PIZZOLANTE and CITY OF STIRLING
[2015] WASAT 89
•20 AUGUST 2015
PIZZOLANTE and CITY OF STIRLING [2015] WASAT 89
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 89 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:170/2015 | 12 AUGUST 2015 | |
| Coram: | MR P DE VILLIERS (MEMBER) | 20/08/15 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The review is dismissed The decision of the respondent to refuse the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley is affirmed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SABATINO PIZZOLANTE CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Multiple dwellings Zoning of the land Objectives for the residential zone Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area Character Retention Guidelines of Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood Heritage character Existing streetscape Inter-war architectural style Scale and proportion of surrounding buildings Compatibility with setting R Code provisions for boundary walls Impact of bulk on adjoining property Landscaping requirements |
Legislation: | City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 4.2, cl 4.2.2, cl 6.6, cl 6.6.1(c), cl 6.6.3, cl 10.2 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013), cl 5.1.3, cl 6.1.4, cl 6.2.3, cl 6.3.2, cl 6.4.1, cl 6.4.2 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | On the application heard before Member Patric De Villiers it is on 20 August 2015, ordered that:,1. The review is dismissed.,2. The decision of the respondent to refuse the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley is affirmed. |
Summary | In July 2014 an application was made to the City of Stirling seeking planning approval for the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley. The application was refused by the Council and an application was subsequently made to the Tribunal seeking a review of that decision.,At the hearing the parties agreed the following issues:,1)Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the respondent's objectives for the 'Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area' contained in cl 6.6.1(c) of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 which requires new buildings to be in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of the surrounding buildings, and be designed to fit into the existing streetscape.,2)Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the Built Form and design provisions contained within clause 4.2.2 of the City of Stirling Local Planning Policy 3.1 specifically in relation to traditional design, verandahs, setback to upper floor, openings, materials and details.,3)Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013) provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks, and landscaping.,In regard to the proposed front building, which constitutes the component of the development having the major impact on the streetscape, the Tribunal found that it clearly incorporated elements of inter-war architectural style and substantively addressed the relevant provisions the Guidelines. In addition given the particular circumstances of the width of the site and the requirement for vehicular access to the rear, the Tribunal found an attempt had clearly been made to articulate the side elevations of the front building, particularly in the areas that would be read from the street.,For these reasons, and in the context that the streetscape on the south-western side of Central Avenue is somewhat compromised by the screen walls to adjacent properties, the Tribunal found that the design of the front building was acceptable in terms of the provisions of cl 6.6 of City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 and the relevant provisions of the Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Character Retention Guidelines Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood.,In regard to boundary walls the substantive question for the Tribunal was whether the proposed development adequately moderated the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property, or, in this case, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbouring properties to the north-west and south-east.,The Tribunal found that the proposed boundary walls would fail to meet the requirements of 'compatibility of development with its setting' set out in cl 10.2 of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 or the requirements of State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation to complement the heritage significance of the area in terms of the siting of development in relation to its neighbours. Furthermore, if such a precedent was established, it could, in time, substantially compromise the significance of the locality.,For these reasons the Tribunal determined that the proposed development did not warrant support and the review should be dismissed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : PIZZOLANTE and CITY OF STIRLING [2015] WASAT 89 MEMBER : MR P DE VILLIERS (MEMBER) HEARD : 12 AUGUST 2015 DELIVERED : 20 AUGUST 2015 FILE NO/S : DR 170 of 2015 BETWEEN : SABATINO PIZZOLANTE
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Multiple dwellings Zoning of the land Objectives for the residential zone Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area Character Retention Guidelines of Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood Heritage character Existing streetscape Inter-war architectural style Scale and proportion of surrounding buildings Compatibility with setting R Code provisions for boundary walls Impact of bulk on adjoining property Landscaping requirements
Legislation:
City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 4.2, cl 4.2.2, cl 6.6, cl 6.6.1(c), cl 6.6.3, cl 10.2
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013), cl 5.1.3, cl 6.1.4, cl 6.2.3, cl 6.3.2, cl 6.4.1, cl 6.4.2
Result:
The review is dismissed
The decision of the respondent to refuse the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley is affirmed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
In July 2014 an application was made to the City of Stirling seeking planning approval for the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley. The application was refused by the Council and an application was subsequently made to the Tribunal seeking a review of that decision.
At the hearing the parties agreed the following issues:
- 1) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the respondent's objectives for the 'Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area' contained in cl 6.6.1(c) of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 which requires new buildings to be in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of the surrounding buildings, and be designed to fit into the existing streetscape.
2) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the Built Form and design provisions contained within clause 4.2.2 of the City of Stirling Local Planning Policy 3.1 specifically in relation to traditional design, verandahs, setback to upper floor, openings, materials and details.
3) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013) provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks, and landscaping.
For these reasons, and in the context that the streetscape on the south-western side of Central Avenue is somewhat compromised by the screen walls to adjacent properties, the Tribunal found that the design of the front building was acceptable in terms of the provisions of cl 6.6 of City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 and the relevant provisions of the Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Character Retention Guidelines Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood.
In regard to boundary walls the substantive question for the Tribunal was whether the proposed development adequately moderated the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property, or, in this case, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbouring properties to the north-west and south-east.
The Tribunal found that the proposed boundary walls would fail to meet the requirements of 'compatibility of development with its setting' set out in cl 10.2 of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 or the requirements of State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation to complement the heritage significance of the area in terms of the siting of development in relation to its neighbours. Furthermore, if such a precedent was established, it could, in time, substantially compromise the significance of the locality.
For these reasons the Tribunal determined that the proposed development did not warrant support and the review should be dismissed.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr J Algeri
Respondent : Mr N John (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Altus Planning & Appeals
Respondent : City of Stirling
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 On 21 July 2014 the applicant lodged a development application with the City of Stirling (respondent, City, Council) seeking approval for the demolition of the existing residence at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley (subject site). This application was approved by the respondent on 25 August 2015.
2 On the 13 August 2014 an application was received by the respondent seeking approval for the development of seven multiple dwellings on the subject site.
3 In April 2015 the respondent received a petition containing 56 verified signatures urging the Council to refuse the application.
4 The application was subject to discussion between the applicant and officers of the respondent which saw a number of amendments to the proposed plans.
5 Following consideration by the Council staff, the applicant was advised in correspondence date 12 May 2015 that the application had been refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Character Retention Guidelines of Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood.
2. The proposed development does not satisfy the Deemed-to-Comply requirements nor does it demonstrate compliance with the Design Principles of Clauses 6.1.4 Lot Boundary Setbacks, 6.3.2 Landscaping and 6.4.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes.
6 On 26 May 2015 the Tribunal received an application seeking review of this decision.
Site and Locality
7 The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of Central Avenue in Mount Lawley between Clifton Crescent and Weniberi Lane. The lot is rectangular in shape and comprises an area of 898m², with a frontage of 15.23 metres to Central Avenue and side boundaries of 58.82 metres.
8 The subject site currently contains a single storey dwelling set back approximately 6.5 metres from the Central Avenue boundary. This dwelling takes up the majority of the width of the site and incorporates a single garage on the north-western side. The rear garden has a number of outbuildings on the north-western side and a grassed area on the southeastern side.
9 The adjacent lot to the north-west contains a corner store built up to the boundary of both Central Avenue and Clifton Street and an associated dwelling. To the south-east are two single residences, with similar setbacks to that of the existing residence on the subject site. These both have solid brick boundary walls and vegetation in the front setback areas which limits views of the residences from the street. To the south-east of these two dwellings is Brear Park, a grassed recreation area which runs through from Central Avenue to Fifth Avenue. The park is edged with mature trees. To the south-east of the park is the Lady of Annunciation Church and offices.
10 On the opposite side of Central Avenue are a number of single dwellings with similar setbacks and generally open fencing or low screen walls presenting a coherent and generally consistent streetscape.
11 Central Avenue is a busy four lane highway carrying traffic from Alexander Drive to Beaufort Street and Railway Parade. The streetscape is softened by mature street trees on both sides of the street in the locality of the subject site.
The Proposed Development
12 The proposed development comprises seven multiple dwellings and associated open space, car parking and landscaping.
13 The dwellings are located in two buildings separated by a car parking area. The building located towards the front of the site (that is towards the Central Avenue boundary) is set back 8.6 metres from that boundary with a 2.3 metre verandah projecting into the setback area. Between the front building and the boundary, the front setback area contains visitor car parking bays and a proposed tree; on the south-eastern side of the building is the vehicular driveway serving the residents' parking bays. The building contains a single three bedroom apartment on the ground floor and two two bedroom apartments on the first floor. The latter are set back 12.6 metres from the front boundary and extend over three car parking bays at the rear.
14 The second building is located towards the rear of the site, and has boundary walls on both the north-west and south-east boundaries. It contains four apartments; two on the ground floor and two on the upper floor. The latter are set back 1.5 to 1.9 metres from the side boundaries of the lot.
15 Between the two buildings is the residents' carpark comprising eight car bays, of which three are located below the upper floor of the front building, and five are located under a roofed carport adjacent to the rear building.
16 During the hearing the Tribunal undertook a view of both the lot the subject of the review and the locality within which it is located. This confirmed the fact that the adjoining two residences to the south-east had screen walls on the front boundaries and mature vegetation in the front setbacks which limited their contribution to the streetscape. The roofs of these residences were however clearly visible from the street.
17 In the immediate locality a recent two storey dwelling accessed off Fifth Avenue faced onto the park and the dwelling on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Clifton Crescent had a second storey addition. The remainder of the existing dwellings were single storey. The gardens in the locality were generally fairly open in nature and commonly contained mature vegetation.
18 In addition a number of two storey developments were located in the broader area along Clifton Crescent.
Planning Framework
19 Under the provisions of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3, scheme) the subject lot is zoned 'Residential' with a density coding of 'R40'.
20 Pursuant to the provisions of the zoning table in LPS 3 'multiple dwellings' are a 'P' (permitted) use in the residential zone.
21 Clause 4.2 of LPS 3 sets out objectives for each of the zones in scheme area and includes the following for the residential zone:
To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of housing type and size, to meet the current and future needs of the community.
22 Clause 6.6.1(c) of LPS 3 establishes provisions for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area (HPA) and includes the following objectives:
To ensure that new buildings (where permitted), alterations, additions to existing buildings, carports, garages and front fences are in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of surrounding buildings, and are designed to fit into the existing streetscape[.]
23 Clause 6.6.3 requires that all development in the HPA shall conform with:
a) the objectives of the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area (clauses 6.6.1); and
b) the Local Planning Policy adopted for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area (Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood).
24 Clause 10.2 set out matters to be considered by the Council, or the Tribunal in its shoes, in considering an application for planning approval and includes the following provisions:
…
h) the conservation of any place that has been entered in the Register within the meaning of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or which is included in the Heritage List under Clause 7.1 and 7.2, and the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of a heritage area and the following:
i. the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place;
ii. the measures proposed to conserve the heritage place;
iii. if the proposal involves demolition, whether the heritage place is reasonably capable of conservation, and whether or not the place is structurally sound;
iv. whether the character, design and aesthetics of any proposed replacement building and its relationships to character of adjacent buildings are appropriate.
i) the compatibility of a use or development with its setting;
…
o) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal;
…
v) whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved[.]
25 The Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Character Retention Guidelines of Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood (the Guidelines) set out under clause 4.3 provisions related to the development of infill development covering both grouped and multiple dwellings. These address streetscape, orientation and built form and design. Counterintuitively clause 4.3.1 requires new grouped and multiple dwellings to comply with the 'New Single House' provisions of clause 4.2 which provide more comprehensive requirements for both streetscape and built form and design.
26 The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013) (R Codes) establish provisions for lot boundary setbacks (cl 6.1.4), sightlines (cl 6.2.3), landscaping (cl 6.3.2) and visual privacy (cl 6.4.1).
27 State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5) seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places and areas.
28 At clause 6.6 SPP 3.5 sets out development control principles which include:
Development within a heritage area should respect and complement the heritage significance of the area as identified in the local planning policy. A respectful design approach gives special consideration to the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development in relation to its neighbours, without copying historic detailing or decoration.
Any new buildings erected in heritage areas should be designed and sited in a way that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area. New construction that is imaginative, well designed and harmonious should not be discouraged.
The Issues
29 At the hearing the parties agreed the following issues:
1) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the respondent's objectives for the HPA contained in cl 6.6.1(c) of LPS 3 which requires new buildings to be in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of the surrounding buildings, and be designed to fit into the existing streetscape;
2) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the Built Form and design provisions contained within cl 4.2.2 of LPS 3 specifically in relation to traditional design, verandahs, setback to upper floor, openings, materials and details.
3) Whether the proposed development should be approved having regard to the R Codes provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks, and landscaping.
30 The Tribunal will deal with each of these matters in turn.
Objectives for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area
31 In the context of this review the relevant objective of cl 6.6 of LPS 3 requires that new buildings 'are in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of surrounding buildings, and are designed to fit into the existing streetscape'.
32 Ms Moredoundt, the heritage expert called by the respondent and Ms Gray, the heritage expert called by the applicant, in their joint statement agreed that the subject site falls within the Mount Lawley (East) Heritage Protection Area and that the HPA is of considerable significance. They also agreed that the original building did not make a positive contribution to the HPA.
33 In regard to the streetscape the heritage experts agreed that the opposite side of Central Avenue is located in the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area and that it is also a HPA of considerable significance. They further agreed that the traditional presentation of the streetscape is that of modest inter-war houses and that there are some examples of two storey more recent development in the locality.
34 The heritage experts disagree in regard to the contribution of the streetscape to the heritage protection areas. Ms Moredoundt contends the immediate streetscape presents as a largely intact streetscape while Ms Gray, who accepts that the north-east side of Central Avenue is a largely intact streetscape of traditional houses of the interwar period, submits that the immediate context of the subject site is more diverse and does not make as positive a contribution to the HPA.
35 The heritage experts do, however, agree that the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development is greater than the single storey modest houses evidenced in the streetscape.
36 The opinions of the heritage experts diverge most substantively in regard to their views on the response of the proposed development to the Guidelines. Ms Moredoundt argues that the 'design of the proposed multiple dwellings do not combine in a cohesive whole that is reflective of the traditional houses in the street'. In addition she submits that particular elements do not meet the provisions of the Guidelines; these in her view include the narrowness of the street front building, the overhanging upper floor, the hipped roof presentation, the arched gabled front, the extensive use of weatherboard cladding and the lack of a garden.
37 Ms Gray contends that the street front of the proposed development reflects elements of the interwar architectural style and that the setbacks of the two ground floor elements and the second storey roof behind demonstrate minimisation of the visual bulk at the street front. She does however concede that the overhanging 'weatherboard' clad element of the front building could be more responsive to the interwar elements of the dominant architectural style of the HPA. In crossexamination, she suggested that this issue could reasonably be addressed by a condition on an approval, should the Tribunal be minded to allow the review.
38 Mr Laycock, the expert planner called by the applicant, submitted that while the proposed development would be the first two storey dwelling to directly front Central Avenue within the immediate locality, this should not be objectionable as the second storey is set back an additional 4 metres from the building line of the ground floor.
39 Mr Laycock submits that in his view, the building reflects the heritage style and scale of traditional houses within the streetscape through its various design elements. He notes that the upper floor is set back 12.6 metres from the primary street and that the use of different design treatments minimises the visual bulk of the development.
40 Given that cl 6.6.3 specifically requires that all development in the HPA shall conform with the local planning policy adopted for the Guidelines any conclusion on the first issue will be dependent on the outcome of an assessment of the proposal against the more detailed provisions of the Guidelines.
Built Form and Design Provisions of the Guidelines
41 In responding to questions from the Tribunal in the hearing, the heritage experts conceded that the proposed development did not raise any issues in regard to the detailed provisions of the Guidelines in regard to street setback (both ground and upper floor), orientation, level, building heights, ground floor plate height, roof pitch, eaves, and verandahs. Ms Moredoundt did raise concerns regarding the proportions of the windows and the design of the roof, in spite of direct reference to the permissibility of hipped roofs in the Guidelines.
42 An important issue arising was the interpretation of 'façade' in regard to the requirement of the Guidelines for traditional materials. While the heritage experts differed in their opinions, it was agreed that any interpretation should be somewhat broader than simply the front elevation and should, at a minimum, encompass the front section of the building.
43 In this context the substantive issues raised by Ms Moredoundt were, whether the design adequately reflected the heritage style and scale of traditional houses in the streetscape and whether the bulk had been minimised through the articulation of larger walls and the stepping back of upper storey walls (with reference to fig 23 of the Guidelines). In addition, in her view, the design of the proposed multiple dwellings do not combine in a cohesive whole, reflective of the traditional houses in the street.
44 In regard to the first and third questions, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Gray for the reason that the proposed front building (and particularly the front section of this building which will form the component having the major impact on the streetscape), has clearly sought to incorporate elements of interwar style and substantively addresses the detailed provisions the Guidelines. It should also be noted that it will replace an existing dwelling that the heritage experts agree does not make a positive contribution to the HPA.
45 In regard to the question of bulk, the appropriate application of fig 23 was raised. This figure is located in the section of the Guidelines dealing with 'New Single Houses' and therefore needs to be applied with some flexibility in assessing multiple dwellings.
46 While the heritage experts agreed that the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development is greater than the single storey modest houses evidenced in the streetscape, this is a foreseeable outcome of the zoning of the land. Clearly, there appears to be some tension between the rigorous application of the Guidelines and the underlying zoning of the land. This is reflected in the present case in the difficulty of reconciling the objectives of cl 4.2 of LPS 3 with those of cl 6.6.
47 In the particular circumstances of the matter under review, the width of the site and the requirement for vehicular access to the rear, preclude any strict application of fig 23. Within these constraints an attempt has clearly been made to articulate the side elevations of the front building particularly in the areas that will be read from the street.
48 For these reasons, and in the context that the streetscape on this side of Central Avenue is somewhat compromised by the screen walls to adjacent properties, the Tribunal finds that the design of the front building is acceptable in terms of the provisions of cl 6.6 of LPS 3 and the relevant provisions of the Guidelines.
R Code provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks, and landscaping
Lot Boundary Setbacks
49 The provisions for lot boundary setback for multiple dwellings are established by cl 6.1.4 of the R Codes. In areas coded R30 R60 the deemedtocomply provisions require the application of Tables 2(a) and 2(b). Table 2(a) makes no provision for nil setbacks other than by a footnote requiring the application of cl 5.1.3. Clause 5.1.3 applies to design elements for all single house(s) and grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings in areas coded less than R30 and is therefore not applicable in terms of the current review.
50 This requires that the proposed boundary walls are assessed in terms of the design principles of cl 6.1.4 which are as follows:
P4.1 Buildings set back from boundaries or adjacent buildings so as to:
• ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated with them;
• moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property;
• ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and
• assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.
51 Mr Laycock, while conceding that the proposed boundary walls to the rear building do not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of cl 6.1.4 of the R Codes, argues that they are compliant with the design principles of that clause. This opinion is based on the view that they do not have openings which would raise privacy issues, the overshadowing is compliant with cl 6.4.2 of the R Codes, the maximum height of the walls is 3.564 metres and they are broken up to reduce bulk, and they do not adversely impact on the open space of adjoining properties.
52 The substantive question for the Tribunal is whether the proposed development adequately moderates the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property, or in this case, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbouring properties to the north-west and south-east. Any such impacts require to be assessed not only in terms of a narrow reading of the design principles of cl 6.1.4 of the R Codes but in the broader context of the existing character of the HPA, which cl 6.6 of LPS 3, the Guidelines and SPP 3.5 seek to protect, and in light of the relevant matters to be considered under cl 10.2 of LPS 3.
53 There is no inherent impediment to two storey development within the Guidelines and the Tribunal accepts Mr Laycock's view that the use of different construction materials and the setback to the upper storey does aid in mitigating the building bulk of the rear building.
54 However, there is no precedent in the locality for walls on both side boundaries and the proposed walls would therefore introduce a foreign element into the established landscaped gardens of the Mount Lawley (East) which the Guidelines seek to protect. The proposed boundary walls would, in the Tribunal's view, fail to meet the requirements of 'compatibility of development with its setting' set out in cl 10.2 of LPS 3 or the requirements of SPP 3.5 to compliment the heritage significance of the area in terms of the siting of development in relation to its neighbours. Furthermore, if such a precedent were established it could in time substantially compromise the significance of the locality.
Landscaping
55 The deemed-tocomply provisions of cl 6.3.2 C2 of the R Codes establish landscaping provisions for open spaces such that 'the street setback areas are developed without car parking, except for visitors' bays, and with a maximum of 50% hard surface'. The proposed development does not meet this requirement.
56 The development therefore requires to be assessed under the design principles of cl 6.3.2 which read as follows:
The space around the building is designed to allow for planting. Landscaping of the site is to be undertaken with appropriate planting, paving and other landscaping that:
• meets the projected needs of the residents;
• enhances security and safety for residents; and
• contributes to the streetscape.
57 In this regard, Mr Laycock argues that the development provides 54.2% of open space rather than the 45% required by the R Codes and the use of 'Grasscrete' paving for the visitor bays will not appear as hardstand when viewed from the street. In this context, he submits the proposal is compliant with the relevant design principles.
58 In terms of the constraints of a narrow lot and the requirement for vehicular access to the rear, the Tribunal is prepared to accept Mr Laycock's submission that the proposed development complies with the design principles of cl 6.3.2. While this does not necessarily mean that the development complies with the broader concerns of cl 10.2 of LPS 3 as to 'whether adequate provision has been made for landscaping' or the 'compatibility of development with its setting', particularly in light of the recognition in the Guidelines of the established landscaped gardens in the locality. But this is not an issue the Tribunal is, in this instance, required to determine.
Scheme Amendment
59 The evidence of Mr Laycock dealt with the City's proposed Scheme Amendment No 32 which currently seeks to prohibit multiple dwellings on residential zoned land coded R40 and below. While a previous version has been advertised, amendments were made following advertising. Given both the pending amendments to the R Codes announced by the State Government and the fact that, in its current form, Amendment No 32 does not appear to accord with the recently issued Planning Bulletin 113/2015 of the Western Australian Planning Commission which addresses multiple dwellings in R40 coded areas, Mr Laycock argued that the amendment should be given little weight. The respondent did not seek to challenge this view.
Conclusion
60 In regard to the design of the proposed front building, (and particularly the front section of this building which will form the component having the major impact on the streetscape), the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has clearly sought to incorporate elements of interwar style and substantively addresses the detailed provisions the Guidelines
61 In regard to the visual bulk of the proposed building, the Tribunal finds that the width of the site and the requirement for vehicular access to the rear preclude any strict application of fig 23 in the Guidelines. Within these constraints, an attempt has clearly been made to articulate the side elevations of the front building, particularly in the areas that will be read from the street.
62 For these reasons, and in the context that the streetscape on this side of Central Avenue is somewhat compromised by the screen walls to adjacent properties, the Tribunal finds that the design of the front building is acceptable in terms of the provisions of cl 6.6 of LPS 3 and the relevant provisions of the Guidelines.
63 In regard to the proposed boundary walls of the rear building, the substantive question for the Tribunal is whether the proposed development adequately moderates the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property, or in this case, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbouring properties to the north-west and south-east
64 In this case, the proposed boundary walls would, in the Tribunal's view, fail to meet the requirements of 'compatibility of development with its setting' set out in cl 10.2 of LPS 3 or the requirements of SPP 3.5 to compliment the heritage significance of the area, in terms of the siting of development in relation to its neighbours. Furthermore, if such a precedent were established, it could in time, substantially compromise the significance of the locality and the HPA.
65 For these reasons, the Tribunal determines that the proposed development does not warrant support and the review should be dismissed.
Orders
For the reasons set out above:
1. The review is dismissed.
2. The decision of the respondent to refuse the development of seven multiple dwellings at No 179 (Lot 131) Central Avenue, Mount Lawley is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [65] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR P DE VILLIERS, MEMBER
0
0
2