MEYER SHIRCORE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS and SHIRE OF AUGUSTAMARGARET RIVER
[2011] WASAT 38
•9 MARCH 2011
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: MEYER SHIRCORE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS and SHIRE OF AUGUSTAMARGARET RIVER [2011] WASAT 38
MEMBER: MR P McNAB (MEMBER)
MS M CONNOR (MEMBER)
HEARD: 3 AUGUST 2010 AND 4 AUGUST 2010
DELIVERED : 9 MARCH 2011
FILE NO/S: DR 498 of 2009
BETWEEN: MEYER SHIRCORE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
Applicant
AND
SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Supermarket, showroom and service station development situated in the Service Commercial zone Whether discretion available to refuse the supermarket component Whether orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of amenities of the locality is a relevant consideration given the provisions of the Scheme Primacy of the Town Centre Whether supermarket is consistent with the objective of the Service Commercial zone Characteristics of 'full-line' supermarket and effect on character of the locality Deemed refusal set aside and decision substituted refusing approval for the supermarket Subsequent approval granted by consent for amended application subject to conditions
Legislation:
Draft Shire of AugustaMargaret River Local Planning Scheme No 1, cl 4.26, cl 4.3.5.3, Pt 10
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Shire of AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme No 17, cl 3.2, cl 3.2.4(a), cl 3.3.1, cl 3.3.2, cl 3.3.5, cl 6.3.2, cl 6.4, Table No 1 Zoning Table, Sch 1
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(5)(b)
Result:
Application for review allowed in part
Deemed refusal is set aside and decision substituted refusing approval for the supermarket and approval granted for amended application subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr P McQueen
Respondent: Mr A Roberts
Solicitors:
Applicant: Lavan Legal
Respondent: McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 148 LGERA 117
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
Meyer Shircore and Associates Architects applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River's deemed refusal of a development application for the construction of a 'showroom, supermarket and service station development' at No 34 (Lot 100) Clarke Road, Margaret River.
The matter proceeded to final hearing on the only aspect of the proposed development in dispute, being the supermarket component of the development.
The parties agreed that the land use class 'supermarket' fell within the definition of 'Shop', as defined in Sch 1 of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme No 17 and, as such, was designated a 'P' (or permitted) use in the Service Commercial zone. Given the permissibility of the use, the question arose as to the extent of discretion available to the Tribunal, under the provisions of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme No 17, to refuse the supermarket component of the development.
The Tribunal did not accept the limited discretion contended for by the applicant. Rather, the Tribunal considered that there was a wide discretion available, one that included consideration of orderly and proper planning, and the amenities of the locality.
As to the acceptability of the proposed use in the Service Commercial zone, the Tribunal was of the view that the planning framework did not contemplate a supermarket on the scale and of the nature applied for. Further, the Tribunal considered the proposal to be inconsistent with the objective of the Service Commercial zone and found that approval of this particular 'Shop' would tend to undermine the character of the existing area. Finally, to the extent that the Tribunal could depart from the planning framework, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the merits of the proposal were sufficient to warrant disregarding the planning framework as interpreted by the Tribunal.
At the conclusion of the hearing on site, the Tribunal announced its main decision and gave brief oral reasons for its decision. What follows are the full reasons for that refusal and the subsequent consent orders that have come in from the parties reflecting the decision of the Tribunal and the agreement reached between the parties.
Introduction
Meyer Shircore and Associates Architects (applicant) made application, on behalf of various landowners, to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River (respondent or Council), on 23 September 2009, for approval to construct a 'showroom, supermarket and service station development' on No 34 (Lot 100) Clarke Road, Margaret River (subject land).
It has proved difficult to identify the exact consortium of landowners and developers involved in the proposal, and the parties were content for the applicant (Meyer Shircore and Associates Architects) to stay on the record as the agent or representative of those applying for development approval. The Tribunal has acquiesced in this procedural step.
As a consequence of the respondent's failure to determine the application within the prescribed time limit, pursuant to cl 6.4 of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme No 17 (TPS 17 or Scheme) and cl 7 of the Interim Development Order 16 (IDO 16), review proceedings were commenced in this Tribunal by the applicant on 23 December 2009 under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).
The matter proceeded to mediation where modifications were made to the proposal. These amended plans formed the basis of the evidence for the final hearing. The modified proposal consisted of the following principal components:
•A supermarket (including loading dock) of 3,277 square metres.
•Nine showrooms ranging in size from 410 square metres to 569 square metres, with a total floor area of 4,102 square metres.
•A service station, with a 263 square metre convenience store and a car wash.
•300 car parking bays, and associated hard and soft landscaping.
The matter proceeded to a final hearing with the only aspect of the development in dispute being the supermarket component of the proposal.
An issue had arisen in relation to the provision of car parking spaces. However, a solution was found that was acceptable to both parties which involved amending the plans to show additional car parking spaces on the site and the relocation of the loading dock inside the supermarket (Exhibit 15). The Tribunal accepted that the amendments to the plan would reduce the scope of the issues in dispute and granted leave to amend the application in terms of Exhibit 15.
At the conclusion of the final hearing, the Tribunal delivered brief oral reasons refusing the supermarket component of the application, on the basis that full written reasons would be published in due course. The Tribunal's decision was intended to, and had effect under, TPS 17 (see further below).
We now set out those reasons which follow a period of negotiation between the parties on the form of orders which best express the intention of the Tribunal and the agreement reached between the parties on certain other matters.
We commence with an examination of the statutory and strategic components of the planning framework.
Planning framework
Statutory
At the date of the hearing, the subject land was zoned 'Service Commercial' under TPS 17.
Subclause 3.2.4(a) of TPS 17 specifies the objective of the Service Commercial zone as follows:
To provide for uses which combine the need for showroom and storage facilities involving the storage, distribution and sale of bulk goods.
The Zoning Table of TPS 17 (Table No 1) indicates, subject to provisions of the Scheme, the uses permitted in various zones (cl 3.3.1). In Table No 1, a 'Shop' (and it was common ground between the parties that this includes a supermarket), a 'Showroom' and a 'Service Station' are 'P' uses within the Service Commercial zone. A 'P' use means 'that the use is permitted provided it complies with the relevant standards and requirements laid down in the Scheme and all conditions (if any) imposed by the Council in granting planning consent' (cl 3.3.2). A 'Car Wash' is a use that does not fall within the interpretation of one of the use categories and therefore pursuant to cl 3.3.5, the Council (or this Tribunal on review) may:
(a)determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives and [purposes] of the particular zone and is therefore not permitted; or
(b)determine … that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purposes of the zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of clause 6.2 in considering [an] application for planning consent.
Clause 6.3 of the Scheme relates to the determination of applications, and, in particular, cl 6.3.2 provides as follows:
The Council having regard to any matter which it is required by the scheme to consider, in respect of the purpose for which the land is reserved, zoned, used, approved for use[,] the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality, may refuse to approve any application for planning consent or may grant its approval unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit.
For completeness, it is necessary to briefly refer to IDO 16. The intent of IDO 16 is to regulate and control development within the Shire of AugustaMargaret River and is to be read in conjunction with TPS 17. Where the provisions of any part of TPS 17 are inconsistent with IDO 16, the provisions of IDO 16 prevail. In this case, the provisions of IDO 16 do not materially alter or affect the planning framework otherwise to be found in TPS 17.
Strategic
The strategic planning documents referred to by the parties include the following:
•Margaret River Main Street (February, 1989);
•Margaret River Townsite Strategy (September, 2000) (Townsite Strategy);
•Margaret River Enquiry-by-Design Workshop (September, 2003);
•East Margaret River Structure Plan (May, 2005);
•East Margaret River Structure Plan Commercial Centres Strategy (September, 2005);
•Margaret River Townsite Strategy (March, 2008); and
•Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Local Planning Strategy (June, 2009).
Over the last 20 years a number of common themes have emerged from this strategic framework. One particular theme is the preservation of the primacy of the Town Centre. The strategies therefore aim to reinforce and consolidate the Town Centre as the core retail and commercial centre that services the local/regional population and visitors to the area. That aim is to be achieved by ensuring that retail and commercial opportunities primarily exist within the Town Centre. Another theme is the establishment of the Station Street area (Service Commercial zone) as the key area for bulky goods retailing and other land uses that are generally not appropriate in the Town Centre due to their scale, function, potential impact on streetscape and, in certain cases, their potential for land use conflict. It is intended that this area would support and complement, but not detract from, the commercial primacy of the Town Centre.
A third theme is the establishment of a neighbourhood centre to meet the local daily shopping and other local services needs of the East Margaret River area. A neighbourhood centre has been identified in the East Margaret River Structure Plan (May 2005) at the corner of John Archibald Drive and Tingle Avenue.
These strategic directions are, unsurprisingly, reflected in the draft Shire of AugustaMargaret River Local Planning Scheme No 1 (draft LPS 1 or draft Scheme). This instrument would replace TPS 17. The Tribunal was informed that the coming into force of draft LPS 1 was 'imminent'; it was, we were advised, with the Minister for Planning awaiting final approval.
The applicant properly conceded that draft LPS 1 was a 'seriously entertained' planning proposal (Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 148 LGERA 117 at [39] [49]). However, the applicant submitted that if draft LPS 1 were to be approved prior to a decision being made by the Tribunal, the applicant would assert that a relevant 'right' had accrued and therefore that determination of the review should be made under TPS 17.
As indicated above, this issue did not arise as the Tribunal delivered a decision and brief reasons on the final day of the hearing, that is whilst TPS 17 was still in force.
Given that draft LPS 1 was considered to be a 'seriously entertained' planning document, for completeness, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of that draft Scheme. Under draft LPS 1, the subject land will be zoned 'Service Commercial'. The purpose and objectives of the Service Commercial zone are as follows:
4.3.5.3Service Commercial Zone
To provide for a wide range of uses including industry-light and industry-service, service commercial, warehousing, bulky goods, wholesale, showrooms, and trade display, which, by reason of their scale, character, operational and/or land requirements, cannot conveniently or economically be accommodated with in the Town Centre, Village Centre or Industry Zones.
Objectives of the Service Commercial Zone
(a)To identify appropriate locations for the orderly development of service commercial activities, having due regard to vehicle and pedestrian movement[s], car parking and the appearance of buildings and works;
(b)To provide for uses which combine the need for showrooms and facilities involving warehousing, wholesaling and distribution;
(c)To encourage the provision of landscaped areas in a manner that complements and enhances the natural setting of the surrounding area; and
(d)Provide for uses that will not complete with the Town Centre zone uses.
The Zoning Table under draft LPS 1 classifies a 'Showroom' as a 'P' use; a 'Shop' (as agreed, this would include a supermarket) and a 'Service Station' as 'D' uses; and a 'Car Wash' as a use not listed in the table. A 'P' use is a use permitted by the draft Scheme provided that the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the draft Scheme, whereas, a 'D' use is a use not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.
Clause 4.26 of draft LPS 1 sets out the matters to which regard is to be had when considering development proposals in the Service Commercial zone. These include the following:
(a)the purpose and objective of the zone;
(b)the nature of the use and development on nearby properties;
(c)the likely impact of the proposed development on the streetscape and the appearance of the development when viewed from the street;
(d)the impact on nearby properties in terms of amenity and character of established land uses and development; and
(e)where land uses not contained within buildings are proposed, the degree to which the activities on the site will impact upon or be compatible with land uses and development on nearby properties.
Part 10 of the draft Scheme provides authority for the Council to refuse or approve an application and sets out the matters to which regard is to be given in the determination of an application.
Experts called by the parties
As appears above, the only aspect of the proposal in dispute was the supermarket component of the development. In relation to this issue, the Tribunal received expert evidence from the following planning witnesses:
•Mr Andre Schonfeldt, Manager of Planning Services at the Shire of AugustaMargaret River, who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent;
•Mr Marc Halsall, a consultant town planner, who gave evidence on behalf of the applicant;
•Mr Paul Kotsoglo, a consultant town planner, who gave evidence on behalf of the applicant.
The Tribunal also had the benefit of expert evidence from Mr John Symes, principal of a consulting firm specialising in strategic planning and property economics (called on behalf of the respondent), and Mr Brian Haratsis, an economist and strategic planner with considerable experience in retail planning (called on behalf of the applicant).
Discussion of the case
A significant matter to be resolved in the review was the extent of discretion available to the Tribunal in dealing with the supermarket component of the development. The answer to this question lies with the interpretation of a number of clauses within the Scheme.
Mr McQueen, for the applicant, accepted that although the supermarket component, which fell within the 'Shop' use class classification, was designated as a 'P' use in Table No 1 of TPS 17, the development required planning consent. However, the applicant contended that the extent of the discretion available under TPS 17 was limited to complying with the relevant standards and requirements of the Scheme, and those matters referred to in cl 6.3.2 of the Scheme, but only to the extent that the Scheme required.
The applicant submitted the following interpretation or reading of cl 6.3.2:
The [Tribunal], having regard to any matter which it is required by the Scheme to consider in respect of:
1.the purpose for which the land is reserved, zoned, used or approved for use;
2.the orderly and proper planning of the locality;
3.the preservation of the amenities of the locality;
may refuse to approve [the proposed development].
The applicant argued that there had to be, in effect, an express requirement in the Scheme dealing with any one of these three matters in order for it to fall within cl 6.3.2. On this construction, the applicant conceded that the objective of the zone was a relevant consideration, as the Scheme specifically required the objective of the zone to be taken into account when evaluating development proposals (cl 3.2). In relation to the other two matters, the applicant submitted that there were no requirements specific to the Service Commercial zone or, for that matter, generally, contained in the Scheme and, as such, it was not open to the Tribunal to take these matters into account at large when determining the review.
The Tribunal, with respect, does not agree with these contentions. The Tribunal considers that there is, in effect, a wider discretion available, one that includes considerations of orderly and proper planning and the amenities of the locality.
This is firstly because the Tribunal considers there to be a drafting or typographical error in cl 6.3.2 (reproduced above), in that a comma has been omitted between the words 'approved for use' and 'the orderly'. The Tribunal may read the provision 'in its correct form' to give effect to the enactor's intentions: see, for example, the discussion at [2.24] of Pearce DC and Geddes RS, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis, Butterworths, 6th ed, 2006).
Secondly, and in any case, the Tribunal takes a purposive approach in interpreting the Scheme and considers that cl 6 of IDO 16 and cl 3.3.1, cl 3.3.2 and cl 6.3.2 of TPS 17 have to be read together in order to understand the true intent of the planning framework. Clause 3.3.1 and cl 3.3.2 inform the scope of permissible uses within the various zones identified by the Scheme. More specifically, cl 3.3.1 introduces Table No 1 which indicates the uses permitted in various zones, 'subject to the provisions of the Scheme [emphasis added]'. 'P' uses are not exempt from the need to obtain planning approval and, therefore, cl 6.3.2 applies to this application.
The Tribunal considers that this clause is intended to embrace the considerations of 'orderly and proper planning' and 'the amenities of the locality' in determining whether to refuse to approve any application for planning consent, or to grant approval unconditionally, or subject to such conditions as the relevant consent authority thinks fit.
Further, reading the Scheme as we have done so, would accord with generally accepted and long-standing planning principles as regards the intention, effect and operation of town planning schemes.
On this interpretation, the Tribunal considered that it was open to the Tribunal to have regard to 'orderly and proper planning' and 'the amenities of the locality' in the determination of this application.
The Tribunal also considered that the planning framework does not contemplate a 'Shop' of the scale and nature proposed for the Service Commercial zone. In forming this view, the Tribunal is cognizant of the objective of the Service Commercial zone as stated in TPS 17 and the direction of the strategic planning documents prepared by the respondent over the last 20 years.
The objective of the Service Commercial zone is '[t]o provide for uses which combine the need for showrooms and storage facilities involving the storage, distribution and sale of bulk goods'. The applicant argued that as the objective did not provide 'exclusively' for the types of uses specified in the objective, a development comprised of those types of uses and others, such as a 'Shop', could still be considered to be consistent with the objective of the zone. The applicant submitted that the current application was consistent with the objective for the Service Commercial zone as more than 60% of the development provided for the types of uses identified in the objective.
The Tribunal agrees that the intent of the zone objective was not to exclude all other uses from the Service Commercial zone, as the text of the provision does not indicate this conclusion, and the range of other uses capable of approval, by reference to Table No 1, confirms this understanding. However, the Tribunal considers that the planning intent of the objective is to create an area where retail activities that are generally not suited to town centre locations, such as bulky goods and other large format retailing, and other business services, can locate within reasonable proximity of the Town Centre.
This intent is confirmed in the strategic planning documents that resulted in the culmination of draft LPS 1. This instrument states that the Service Commercial zone is to provide for the types of uses that by 'reason of their scale, character, operational and/or land requirements, cannot conveniently or economically be accommodated within the Town Centre … '. One of the criteria specified is that uses should not compete with the Town Centre.
The Tribunal was told that a supermarket of the size proposed was of sufficient area to be a 'fullline' supermarket that would be capable of servicing weekly retail needs. The characteristics attributed to a 'Shop' of this size and type included it being an 'attractor' in terms of both people and other speciality retailing, and as an outlet that would generally be accessed by people using vehicles. The Tribunal does not consider the location of a 'Shop' of this nature and scale to be complementary to the functions of the Town Centre but rather, by its essential characteristics, to be in conflict with the objectives and vision for the Town Centre.
Further, there was a reasonable consensus reached between the planning experts that the built form and nature of existing activities operating in the Service Commercial zone were generally consistent with the strategic vision for the area. The planning experts characterised the area as predominantly service/commercial in nature, although, it was noted that there were a number of approved 'Shop' uses, such as the 'Spud Shed', operating in the area.
Taking into account the characteristics attributed to a 'fullline' supermarket, the Tribunal considers the proposal to be inconsistent with the objective of the Service Commercial zone and is of the view that a 'supermarket' of the scale proposed would undermine the existing character of the service commercial area and, if constructed, would result in a significant departure from the desired character of the area. Such an outcome would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
Finally, to the extent that the Tribunal could reasonably depart from the planning framework, we are not convinced that the merits of the proposal are, in the context of the matters that we have discussed, sufficient to warrant disregarding the planning framework as we have characterised it.
Final proposals
Although the Tribunal delivered oral reasons refusing the 'supermarket' component of the proposed development application at the conclusion of the hearing on 4 August 2010, final orders to that effect were delayed as, amongst other matters, the applicant sought the opportunity to amend the plans, deleting the supermarket use and substituting it with a more acceptable use. Amended plans that were acceptable to the respondent have since been filed with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has reviewed the amended plans and is satisfied that the modified proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Service Commercial zone and will not undermine the primacy of the Town Centre. The conditions of the development have been agreed between the parties and we endorse them.
Orders
For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders, by consent:
1.The Tribunal confirms that at the conclusion of the hearing on 4 August 2010 it delivered an oral decision, subject to the subsequent publication of written reasons and final orders.
2.The respondent's deemed refusal of the development application for the showrooms, supermarket and service station development, the subject of the application for planning to commence development dated 16 September 2009 as depicted in the amended plans SK009 (Sheets 1 4) dated February 2010, is set aside and the following decision substituted:
(a)Approval for the supermarket is refused;
(b)Leave is granted for the applicant to amend its application by substituting the plans attached as Annexure A (SK010 Sheets 1 4 dated October 2010) as the plans of the proposed development the subject of these proceedings; and
(c)The development comprising 10 showrooms, service station and convenience store, and carwash and associated parking areas, loading areas and landscaping shown on the plans SK010, Sheets 1 4 dated October 2010 prepared by Meyer Shircore and Associates Architects (attached as Annexure A), is approved subject to the conditions:
(i)This approval shall expire unless the development hereby authorised has been substantially commenced within two years of the date of issue of this approval. Where this approval expires, the development is prohibited without further approval being obtained.
(ii)The development shall not exceed 8 metres in height from natural ground level.
(iii)A plan of the car parking area which incorporates the retention of trees shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for approval prior to the issue of a building licence for the development.
(iv)A landscaping and reticulation plan must be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for its approval and implemented once approved prior to occupation/use of the development and thereafter the approved landscaping and reticulation must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Shire.
(v)All loading and unloading goods, materials, equipment or the like is to take place within the boundaries of the premises.
(vi)Goods, materials, equipment or the like associated with the use permitted by this approval shall not be displayed or stored outside the existing/proposed building(s).
(vii)Prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River, the applicant is to submit a schedule of colours and textures proposed for the external surfaces of the building for approval by the Shire.
(viii)A construction management plan must be provided to and approved by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire. The construction management plan must be adhered to during construction and must address the following matters:
(a)pre-start meeting with Shire of AugustaMargaret River officers;
(b)protection of existing infrastructure;
(c)protection of vegetation both on the site and in the road reserve;
(d)working in Shire of AugustaMargaret River reserves;
(e)ensuring proper approvals have been obtained;
(f)vehicle access points to the building site;
(g)materials laydown;
(h)routes for delivery of construction materials to the site;
(i)construction workers' parking;
(j)fencing of the building site;
(k)scaffolding and protection works;
(1)litter and building rubbish control;
(m)storm water, sedimentation and erosion control;
(n)dust control;
(o)working hours;
(p)construction noise;
(q)minimum facilities to be provided;
(r)storage of goods;
(s)insurances for construction related use of public areas; and
(t)infrastructure development bond.
(ix)Prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River, the applicant must provide to the Shire for its approval a stormwater management plan incorporating water sensitive urban design principles to address stormwater generation, stormwater treatment, reuse, disposal, 100 year ARI flowpaths, onsite infrastructure and offsite upgrading requirements.
(x)The applicant shall implement all measures necessary to prevent erosion, or airborne or waterborne transmission of soil and sediment from the development and tracking of soil by vehicle tyres onto the road during and after construction. Details of the methods to be employed to control the erosion or transmission of soil and sediment off site during and subsequent to construction to be submitted for the Shire of AugustaMargaret River's approval prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire.
(xi)The applicant shall make a cash contribution to the construction of a downstream bioretention basin, for the treatment of stormwater, in accordance with Council Policy PE.55.
(xii)The applicant constructing a 2.0 metre wide concrete path from the development site along Clarke Road and Boodjidup Road to the intersection of Boodjidup Road and Burton Street prior to the occupation of the development. The Shire of AugustaMargaret River may accept a cash-in-lieu contribution.
(xiii)A 2.0 metre wide concrete path shall be constructed to the Clarke Road frontage of the development, connecting to the existing path in Station Road prior to occupation of the development.
(xiv)Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all kerb crossings located within the development.
(xv)Vehicle parking areas and accessways and crossover(s) shall be designed, constructed, illuminated with lighting, sealed, kerbed, drained, line marked and maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 1993, prior to occupation of the development.
(xvi)The proponent shall design and construct turning and manoeuvring areas within the development to accommodate rubbish collection services and to enable trucks to access the loading areas at the rear of the showrooms and then exit onto Clarke Road. Design plans must be provided to and approved by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire.
(xvii)An independent traffic impact assessment shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire. The recommendations of the traffic impact assessment shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development to the satisfaction of Shire.
(xviii)Prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River, the applicant shall pay a $10,000 contribution towards the installation of a traffic island at the intersection of Clarke Road and Station Road.
(xix)The applicant must upgrade the kerbing and drainage infrastructure for Clarke Road along the frontage of the site to the satisfaction of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to occupation of the development.
(xx)Works are prohibited in the road reserve including any pruning or clearing of vegetation without the prior written approval of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River.
(xxi)Prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River, the proponent shall pay a development bond of $25,000 in accordance with the Council's Policy PE.51 Development Bonds.
(xxii)Details of the location of external fans, airconditioners and similar equipment together with a noise impact assessment for the noise emitted by this equipment shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for its approval with the application for a building licence.
(xxiii) Details of food preparation, storage and processing areas shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for approval with the application for a building licence.
(xxiv)Details of the type and location of external lighting together with a light impact assessment for this lighting shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for its approval with the application for a building licence.
(xxv)Details of lighting and ventilation shall be submitted for the Shire of AugustaMargaret River's approval with the application for a building licence.
(xxvi)The development shall be connected to the Water Corporation's reticulated water supply to the satisfaction of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River and the Water Corporation, prior to occupation of the development.
(xxvii)The development shall be connected to the reticulated sewer system. Confirmation of Water Corporation approval to connect to sewer must be provided to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River with the application for a building licence.
(xxviii)Where petrol, benzene or other flammable or explosive substances or grease, oil or greasy/oily matter is likely to be discharged on or from the site, a sealed wash down area and approved petrol and oil removal system shall be installed and connected to the sewer in accordance with the Water Corporation's requirements.
(xxix)Liquid waste or spill from product loading, unloading, storage area and car wash shall be contained onsite and diverted to an approved disposal system. Liquid waste must not be discharged off site or into a storm water drainage system. Details of liquid waste containment plan shall be provided to and approved by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to the issue of a building licence.
(xxx)Details of the design and location of temporary refuse and recycling storage area shall be provided to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River with the application for a building licence.
(xxxi)The bin storage areas shall be designed to accommodate refuse and recycling bins, have a water supply available for bin cleaning and connection to an approved drainage system for the disposal of waste water. Waste water from bin wash shall not be discharged into a storm water system.
(xxxii)The car wash shall be designed and constructed to contain overspray to ensure that overspray does not impact on adjoining landowners and/or cooccupants of the approved development.
(xxxiii)Prior to the showroom commencing operations, the owner of Lot 100 must enter into and thereafter maintain an agreement with the owner(s) of Lot 256 Clarke Road which provides for an easement to be granted and registered over Lot 256 for the benefit of Lot 100 for the purpose of providing the car parking bays and part of the service driveway shown located on Lot 256 on the plans of the proposed development. A copy of the registered easement must be provided to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River before any of the showrooms commence operations.
(xxxiv)Onsite bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in a convenient location on site to the satisfaction of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River.
(xxxv)A Waste Management Plan which details waste collection, waste separation, source separation, recycling and reuse of waste shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for its approval prior to a building licence being issued by the Shire.
(xxxvi)An assessment of the adequacy of the existing water supply to the site for the purpose of fire fighting within the development must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and a copy provided to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River prior to the issue of a building licence. If the assessment concludes that the existing water supply is inadequate for this purpose, a proposal for additional onsite water storage and pumping must be provided for the Shire of AugustaMargaret River's approval and the approved proposal must then be implemented.
(xxxvi)Prior to the issue of a building licence, the following elevation plans (at a scale of 1:200) shall be submitted to the Shire of AugustaMargaret River for its approval:
(a)north (rear) elevation of showrooms 1 to 9;
(b)northeast elevation of showrooms 9 and 10;
(c)north-west (side), north (rear) and northeast (side) elevations of the service station and convenience store; and
(d)elevations for the front, sides and rear of the car wash.
The development must be undertaken in accordance with the elevation plans approved by the Shire of AugustaMargaret River.
3.Pursuant to s 29(5)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) this decision is to be regarded as having effect on and from 4 August 2010.
I certify that this and the preceding [53] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR P McNAB, MEMBER
Annexure A
1
4