Real Estate Institute Of Western Australia and City Of Subiaco
[2009] WASAT 111
•4 JUNE 2009
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: REAL ESTATE INSTITUTE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and CITY OF SUBIACO [2009] WASAT 111
MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD: 12 AND 25 MAY 2009
DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 2009
FILE NO/S: DR 503 of 2008
BETWEEN: REAL ESTATE INSTITUTE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
CITY OF SUBIACO
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Mixed use twostorey and threestorey office and twostorey residential development Height and scale Streetscape Predominantly singlestorey early 20th century buildings used for commercial purposes with some twostorey buildings Zone boundary Predominantly singlestorey early 20th century houses in lowdensity residential zone across road Vehicular access and egress Whether safe and convenient Site straddles 3 metre wide public laneway Proposed vehicular access via laneway and egress via ramp to other road Dedication of land to increase width of laneway abutting site Whether condition requiring access via laneway and egress via ramp to other road is likely to be complied with Whether notification on title that locality is subject to 'noise, traffic and other activities not normally associated with a typical residential development' should be required
Legislation:
City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 45(4)(a), cl 45(4)(b), cl 70(9)(b)
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA)
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 152, s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008), cl 6.10.2
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 70A
Result:
Development approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr K Adam (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Ms A Butterworth (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: KA Adam & Associates (Architects and Town Planners)
Respondent: Allerding & Associates (Town Planners)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This case concerned a development application to construct a mixed use office and residential development in Subiaco. An unusual characteristic of the site was that it straddled a generally 3 metre wide laneway. The development application proposed all vehicular access via the laneway and all vehicular egress via a ramp to a major road.
The Tribunal determined that the proposed development warranted conditional approval.
The Tribunal found that the proposed two-storey height and scale of the residential component of the development was acceptable in the context of other development in the street.
The Tribunal also found that the proposed vehicular access and egress arrangements were acceptable. Although the development would significantly increase vehicular activity in the laneway, it would not significantly increase the potential for traffic conflict, as most vehicles utilising the laneway at the time when vehicles would typically access the proposed office development would also be entering, not exiting, the laneway. Furthermore, the development would significantly improve the operation of part of the laneway by dedication of land to increase its width and would minimise the number of crossovers to major roads.
Subject site
The Real Estate Institute of Western Australia (REIWA) is the registered proprietor of Lot 54 Hay Street, Subiaco which comprises three survey strata lots in Strata Plan 7227 with frontages to Hay Street and Churchill Avenue (site). The street address of the site is No 215 Hay Street, Subiaco.
The site has a total area of 2,974 square metres. Two of the survey strata lots have a combined frontage of 62.9 metres to Hay Street to the north. The third survey strata lot has a frontage of 20.12 metres to Churchill Avenue to the south. Unusually, the two survey strata lots which have a frontage to Hay Street and the third survey strata lot which has a frontage to Churchill Avenue are separated from one another by a generally 3 metre wide public laneway.
The site is zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and 'Commercial/Residential' under the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4 or Scheme).
The laneway has two sections. The first section runs north from Churchill Avenue for a distance of approximately 40 metres between the western side boundary of No 120 Churchill Avenue and the eastern side boundary of No 126 Churchill Avenue. The second section projects to the west from the northern end of the first section for a distance of approximately 95 metres. The laneway terminates in the middle of the street block adjoining the western end of the northern part of the site. The northern part of the site adjoins the laneway for approximately 70 metres and the southern part of the site adjoins the laneway for 20.12 metres. The laneway is generally 3 metres in width but increases to about 6 metres for a distance of about 13 metres at its western end. However, it was apparent on the view that part of a side fence of a property to the south of the laneway encroaches upon the laneway.
The laneway currently provides vehicular access and egress to approximately 25 car parking bays located in seven commercial properties that have a side or rear boundary to the laneway. This includes four parking bays between the western wall of the building at No 120 Churchill Avenue, which is used as a specialist dental practice, and the laneway.
The two survey strata lots in the northern part of the site comprise office buildings and the survey strata lot in the southern part of the site is used as a private car park for the office buildings on the northern part.
Development application
On 22 August 2008, REIWA applied to the City of Subiaco (City or Council) for development approval under the MRS and TPS 4 to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to construct three new buildings. The development application proposed a three‑storey above basement office building on the eastern part of the Hay Street frontage (Office Building 1), a two‑storey above basement office building on the western part of the Hay Street frontage (Office Building 2) and a part two‑storey/part three‑storey above basement residential building at the Churchill Avenue frontage comprising five multiple dwellings (apartment building). The proposed buildings have flat roofs.
The development application proposed a total of 96 car parking bays with access to all the car parking bays and egress from all but 14 of the car parking bays via the laneway off Churchill Avenue. Egress from 14 car parking bays in Office Building 1 was proposed via a ramp to Hay Street in the location of a current vehicular exit. In addition, it would be possible, although difficult and circuitous, for vehicles from other parts of the development to enter the car park of Office Building 1 and then exit to Hay Street.
The development application was advertised and resulted in two letters of objection. The principal concerns raised in the objections related to the safety and convenience of the use of the laneway for vehicular access and egress and the impact of the height of the apartment building on the Churchill Avenue streetscape.
The City's assessing officers recommended that the Council should grant conditional development approval for the proposal. However, on 2 December 2008, the City resolved to refuse the development application.
On 18 December 2008, REIWA commenced these proceedings for review of the City's decision under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).
During the hearing on 12 May 2009, REIWA sought and was granted leave to amend the development application plans to incorporate a direct vehicular exit through Office Building 1 that would enable all vehicles in the development to exit the site to Hay Street and not via the laneway. In addition, although not foreshadowed at the hearing, the amended plans that were filed with the Tribunal and provided to the City deleted the third level of the apartment building and reduced the number of multiple dwellings to four.
Issues for determination
The following three principal issues were identified by the parties for determination at the hearing on 12 May 2009:
1)Whether the height and scale of the proposed development is acceptable in relation to its impact on Churchill Avenue.
2)Whether the proposed vehicular access and egress arrangements are acceptable.
3)Whether the proposed number of on‑site car parking bays and proposed access layout within the buildings is acceptable.
Other issues were also identified in the Council's reasons for refusal and in its statement of issues, facts and contentions filed in the proceedings. However, it was agreed between the parties at the hearing that these other issues were either satisfactorily addressed in the plans or could be satisfactorily addressed by agreed conditions of development approval.
In addition, Dr Santo Cardaci, who conducts a specialist dental practice at No 120 Churchill Avenue, and Dr John von Thomann, who conducts a specialist medical practice at No 126 Churchill Avenue, both expressed a concern about the prospect of additional rubbish bins being located adjacent to the intersection of the laneway and Churchill Avenue. The parties discussed this concern and agreed that, if the development otherwise merited approval, then a condition of development approval could require dedicated rubbish bin storage areas within the site and nominated collection points for rubbish bins on Hay Street for Office Buildings 1 and 2 and directly in front of the site on Churchill Avenue for the apartment building.
The Tribunal will address each of the principal issues identified by the parties in turn.
Is the height and scale of the proposed development acceptable?
The Tribunal had the benefit of expert town planning evidence from Mr Ken Adam, an architect and town planner who gave evidence on behalf of REIWA, and Mr John Meggitt, a town planner who gave evidence on behalf of the City.
The town planning experts agreed that the height and scale of the two office buildings proposed on Hay Street is acceptable.
However, Mr Meggitt gave evidence that the proposed apartment building would have a 'height and scale [that] is out of context with the established built form of the locality'. Mr Meggitt also expressed the opinion that the development 'is not of a design which is sympathetic to the established built form in Churchill Avenue and would detract from the appearance [of the] streetscape'. While Mr Meggitt acknowledged that his principal concern, namely the three‑storey height of the development as originally proposed, was addressed by the deletion of the uppermost level in the amended plans, he expressed the opinion that two-storey development is still larger than typically exists in Churchill Avenue.
In contrast, Mr Adam considered that the height and scale of the proposed development is acceptable in the context of Churchill Avenue. Mr Adam noted that, while the northern side of Churchill Avenue comprises predominantly single‑storey early 20th century buildings, many of these buildings have been converted, consistently with the zoning, for commercial uses. He also noted that many of the properties on the northern side of Churchill Avenue were used for industrial purposes. Finally, Mr Adam emphasised that the two‑storey residential building proposed would replace an existing car park and driveway. Mr Adam was of the opinion that the proposed development would preserve and enhance the amenity of the locality.
The proposed apartment building, as amended, would have a maximum wall height and a maximum overall height of 6.6 metres. Clause 45(4)(a) of TPS 4 specifies maximum development standards of 6 metres wall height and 9 metres overall height. However, cl 45(4)(b) of TPS 4 permits the Council to vary these development standards where it is satisfied that there is no undue adverse impact on the adjoining sites, streetscape or the amenity of the locality in general.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the development does not cause any undue adverse impact on the adjoining sites, streetscape or the amenity of the locality in general, and, moreover, that the proposed height and scale of the apartment building as amended is acceptable, for the following five reasons.
First, the northern side of Churchill Avenue in the subject street block includes three two‑storey buildings of comparable height to the proposal, also with flat roofs, namely two large commercial buildings at the south‑east and south‑west corners of the street block and a two‑storey building with a residential appearance to the east of the site.
In addition, the Council has approved the demolition of an original single‑storey building to the immediate west of the site on Churchill Avenue and the construction of a two‑storey commercial building of comparable height to the proposal with a flat roof. The original building has been demolished on the adjoining site. Although construction of the new two‑storey commercial building has not yet commenced, the approval of that building by the Council indicates the scale and character of new built form contemplated by the zoning and planning controls applicable to the northern side of Churchill Avenue.
Second, the town planning experts agreed that the proposed 1.2 metre side setbacks of the residential building are adequate, having regard to the predominant side setbacks of approximately 1 metre on the northern side of the street. The two‑storey building approved by the Council on the adjoining site has a nil setback to the common boundary with the site.
Third, the design of the Churchill Avenue façade incorporates variations in setbacks. Furthermore, the development can be conditioned to require a projecting stair element to be further treated to the Council's satisfaction to mitigate its bulk and provide a more positive contribution to the streetscape.
Fourth, the site has approximately twice the frontage of typical properties on the northern side of Churchill Avenue within the street block.
Fifth, a two-storey flat‑roofed building is appropriately transitional and complementary in scale to the predominantly single‑storey early 20th century houses on land zoned 'Residential' and coded 'R20' under TPS 4 on the southern side of Churchill Avenue.
Are the proposed vehicular access and egress arrangements acceptable?
The Tribunal had the benefit of expert traffic engineering evidence from Mr Gordon McPherson, who gave evidence on behalf of REIWA, and Mr Rodney Ding, who gave evidence on behalf of the City.
The traffic engineering experts agreed that the proposed access and egress arrangements would not be operationally sustainable, that is, that the development would not have safe and convenient vehicular access and egress, as originally proposed. In particular, the experts agreed that the 3 metre wide approximately 40 metre long north‑south section of the laneway between the side boundaries of No 120 Churchill Avenue and No 126 Churchill Avenue could not appropriately accommodate the number of vehicular movements generated by the development. The experts agreed that, as originally proposed, the development would be likely to result in traffic conflicts in this part of the laneway, resulting in vehicles having to back out into Churchill Avenue to enable other vehicles to exit the laneway.
However, at the hearing on 12 May 2009, the traffic engineering experts also agreed that, if the development were amended to incorporate an accessible exit to Hay Street for all vehicles exiting the development, and if approval of the development were conditioned to require all vehicles to exit the site to Hay Street, then the use of the laneway would be operationally sustainable at the estimated traffic flows, that is, the development would incorporate safe and convenient vehicular access and egress.
At the further hearing on 25 May 2009, Mr Ding at first retreated somewhat from his initial agreement with Mr McPherson as to the acceptability of the proposal as amended and conditioned, saying that the proposal was 'probably on the cusp of being sustainable'. However, he ultimately agreed that, because predominant traffic flows into the development will be in the morning, at the same time when predominant traffic flows to the other seven properties served by the laneway will also be inwards rather than outwards, the development would not materially affect the safety and convenience of the laneway.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr McPherson, with which Mr Ding substantially agreed, that, in consequence of the amended plans and the proposed condition of approval requiring all vehicles exiting the site to do so via the vehicular ramp to Hay Street, the proposed vehicular arrangements are acceptable, for the following four reasons.
First, the potential for traffic conflict is likely to be minimised by the fact that vehicles would typically be entering, not exiting, the other seven properties served by the laneway when most vehicles are likely to be entering the office component of the development in the morning. Vehicles of residents and visitors of the four apartments are unlikely to significantly contribute to conflict when accessing the apartment building, because of the small number of units proposed.
Second, while Mr Meggitt and Ms Amanda Butterworth, who represented the City, questioned whether a condition requiring all vehicles to egress the site via the ramp to Hay Street would be complied with, the Tribunal considers that this condition is likely to be substantially complied with. The traffic experts considered that less than 20% of motorists would choose to egress the site via the laneway to Churchill Avenue, rather than via the ramp to Hay Street. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of motorists would prefer the more direct exit route to Hay Street than wish to negotiate the narrow section of the laneway incorporating a blind turn between the east‑west part and the north‑south part of the laneway. While Hay Street in the location of the site is westbound only, there are cross‑streets allowing vehicles to turn north and then east a short distance to the west of the site.
Furthermore, conditions can be imposed requiring appropriate signage to be installed and maintained, and a right of carriageway to be created burdening the land title in respect of Office Building 1 and benefiting all other land titles in respect of the approved development, to enable vehicles from all other parts of the approved development to exit the site through the vehicular exit ramp in perpetuity if and when separate titles are created for the site.
Third, the proposed development would itself significantly improve the operation of the east‑west part of the laneway, by dedication to the Crown, free of cost, of a 1.5 metre wide strip where the site abuts the laneway. The effect of this dedication would be to increase the width of the laneway to 6 metres or 4.5 metres for most of its east‑west part. The part of the laneway that would be used by the development for two‑way traffic would be generally (or, if the Council required dedication of land in respect of the adjoining development, wholly) 6 metres in width, enabling vehicles to easily pass one another.
Fourth, the proposed development would reduce the potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflict by eliminating a major crossover on Churchill Avenue and a large private at‑grade car park on the southern part of the site and by minimising the number of crossovers to major streets.
Are the proposed number of car parking bays and access layout within the buildings acceptable?
The town planning experts agreed that the proposed development generates a need for 105 on‑site car parking bays under TPS 4, whereas only 96 car parking bays are proposed.
However, the experts also agreed that it is appropriate to exercise discretion under cl 70(9)(b) of TPS 4 to allow the proposed number of car parking bays having regard, in particular, to the availability of public transport in the locality of the site and the provision of end of trip bicycle facilities within the development. The Tribunal concurs and considers that the proposed number of car parking bays is adequate.
The traffic engineering experts reviewed the amended plans of the proposed development and agreed that the access layout within the buildings is acceptable.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has determined that the height and scale of the proposed development is acceptable in relation to its impact on Churchill Avenue. The proposed height and character of the development is consistent with other two‑storey buildings of comparable height to the proposal on the northern side of Churchill Avenue and an approved building on the adjoining site to the west. Furthermore, the height and scale of the development is appropriately transitional and complementary to the single‑storey low‑density residential area on the southern side of Churchill Avenue.
The Tribunal has also determined that the proposed vehicular access and egress arrangements of the development are acceptable. All vehicles would enter the development via the laneway off Churchill Avenue. While the development would significantly increase vehicular activity in the laneway, it would not significantly increase the potential for traffic conflict, because most vehicles utilising the laneway at the time when vehicles would typically access the office development on the site through the laneway would also be entering, rather than exiting. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of vehicles exiting the site would do so via the ramp to Hay Street, rather than via the laneway, if the development were conditioned to require this to take place and if signage were erected and maintained to this effect, because exiting via Hay Street is more direct and convenient than negotiating the narrow section of the laneway. The proposed development would also significantly improve the operation of the east‑west part of the laneway by dedication of land to increase its width and would minimise the number of crossovers to major roads.
It follows that the proposed development warrants approval subject to conditions. In accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice, the City proposed 'without prejudice' draft conditions of approval and REIWA commented on these draft conditions and suggested further draft conditions. Ultimately, with one exception, the parties agreed on a set of conditions which should be imposed in the event that the Tribunal granted development approval.
The only disputed condition involved a suggestion by the City that there should be a notification on title imposed under s 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) to alert prospective purchasers of the residential apartments that 'the locality may be subject to noise, traffic and other activities not normally associated with a typical residential development'. However, such a condition is not reasonably required. The traffic and mixed use character of the area is obvious. There is no unusual, seasonal or hidden characteristic of the locality which warrants notification on title.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision of the respondent made on 2 December 2008 to refuse development approval for a mixed use office and residential development at No 215 (Lot 54) Hay Street, Subiaco is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
1)The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans drawn by Hodge & Collard Architects Project No 85.06 Drawing Nos S17 Revision 2, S18 Revision 2, S09 Revision 3 and S10 Revision 3 except as modified by the following conditions and noting that the depiction of the vehicular exit on Hay Street on Drawing No S09 Revision 3 will need to be amended in the plan submitted for the building licence to reflect the truncations shown on Drawing No S17 Revision 2.
2)All existing strata lots to be extinguished prior to the issue of a Certificate of Classification by the City of Subiaco.
3)The last stage of the development shall be substantially completed within a period of five years from the date of this approval.
4)The site is to be stabilised to reduce the likelihood of dust generation as soon as practicable after completion of demolition.
5)No dark or reflective tinting that would prevent clear views into and out of any tenancy is to be installed to windows on the ground floor of the Hay Street frontage.
6)Each multiple dwelling is to have an adequate area set aside for clothes drying screened from view from any adjacent public place (except where drying facilities are provided in each unit) in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes).
7)A 'no entry' sign shall be placed at the Hay Street exit point and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services prior to final occupation of the buildings.
8)A 'boom gate' system shall be installed on the Hay Street exit ramp and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services prior to final occupation of the buildings.
9)Wheel‑stops shall be included on car parking bays numbered 19 ‑ 21 in Office Building 2 located near the westernmost boundary of the site in accordance with AS 2890.1.2004.
10)All vehicles must enter the site via the laneway off Churchill Avenue (and not via the Hay Street exit ramp) and all vehicles must exit the site via the Hay Street exit ramp within Office Building 1 (and not via the laneway to Churchill Avenue).
11)Suitable signage shall be erected and maintained in prominent locations in each car parking area within the approved development to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services advising of the previous condition of development approval and containing a plan showing the exit route via the Hay Street exit ramp within Office Building 1.
12)Suitable signage shall be erected and maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services at the laneway adjacent to the entrance to the Hay Street exit ramp stating 'VEHICULAR EXIT'.
13)Suitable signage shall be erected and maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services at the laneway advising that pedestrians may not enter or exit the development via the Hay Street exit ramp or via the laneway to Churchill Avenue.
14)If separate land titles are created for different parts of the site, then a right of carriageway must be created and registered burdening the land title in respect of Office Building 1 and appurtenant to and benefiting all other land titles in respect of the approved development enabling vehicles from all other parts of the approved development to exit the site through the Hay Street exit ramp within Office Building 1 in perpetuity. A copy of the registered right of carriageway must be provided to the City of Subiaco for its records.
15)The laneway adjoining the site shall be widened by 1.5 metres on each side where it abuts the site as shown on the approved plans, and such widening shall be shown on a Diagram or Plan of Survey and vested in the Crown under s 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) and ceded free of cost to the Crown and without any compensation by the Crown. The Diagram or Plan of Survey shall be lodged with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure prior to the issue of a building licence.
16)The Churchill Avenue façade of the stairway of the residential building shall be treated as agreed between the applicant and the Manager Planning Services to mitigate its bulk and provide a more positive contribution to the streetscape.
17)All tandem car parking bays shall be marked in relation to the office tenancy which they service.
18)All external fixtures such as TV and radio antennae, satellite dishes, plumbing vents and pipes, solar panels, air‑conditioners and hot water systems are to be located in accordance with cl 6.10.2 of the Codes.
19)Brickwork and finishes on or adjacent to boundaries, including exposed parapet walls, are to be finished externally to the same standard as the rest of the development, details of which are to be submitted prior to commencement of the development.
20)Pending, and subsequent to, any demolition of existing improvements on the site, the site is to be kept secured and maintained to a reasonable standard.
21)All stormwater generated on-site is to be retained on‑site. No stormwater will be permitted to enter the City of Subiaco's stormwater drainage system unless otherwise approved.
22)All car bay dimensions are to accord with Australian Standard AS 2890.1.
23)Car parking areas are to be provided with a manoeuvring depth of at least 6 metres.
24)All car parking bays shown on the approved plans shall be constructed and marked.
25)At least one disabled car parking bay in each of the two approved office buildings is to be constructed, marked and provided with drainage prior to occupation of the development, and subsequently retained for disabled parking. Each bay is to be at least 5.5 metres by 3.8 metres in area.
26)All ramps, crossovers, driveways and circulation aisles are to be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 and maintained to that standard.
27)Existing ground levels at all proposed vehicle and pedestrian access points are to remain unaltered. No change in footpath, verge or laneway levels will be permitted.
28)All damage to any public road as a result of the development is to be repaired at the owner's cost.
29)All trenches and holes cut in the laneway are to be saw‑cut and any damage to the laneway is to be reinstated at the owner's cost to its original standard.
30)Crossovers are to be provided and constructed in accordance with the City of Subiaco's Policy 14.2.3.
31)Verge paving is to be constructed in accordance with the City of Subiaco's Policy 13.1.
32)The redundant crossover to the existing car park on Churchill Avenue shall be removed and the footpath constructed in that area by the applicant at its expense and to the satisfaction of the City of Subiaco once the car park use ceases.
33)A drainage plan is to be submitted showing a flood flow escape route designed to accommodate a 1 in 100 ARI storm. The route is to be designed to ensure that floodwaters are directed towards the road reserve so as not to encroach on adjoining properties.
34)All service meters and related infrastructure are not to be placed on the street side of a front fence.
35)Existing ground levels at lot boundaries are to remain unaltered or, alternatively, any fill or excavation required as a result of any alteration of these levels is to be retained. Details of any proposed retaining walls are required to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of the development. Development approval may also be required for any proposed retaining walls greater than 0.5 metre in height above natural ground level.
36)Any street tree that is removed without authorisation will be required to be replaced with one of a similar size, and of a species that is to the satisfaction of the City of Subiaco, at the owner's expense.
37)All infrastructure in the road reserve adjacent to and bounding the development site is to be protected from damage for the duration of the construction of the development, and at the conclusion of construction, reinstated to the condition that existed prior to the construction of the development commencing. The manner in which the infrastructure is to be protected and reinstated is to be to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
38)The trees located on street verges and footpaths are to be retained and protected before, during and after construction.
39)A landscape plan is to be submitted and approved prior to issue of a building licence to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services. The plan is to show:
•the species, height and canopy spread of any trees proposed to be removed;
•the species, height and canopy spread of any trees proposed to be retained;
•all proposed hard landscaping (including any relevant elevations); and
•the species and size of all proposed plants.
Upon the approval of the landscape plan, the landscaping is to be installed within 60 days of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the plan.
40)The residential component of the development is to be adequately sound insulated prior to the first occupation of the development. The necessary sound insulation is to be in accordance with recommendations developed in consultation with the City of Subiaco and an acoustic consultant registered to conduct noise surveys and assessments in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA). The engagement of the acoustic consultant and the implementation of the recommendations are to be at the owner's cost.
41)Prior to commencement of the development, a noise management plan is to be submitted detailing measures that will be undertaken to ensure noise levels are kept within levels prescribed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA). The plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant and is to include:
•soundproofing measures used in the design and construction of the development;
•predictions of noise levels;
•control measures to be undertaken (including monitoring procedures); and
•a complaint response procedure.
All sound attenuation measures identified by the plan or as additionally required by the City of Subiaco, are to be implemented prior to occupancy of the development or as otherwise required by the City of Subiaco and the requirements of the plan are to be observed at all times.
42)The plans submitted for the building licence shall show dedicated bin storage areas within the site of each of the three buildings, fully screened from public view, and nominated collection points for rubbish bins at Hay Street for Office Buildings 1 and 2 and directly in front of the development at Churchill Avenue for the multiple dwellings.
I certify that this and the preceding [50] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
0
7