MURPHY and SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER
[2006] WASAT 259
•8 SEPTEMBER 2006
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA)
CITATION: MURPHY and SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER [2006] WASAT 259
MEMBER: MR L GRAHAM (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2006
FILE NO/S: DR 53 of 2006
BETWEEN: TERRY MURPHY
Applicant
AND
SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Short stay accommodation – Precedent – Special rural zone – Battleaxe lot – Amenity – Holiday house
Legislation:
Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997 (WA)
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Town Planning Scheme No 11, cl 4.4.4, cl 4.7.4(a), cl 4.7.7(a)
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA, s 8A(1), s 61(1)(a)
Town Planning Regulations (1967) (WA)
Result:
Application for review is allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Self-represented
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of the Tribunal's decision
The application for review by Terry Murphy was lodged against the decision of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to not allow the existing two bedroom dwelling at Lot 24 Horseford Road, Margaret River to be used for short stay accommodation purposes.
The principal reason for refusal was that the proposal was likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
In its review, the Tribunal had regard to existing relevant State and local policy and Scheme provisions, and such matters as the likely increase in traffic movement, noise, and security risk that could result from an approval. Additional matters such as fire risk, signage and the likely precedent effect were also examined.
On balance, the Tribunal believes that a comprehensive list of properly constructed conditions of approval should protect the amenity of nearby residents, but if the practical application of those conditions is found wanting during the initial (trial) 12 month period, and objections are lodged, that there are sufficient powers available to the respondent to terminate the use if justified.
The application for review is allowed.
Introduction
The application for review by Mr Terry Murphy (applicant) dated 21 February 2006 was lodged against a decision of the Shire of AugustaMargaret River (respondent) on 25 January 2006 to refuse an application for planning consent to commence development of a short stay accommodation use of the existing dwelling on the subject land. The application was lodged under the provisions of s 8A(1) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) (TPD Act).
In its letter dated 13 February 2006, the respondent advised:
"That the proposed short stay accommodation use for Lot 24 Horseford Road, 'being a use not listed', be refused for the following reasons:
1.The proposal by reason of its location in a 'Special Rural' zone is considered to be inconsistent with Policy PE 37 'Holiday House, Short Stay Use of a Residential Dwelling' as it is likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity values currently enjoyed by those in surrounding properties.
2.There is potential to establish a persuasive precedent in that there is no similar Short Stay Accommodation Use in the locality.
3.The submissions received by Council objecting to the proposal be upheld.
4.The proposal is not considered to be in the public's interest and is not considered a form of development encouraged in the zone."
Subject land
The subject land can be described as Lot 24 Horseford Road, Margaret River, on certificate of title volume 2219, folio 193 on plan/diagram no 25225. The area of the lot is 1.8259 hectares.
The property, which is a battleaxe lot, is located approximately 3 kilometres north-west of the Margaret River townsite between the main tourist routes of Caves Road and Bussell Highway.
There is an existing new two bedroom dwelling with two bathrooms on site and an attached double carport and a 92 784 litre rainwater tank. The dwelling is centrally located on the lot and is set back approximately 35 metres from the side boundaries; approximately 95 metres from the northern boundary and approximately 85 metres from the southern boundary.
Access to the dwelling from Horseford Road is via a 100 metre long battleaxe leg.
Legislative requirements
The subject land is zoned "Special Rural" under the Shire of AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme No 11 (TPS 11) and short stay use of a dwelling is a "use not listed" in the zoning table of the Scheme.
On 24 February 2004, Council resolved to initiate a draft District Town Planning Scheme No 1 (DDTPS 1) to replace TPS 11 and other legislative documents. DDTPS 1 has been advertised and public submissions have been received and considered.
As DDTPS 1 is currently with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure for Ministerial endorsement, it can be considered by the Tribunal as a seriously-entertained planning proposal.
Of relevance is Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Planning Policy No 6.1 Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge (SPP 6.1) which the Tribunal is required "to have due regard" to under s 61(1)(a) of the TPD Act.
SPP 6.1 is an approved statement of planning policy prepared under s 5AA of the TPD Act by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).
A further relevant document prepared by the respondent is local planning policy PE.37 (PE 37) titled "Holiday Houses - Short Stay Use of Residential Dwellings".
Respondent's position
The respondent's position is outlined in its Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 24 March 2006. It broadly argues:
(a)The proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity due to:
(i)an increase in traffic noise and pollution resulting from the operation of the proposal;
(ii)an increase in other noises resulting from the operation of the proposal;
(iii)a decrease in perception of neighbourhood security; and
(iv)the need for signage which will detract from the visual amenity of the locality.
(b)The proposal is dangerous as it poses a high fire risk to any person occupying the land.
(c)Following public advertisement of the proposal, seven submissions were received; six against and one in favour. A petition against the proposal with 17 signatures was also lodged with the respondent.
(d)No short stay accommodation, tourist uses or other commercial uses of land have been approved in the locality.
(e)Only five short stay accommodation planning approvals have been granted in the "Special Rural" zone, one of which has been cancelled. One application has been refused.
(f)The applicant unlawfully used the existing dwelling as short stay accommodation without planning approval in January 2006 and was advised to cease the unlawful use.
(g)The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of TPS 11, SPP 6.1, PE 37 and DDTPS 1 with respect to the likely detrimental effects on the character and amenity of surrounding properties and the locality generally.
Applicant's position
The position of the applicant is outlined in his Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 10 April 2006. It broadly argues:
(a)The proposal is unlikely to have an impact on the amenity of the locality because:
(i)an increase in traffic noise and pollution is unlikely;
(ii)noise generation is unlikely to impact on amenity as it is likely to be consistent with a standard residential dwelling;
(iii)there is unlikely to be any decrease in amenity due to security concerns; and
(iv)any signage would be consistent with other forms of signage associated with single dwellings.
(b)The proposal does not pose a high fire risk to any person occupying the land.
(c)The applicant rejects the statement by the respondent that no other short stay accommodation, tourist uses or other commercial uses have been approved by the respondent in the locality. Other uses have been approved but, in any event, the proposal should be judged on its merits.
(d)There have been six short stay accommodation planning approvals in the "Special Rural" zone, and not five as claimed by the respondent. The single refusal is the subject of this review.
(e)Upon being advised that the use of the dwelling for short stay accommodation without planning approval in January 2006 was unlawful, the use ceased as instructed by the respondent.
(f)As the proposal is unlikely to impact on the character and amenity of the locality, it is consistent with the relevant provisions of SPP 6.1, PE 37 and DDTPS 1.
Planning issues
The principal planning issues are:
(a)Is the proposal consistent with relevant State and local policy and Scheme provisions?
(b)Will the proposal adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties and the adjoining locality in terms of traffic and other noise, security and signage?
(c)Does the proposal pose a high fire risk?
(d)Will the proposal, if approved, create an undesirable precedent in the locality?
Assessment of proposal
State and local policy
The SPP 6.1 is a comprehensive policy ranging from an overall vision through to a series of objectives, policy statements, land use strategies and guidelines for implementation. Several policies are relevant to this review.
Policy statement 1.12 of SPP 6.1 advises:
"Bushfire protection strategies are to be incorporated in all Rural Residential and clustered rural settlement proposals. These are to be self contained within the property and to be consistent with district and local fire strategies."
Policy statement 3.2 of SPP 6.1 advises:
"Development must be responsive to local values, and be compatible with the natural characteristics and traditional settlement patterns of the area."
Policy statement 5.4 of SPP 6.1 advises:
"Low impact tourist development will be considered in rural locations where the development –
•will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area;
… "
In the view of the Tribunal, there is recognition in these policy statements that when a low impact tourist development is considered, it should only occur where the character of the area is not diminished, local values are recognised and safety precautions incorporated into the development.
In examining local policy PE 37, the following statements are relevant to this review:
(a) Objective:
"To ensure that short stay use of residential dwellings occurs within appropriate locations to reduce existing or future land use conflicts and to maintain visual, environmental and residential amenity."
(b) Definition – "Holiday House"
"'Holiday House' – means a building together with rooms and outbuildings separate from such a building but ancillary thereto, designed primarily as a dwelling house but does not include a 'bed and breakfast' facility which might also from time to time be used for short stay accommodation for no more than six people at any one time excluding people that are members of the owner's family but including all people where the owner is a company."
(c) Definition – "Short Stay"
"'Short Stay' – means a period of not more than a total of three (3) months within any one (1) twelve (12) month period."
(d) Location
"Location – It is Council's view that holiday houses are more appropriate to, and expected within the coastal communities of the Shire with the result that applications for planning approval are more likely to be approved for those locations … "
(e) Access
"Access – Council will take into account the ease of access to and from the accommodation to principal roads and settlements within the Shire to ensure that there are no unreasonable demands placed on lower order roads … "
(f)Amenity
"Amenity – the principal concern with respect to the occupation of dwellings as holiday homes relates to the likely impact of the use on neighbouring or nearby properties. Council's primary concern will be to ensure that any such uses will not adversely impact on residential amenity values currently enjoyed by those in surrounding properties."
(g)Signage
"Signage – signs will be limited to a sign not exceeding 0.2 [square metres] (i.e 1m x 0.2m on the property frontage)."
(h)Emergency Response Plans
"Emergency Response Plans – in areas considered subject to the threat of fire, emergency response plans (i.e. fire escape route maps etc) are required and are to be clearly displayed in a conspicuous location within the dwelling."
In the view of the Tribunal, the primary emphasis of PE 37 when approving short stay accommodation is to ensure that the amenity of surrounding properties is not compromised. Also, it is clear that the emphasis in the policy is for short term accommodation to be located in coastal communities and for the maximum number of persons in a socalled "holiday home" to be six.
However, in the witness statement dated 3 May 2006 of Christopher Hammersley, a qualified town planner with the respondent, he advised:
"20.On 11 February 2005, at its Ordinary Meeting, the Shire's Council determined that short stay accommodation use in general may be consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Special Rural zone within the Shire."
Again, in the witness statement dated 3 May 2006 of Noelle Keller, the owner of a business "In-House Holidays", she advised:
"14.Only four people can be accommodated at any one time and the proposed Holiday House would therefore only be suitable for one or two couples or a family of four."
Also, in her conclusions, Ms Keller advised:
"18(b)The small capacity of the dwelling suggests there is unlikely to be any anti-social behaviour as the maximum number of guests that would be considered is four; … "
In this particular case, the proposal is not within a coastal community, but within a "Special Rural" zone, and therefore in line with the broad intent of the Council resolution of 11 February 2005. Also, with only two bedrooms in the dwelling, if the proposal was to proceed, the maximum number of persons occupying the dwelling should be four and not six.
Scheme provisions
Under cl 4.4.4 of TPS 11, it states:
"If the use of the land for a particular purpose is not specifically mentioned in the Zoning Table and cannot be determined as falling within the interpretation of one of the Use Classes, the Council may:
(a)determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Particular Zone and is therefore not permitted; or
(b)determine by absolute majority that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Zone and therefore follow the advertising procedures of Clause 4.4.3 in considering an application for planning consent."
At cl 4.7.4(a) of TPS 11, it states:
"The objective of the Special Rural Zone is to select areas within rural areas wherein closer subdivision will be permitted to provide for such uses as hobby farms, horse breeding, rural/residential retreats, intensive agriculture including market gardens and viticulture, and also to make provision for retention of the rural landscape and amenity in a manner consistent with the orderly and proper planning of such an area."
At cl 4.7.7(a) of TPS 11, it states:
"No person shall use or permit to be used any lot or any part of a lot for any purpose which would:
(i)detract from the rural/residential amenity of adjoining lots;
… "
In the witness statement dated 3 May 2006 of Mr Marc Halsall, a qualified town planner on behalf of the applicant, he argues that the refusal of the proposal by the respondent was an inappropriate means of dealing with the "Holiday House" use.
He argues that through the promulgation of policy PE 37, the respondent has invented a new use class for consideration utilising cl 4.4.4 of TPS 11. This, he believes, usurps proper process under the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (WA) for modifications to town planning schemes, and the consultation and checking mechanisms included in that process.
The Tribunal cannot support that view as TPS 11 is a properly constituted town planning scheme that has been through the public advertisement process. Also, cl 4.4.4 is a clause that is common in other schemes in the State whereby discretionary power is allowed for those uses not mentioned in a zoning table.
In the view of the Tribunal, an acceptable and proper process has been followed by the respondent in determining the matter under TPS 11.
In the DDTPS 1, a "holiday house" is defined as:
"a dwelling together with its associated outbuildings:
(a)designed primarily as a dwelling house for permanent residential purposes whether or not occupied periodically as such; and
(b)used, whether or not for commercial gain or rewards, from time to time for unsupervised, short-stay tourist accommodation purposes;
but does not include a bed and breakfast facility."
The zoning table in DDTPS 1 provides that a holiday house is an "A" use in a "Rural-Residential" zone. The subject land would be zoned "Rural-Residential" in the finally approved scheme.
An "A" use is a use "not permitted" unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.
The objectives of the "Rural-Residential" zone provide for a range of limited rural and related ancillary pursuits where those activities will be consistent with the amenity of the locality. In that sense, DDTPS 1 preserves the emphasis on amenity contained in cl 4.7.4(a) of TPS 11.
Amenity issues – traffic and pollution
The respondent has argued that the proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity resulting from traffic noise and pollution. The applicant disagrees.
The position of the applicant is based, in part, on figures contained in the document titled "Guide to Traffic Generating Developments" produced by the Roads and Traffic Authority NSW (February 2000).
In Table 3.7 of the document, the number of estimated daily vehicle trips generated from a single dwelling is nine and from a motel is three.
The applicant argues that if each bedroom in the dwelling on the subject land was to equate to a motel unit, then the daily vehicle trips would total six as opposed to nine from a single dwelling.
The applicant also argues that as a property offering short-term accommodation is only occupied for part of the year, overall traffic generation would again be less than from a dwelling occupied throughout the year.
In the witness statement dated 3 May 2006 of Antony Rawson, the owner of Lot 25 Horseford Road adjacent to the subject land, he advises:
"20.I was concerned about the security of [L]ot 24 so I recorded the cars' number plates at first. I recorded that the[y] came and went continuously during the day and evening. I stopped recording the number plates after a while as there were too many.
21.I noticed that during the months of November/December 2005 and January 2006 there was [sic] increased amounts of rubbish being produced from Lot 24."
On this matter, the Tribunal believes that it is simply not possible to accurately conclude what would happen in the future if the proposal was to proceed with respect to traffic generation.
Although the arguments of the applicant are acknowledged, it is also the case that traffic generation will depend on the number of vehicles on the site at any one time, and the intentions of the occupiers with respect to their individual movements during the day and night.
Amenity issues
Noise
The respondent argues that the proposal is likely to result in an increase in noise. The applicant disagrees.
The applicant argues that noise is unlikely to impact on the amenity beyond that of a standard residential dwelling and, in any event, the Shire retains the right to cancel the approval if substantial complaints are made.
In the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting of 25 January 2006, the following point is made:
"Short stay accommodation uses are often perceived to be associated with potential noise and general disturbance. Council's Environmental Health Services section has, however, reported that a limited number (approx. 6) of noise complaints directly relating to Short Stay Accommodation has been received in the district in the last 12 to 19 months."
In the witness statement of Mr Rawson, he argues:
"23.I also noticed that during the months of November/December 2005 and January 2006 there was an increase in the amount of and volume of speech and music coming from Lot 24."
In the view of the Tribunal, the matter of noise emissions and their effect on nearby dwellings is best addressed under the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997 (WA), but it is also the case that during the summer months in particular, a higher level of noise can be expected. In those circumstances, where noise levels are exceeded, any complaints to the Shire would be recorded and collated for consideration as to whether the short stay accommodation use approval should be extended beyond an initial 12 month period.
Security
The respondent argues that the proposal could give rise to concerns in the locality of higher security risks associated with transients. The applicant disagrees.
In the view of the Tribunal, there is no credible information before it to support the argument of either party.
Signage
The respondent argues that any signage would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality. The applicant disagrees.
It is understood that if the proposal was to proceed, there would be an upper limit of 0.2 square metres placed on the size of the sign. It would then need to be approved and a sign licence issue.
In the view of the Tribunal, there is little weight in the respondent's argument in this matter.
Fire risk
In the witness statement dated 1 May 2006 of Francis John Yates, a Fire Control Officer at the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, he argues:
(a)Although the property is rated as a "low" fire hazard under the criteria in the "Planning for Bushfire Protection" document produced by DPI and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority WA in December 2001, the location of the residence at the highest point is most vulnerable in the event of a fire.
(b)Adjoining properties are all rated "extreme" hazard, including the property adjacent to the battleaxe access leg.
(c)While good house-keeping of the grounds and immediate surrounds of the dwelling can appreciably reduce the risks of flame impact and ember attack, the vulnerability of the access poses a serious threat to occupants and fire fighting personnel accessing any potential outbreak of fire.
(d)It is necessary that the applicant make an agreement with at least one neighbour on the north side of the property that an alternate access is available in times of need.
In the view of the Tribunal, the matters of "battleaxe" lot design and the location of the dwelling on the property may well pose fire risks, but these factors are unrelated to the proposal which is simply a question of whether an existing residence is to be used for short stay accommodation use or not. However, what is important is that an Emergency Response Plan showing fire escape routes and a Fire Management Plan be put in place by the applicant, whether the proposal proceeds or not.
The precedent argument
In the reasons for refusal letter dated 13 February 2006, the respondent advised that the proposal had the potential to establish a persuasive precedent in that there were no short stay accommodation uses in the locality and that the proposal was not considered a form of development encouraged in the zone.
The Tribunal accepts that there are circumstances where an approval could be used as a precedent by others to advance similar proposals, but each case needs to be considered on its own merits.
Again, as pointed out in Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988, precedent is not to be treated as a "stand alone" argument and is but one factor to be taken into account.
In this particular case there is clearly opposition from residents of neighbouring properties, but if the respondent wishes to avoid similar applications in this locality or elsewhere in the "Special Rural" zone, then it would be well advised to do so by way of an amendment to TPS 11 or modifications to DDTPS 1 now or in the future.
Conclusions
The application for review has resulted from a refusal by the respondent to allow a short stay accommodation use on the subject land. The refusal was largely based on the argument that the proposal was likely to have an adverse impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by nearly residents. Also, that the proposed use is not encouraged in the "Special Rural" zone and that an approval could cause a persuasive precedent for other similar proposals.
In examining this matter, the Tribunal was aware that the applicant had made his two-bedroom dwelling available for short stay use in January 2006 and, according to information available to the Tribunal, there had been an increase in traffic movement and noise from the subject site. According to the applicant, the unlawful use then ceased.
An examination of relevant State and local policy and scheme provisions makes it clear that low impact development such as that proposed should not be allowed to compromise the character of the area, and that local amenity values should be recognised and protected.
In this particular case, it appears that a number of nearby residents may well have moved to the area to enjoy a quiet, peaceful and idyllic lifestyle. Such motivations are understandable, but there are two important points that should be made.
The first of these is that a formal planning approval has never previously been issued with a comprehensive list of planning conditions which would, in accordance with the definition of "short stay" in PE 37, limit the period of the Short Term Accommodation Use to an overall period of three months in the first 12 months, and would include conditions relating to the maximum number of occupants, noise, fire risk, signage and the appointment of a manager.
The second point to be made is that the long term residential amenity of nearby residents is recognised and protected under cl 11 of PE 37 in this way:
"In the initial instance, any approval granted will be for a limited period of one (1) year such that the Council may be assured that the use will not result in any unreasonable impact on adjoining properties and on receipt of any application to renew the required approval a three (3) year period will normally be permitted except where representations or objections have been made about the continued use of that property for the purpose."
As part of the process, a set of "without prejudice" draft conditions (1 to 17) was filed with the Tribunal by the respondent on 8 May 2006, and a response to these was filed by the applicant on 10 May 2006. The respondent then provided further comment on 15 May 2006 to the applicant's response.
In the view of the Tribunal, a final set of conditions must include conditions which limit the maximum number of occupants to four only for short stay accommodation use and restrict the use of the dwelling for short stay accommodation use to an overall period of three months in the initial (trial) 12 month period. In other words, for nine months of the initial (trial) 12 month period, the dwelling cannot be used for short stay accommodation use.
On balance, the Tribunal believes that in the circumstances of this case, a comprehensive list of properly constructed conditions of approval should protect the residential amenity of nearby residents, but if the practical application of these conditions is found wanting during the initial (trial) 12 month period and objections are lodged, that there are sufficient powers available to the respondent to terminate the use if justified.
Accordingly, the application for review is allowed.
Orders
For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
1.The application for review is allowed and the decision under review is set aside.
2.The development application lodged with the respondent on 19 September 2005 is approved subject to those conditions listed in attachment "A" to these orders.
Attachment A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.Planning approval is limited to a period of one (1) year only from the date of this approval.
2.The Short Term Accommodation Use is restricted to an overall period of three (3) months only within the one (1) year approval period.
3.Development shall be in accordance with Plans P1 and P2 received 19 September 2005 and P3 and P4 received 18 October 2005 by Council. Minor variations may be approved by Council if deemed necessary by Council and if in accordance with the objectives of the Scheme.
4.The Short Stay Accommodation Use of the dwelling pursuant to this approval shall not be occupied by more than four (4) people at any one time.
5.An Emergency Response Plan (that is, fire escape route maps and other details as required) and Fire Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to Council prior to commencement of the use. The Emergency Response Plan and Fire Management Plan shall be displayed in a conspicuous location within the dwelling.
6.A manager shall be nominated for the Short Stay Accommodation prior to commencement of use and such notification must be current at all times while used for Short Stay Accommodation. The manager must reside permanently within a one hour drive of the site. Details of the manager, including current place of residence and contact details, shall be provided to Council. In the event that a manager may relocate to a locality greater than a one hour drive of the site, an alternate manager must be appointed.
7.A sign, limited to a maximum of 0.2 square metres and not exceeding 1.5 metres in height from ground level, shall be erected at the property frontage. The sign display shall include the current 24 hour contact details of the manager of the Short Stay Accommodation. The sign shall be contained entirely within the boundary of the property but visible from the nearest street frontage.
8.Two (2) car parking spaces shall be permanently provided on site for the Short Stay Accommodation, two of which may be provided in tandem.
9.Smoke alarms with battery back up, complying with Australian Standard 3786, connected to mains power, and installed and located in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council.
10.The use or development of the premises shall not interfere with the amenity of the locality, and shall not cause or permit the emission of noise, vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, liquid waste or liquid refuse, waste products or grit, oil or otherwise from the premises, that constitutes a nuisance.
11.Noise emissions resulting from development/use of premises for the approved purpose shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises.
12.To enable standardisation of fire brigade access to the water supply, each private domestic vessel (water tank) shall be fitted with a minimum 50 millimetre male threaded coupling at the base of the tank so that the total capacity (10 000 litres minimum) is available for fire fighting purposes. This coupling shall be installed with a full flow ball valve and 75 millimetre storz coupling and maintained in a correct operating condition and adequately signposted at all times at the property owner's expense.
13.The development shall at all times be provided with an adequate supply of potable water delivered at a flow rate of not less than 0.076 litres per second, to each tap in accordance with Shire of Augusta Margaret River Health Local Laws.
14.Water storage tanks shall be sealed to prevent the ingress of dust and to prevent mosquito breeding. A first flush diverter shall be installed in line to enable flushing of the dust and other contaminates deposited on roof catchment and in drainage lines, to minimise contaminants entering the water storage tank.
15.A sign licence application including a plan or description of all signs for the proposed development (including signs painted on a building) shall be submitted and approved by the Council prior to the erection of any signage on the site/building.
DATE …………………………
I certify that this and the preceding [77] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
0
4