not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.
This design principle under R Codes 2013 is a repeat of the performance criterion for carports in R Codes 2010 at cl 6.2.3 P3, except that the words 'maintain clear sight lines along the street' have been added.
In a righthand column under Pt 5 of R Codes 2013 are set out for each element requirements that, if satisfied, the development is deemed to comply with the design principles and so might be approved.
The relevant provisions under the heading 'Deemed‑to‑comply' of cl 5.2.1 'Setback of garages and carports' of R Codes (2013) state:
…
C1.2Carports set back from the primary street in accordance with clause 5.1.2 C2.1.
…
C1.5Carports within the street setback area in accordance with clause 5.1.2 C2.1iii provided that the width of the carport does not exceed 50 per cent of the frontage at the building line and the construction allows an unobstructed view between the dwelling and the street, right-of-way or equivalent (refer to Figure 8a).
Clause 5.1.2 'Street setback' of R Codes 2013, referred to in cl 5.2.1, includes in the deemed‑to‑comply column:
C2.1Buildings set back from the primary street boundary:
i. in accordance with Table 1;
ii. corresponding to the average of the setback of existing dwellings on each adjacent property fronting the same street;
iii. reduced by up to 50 per cent provided that the area of any building, including a carport or garage, intruding into the setback area is compensated for by at least an equal area of open space between the setback line and line drawn parallel to it at twice the setback distance (refer Figure 2a, 2b and 2c)[.]
Figure 8(a) of R Codes 2013 is a plan illustrating how setbacks are measured.
Similarly, clause 5.1 of Policy 3.2.1 refers to the 'Assessment Table', and states that the 'performance criteria' in the table must be satisfied in order to achieve the desired development outcome and that the acceptable development criteria 'provide a means by which a development can be "deemed‑to‑comply" with the relevant performance criteria …'. The Assessment Table of Policy 3.2.1 has, at page 22, 'Setback of garages and carports'. In the lefthand column, at SPC8 is the following performance criterion:
Garages and carports are not to visually dominate the site or the streetscape.
In the righthand column at SADC8 of Policy 3.2.1, the acceptable development criteria for carports and garages are listed. These include:
(a)Car parking, garages and carports are to be located at the rear of the property and accessed via a right of way where a right of way exists and the property has legal right of access to the right of way.
(b)Notwithstanding the above, vehicular access to car parking, carports and garages for single houses may be from a street, regardless whether a right of way is available to the property, where[:]
(1)the right of way is unsealed …; or
(2) more than 50 per cent of the dwellings in the immediate street block, on the same side of the street that the subject dwelling is located[,] have carports or garages accessed from the primary street; or
(3) the applicant demonstrates there is a mobility or access issue by using the right of way; or
(4) the applicant demonstrates there would be a major impact on the existing amenity or open space at the rear of the property by using the right of way.
(c) Where vehicular access to car parking, carports and garages are permitted to be from a street (primary or secondary), the following requirements are to be met:
(1) Garages and carports should be integrated into the development, and should be constructed of compatible materials, colours, scale and roof pitch to the dwellings on site;
…
(3) Carports should be located behind the street setback line and at the side of the dwelling where space exists;
(4) Carports may be located within the street setback area provided it is one hundred (100) per cent open on all sides at all times (open style gates/panels with a minimum visual permeability of eighty (80) per cent are permitted), except where it may abut the front main building wall of the dwelling (not open verandah, porch, portico and the like);
(5) Solid roller doors, tilt doors and the like are not permitted for any carports located within the street setback area; and
(6) The total width of any carport (inclusive of support structures) within the street setback area is not to exceed 50 per cent of the lot frontage[.]
The applicant questioned the relevance of Policy 3.2.1 to the determination of this matter. Clause 7.2 'Pre‑existing planning policies' of R Codes 2013 states:
If a properly adopted local planning policy which came into effect prior to the gazettal of the R‑Codes is inconsistent with the R‑Codes, the R‑Codes prevail over the policy to the extent of the inconsistency.
Clause 7.3.1 of R Codes 2013 provides that local planning policies may contain provisions that:
(a)amend or replace the following deemed-to-comply provisions set out in Part 5 and/or Part 6 of the R-Codes:
Context
street setbacks (clauses 5.1.2, 6.1.3)
…
Streetscape
setback of garages and carports (clause 5.2.1)[.]
(b) augment the R‑Codes by providing local housing objectives to guide judgements about the merits of proposals for any aspect of residential development that does not meet the requirements or is not provided for, under the R‑Codes.
Amendments or replacements to deemed‑to‑comply provisions are to be consistent with the relevant design principle.
The Tribunal considers that the performance criterion at SPC8 of Policy 3.2.1, cited above, is a more succinct form of the design principle at cl 5.2.1 P1 of R Codes 2013. That is, there is no inconsistency between the instruments on the design principles for the setback of carports.
The test in determining this matter is not whether there is departure from the deemed‑to‑comply provisions or acceptable development criteria of the relevant policies, but whether the development satisfies the design principle (or performance criteria): Sweetland and Town of Cambridge [2005] WASAT 278 at [36].
There are differences between the deemed‑to‑comply provisions at cl 5.2.1of R Codes 2013 and the acceptable development criteria of SADC8 of Policy 3.2.1. The Tribunal has formed the opinion, however, that the listed acceptable development criteria at SADC8 augment the deemed‑to‑comply provisions of R Codes 2013 for setbacks to carports. SADC8 adds to, rather than contradicts, the list of measures that, if satisfied, would satisfy the design criteria and warrant an approval of a carport.
SADC8(a) of Policy 3.2.1 is the respondent's preferred means of satisfying the performance criteria; that is, parking and carports to be off a rear right of way. The acceptable development column of the table, however, does not prescribe where a carport must be located, but rather states that if a carport were to be proposed in the backyard of the site with access off the right of way, then such a development would be consistent with the design principles and therefore warrant approval.

However, SADC8(b) and SADC8(c) of Policy 3.2.1 set out further acceptable development criteria that, if satisfied, might allow a carport to be constructed in the front setback. Particularly relevant are SADC8(b)(2), which refers to whether more than 50% of dwellings in the street block, on the same side of the street, have a carport or garage accessed from the primary street, and SADC8(b)(4), which is concerned with the impact a carport would have on the existing amenity or open space at the rear of the property.
The parties contradicted each other on whether deemed‑to‑comply (or acceptable development) provisions of the policies would be satisfied and therefore planning approval should be granted for the proposed development.
The conclusions drawn on the relevant acceptable development provisions of Policy 3.2.1 assisted in the assessment of whether the proposed carport would be consistent with the design principle at cl 5.2.1 P1 of R Codes 2013. The Tribunal concluded that the deemed‑to‑comply provisions do not assist in providing any support for the proposed carport.
In support of the proposed development, the applicant relied in part on comments made by City officers prior to finalising her application for Council consideration. The Tribunal notes that this assists in explaining how the development came to be in the proposed form, but it does not provide a basis for ignoring the planning merits of the development.
The applicant further relied upon the report presented to the Council by a City planning officer recommending approval of the carport. As noted in Dalla Riva (Australia) Pty Ltd v Town of Vincent [2004] WATPAT 4 at [35] to [36], an officer's report to Council is a recommendation, but it has to be recognised that the report represents the considered recommendations of a professionally trained and engaged employee. It is proper to consider the advice the respondent received from its officer and, while that recommendation is not determinative of the matter, the recommendation is to be considered by the Tribunal.
The officer's report is provided in the copy of Council minutes of 4 December 2012, which are included in the respondent's section 24 bundle of documents. It is noted, at pages 38, 40 and 41 of the minutes, that the Council officer referred to the impending construction of the patio and swimming pool (which have now both been constructed) coupled with the location of an existing shed. The officer said that there was not sufficient space available for the construction of a double carport off the rear right of way without the relocation of the shed, and this was considered to be an unreasonable requirement to impose on the applicant given the limited space available. The officer said that the provision of sufficient open space to the rear of the house to allow for an adequate outdoor living area suitable to the needs of the dwelling's occupants was a particularly important consideration. The officer concluded the carport would have too great an impact on the amenity of the open space in the backyard, and recommended the application be approved.
The shed mentioned in the officer's report has been demolished and if a parking space were to be provided in the rear yard, the newly installed pump and filter system for the swimming pool would have to be relocated. The Tribunal notes that in the rear yard there would only be sufficient width between the swimming pool and the southern boundary fence for a single carport.
The Tribunal is of the view that a patio, whilst covered but open on three sides, and a swimming pool contribute to outdoor living area. The Tribunal has concluded that the officer, while providing a professional opinion, made his recommendation when the shed was still in place and did not have sufficient regard of the outdoor living facilities in the rear yard.
The proposed carport does not exceed 50% of the frontage of the lot. It is also apparent that, generally, the design of the carport reflects elements of the design of the house, and that it would be possible to see from the street through the carport to the front verandah. These points alone, however, are not sufficient to satisfy the deemed‑to‑comply requirement at cl 5.2.1 of R Codes 2013.
In respect to other deemed‑to‑comply provisions in cl 5.1.2 of R Codes 2013, the proposed carport would not be set back from the primary street frontage in accordance with Table 1, which requires a 4 metre setback (C2.1i); it would be forward of the average setback of the existing dwellings on the adjacent property (C2.1ii), and the intrusion of the carport into the front setback area would not be offset by additional compensating open space behind the building line (C2.1iii).
The Tribunal did not find in the deemed‑to‑comply requirements of cl 5.2.1 of R Codes 2013 a basis for satisfying the design principle and therefore granting an approval for the proposed carport.
As pointed out by the applicant, the acceptable development criteria and deemed‑to‑comply requirements are not mandatory nor a finite list of the means of satisfying the design criteria. The Tribunal must consider all relevant submissions to determine whether the design criteria for carports can be satisfied, and, further, as required by TPS 1, determine whether the amenities of the locality would be conserved and the development would be consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal would comment that it is not the design of the proposed carport that is of concern, but whether the location is acceptable.
Twenty‑six houses in Commonwealth Avenue have in the front setback either a car space or a driveway on which a vehicle could be parked. The site is one of this number. Three houses have a carport in the front setback and none have a garage in such a location. Twenty houses (43.4%) have no parking in the front setback. While the latter is not a majority, the Tribunal is of the view that this number is sufficient to have an influence on the streetscape, particularly the northern end of Commonwealth Avenue.
Two of the carports in the front setbacks within the street are low profile flat roofed metal structures that are less obvious than a hip roofed carport, and appear to pre‑date the Council's policy. In respect to the carport in the front setback of the house opposite the site, the Council minutes of 27 September 2011 show the Council accepted that parking in the rear yard would require changes to the house itself and a significant reduction in outdoor living area.
The Tribunal considers that the existing carport opposite cannot be cited as a precedent for the subsequent approval of the carport in the front setback of the site. The presence of that carport is not, of itself, sufficient to simply abandon the established planning controls. The same must be said of the two other carports in front setbacks, especially as they have far less impact, pre‑date the respondent's policy and at least the R Codes 2010. The respondent's section 24 bundle of documents includes a Council decision to refuse a carport in the front setback at No 43 Commonwealth Avenue in November 2005, which would post‑date the erection of the two metal carports in the street, and this decision appears consistent with the application of the 2005 version of the respondent's Vehicle Access and Street Setback Policy referred to in those minutes.
The Tribunal has formed the view that the proposed carport would detract from the streetscape. This is because it would introduce into the streetscape a front setback containing a structure, and a structure with a significant roof component. In this streetscape there is only one other such structure and it is an illustration of the impact of a carport of such a design on the streetscape. The Tribunal has concluded that the proposed carport would detract from the established streetscape of open front setbacks almost entirely devoid of such structures.
For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal would add that this conclusion also leads to a conclusion that the proposed carport would not satisfy the performance criteria of SPC8 of Policy 3.2.1 because of the visually dominant element that would be introduced into the streetscape.

Precedent

The respondent raised as an issue whether an approval of the proposed carport would be interpreted by others as a precedent for similar structures in the front setback of other houses in Commonwealth Avenue.
The Tribunal, as discussed above, does not consider that the existing carport opposite the site sets a precedent for simply abandoning the planning controls. The Tribunal is concerned, however, that other landowners in the street might well see approval of a second carport, of the style proposed and in circumstances where the planning instruments provide no support for allowing the structure, as a precedent for the construction of carports in front setbacks they should be allowed to follow.
Whether setting a precedent was a consideration in determining whether a proposed development had planning merit was examined in Nichols and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40 at [71] ‑ [75] (Nichols). In Nichols, the first test followed was whether the proposed development would itself be unobjectionable. In this matter, the Tribunal has determined that the proposed development would be objectionable. This was because the proposed carport would intrude into a streetscape mostly devoid of structures in the front setback.
The second test followed in Nichols was whether there would be more than a mere possibility that there may be later undistinguishable applications. The evidence was that Commonwealth Avenue is a street of older houses, and while many houses had space available for parking in the front setback, car parking structures were rare. The Tribunal is of the view that if the proposed carport were approved, there is more than a mere possibility of later applications from owners in Commonwealth Avenue being undistinguishable. This is because the circumstances are such that there would be no particular basis for approving the current proposal, other than the general desire to provide a roof over parked vehicles identified in R Codes 2013. The proposed carport would intrude into the streetscape, and so, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has concluded that an approval would be seen to be establishing an undesirable precedent.
Conclusion
TPS 1 requires that regard is had to the conservation of the amenity of the locality, and that development is consistent with orderly and proper planning. The design principle identified for carports in R Codes 2013 and Policy 3.2.1 is that a carport is not to detract from the streetscape.
The Tribunal has concluded, from its analysis of the documents and submissions made, that the proposed carport does not satisfy any relevant deemed‑to‑comply provision of R Codes 2013 or Policy 3.2.1. The Tribunal has further determined that the adverse impact of the proposed carport on a streetscape mostly devoid of structures in front setbacks would also be inconsistent with the design principle for carports in R Codes 2013. The development was found not to be consistent with conserving the amenity of the locality, which is characterised by front setbacks mostly free of structures. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the development of the proposed carport would not be consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal has decided to dismiss the application for review and planning approval for the carport is refused.

Orders

The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decision of the Council to refuse the proposed carport in the front setback of the house at No 25 Commonwealth Avenue, North Perth is endorsed.

I certify that this and the preceding [64] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, MEMBER