ROBBINS and CITY OF WANNEROO

[2005] WASAT 93

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT:   LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1960

CITATION:   ROBBINS and CITY OF WANNEROO [2005] WASAT 93

MEMBER:   MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER)

HEARD:   11 APRIL 2005

DELIVERED          :   11 APRIL 2005

FILE NO/S:   CC 38385 of 2004

BETWEEN:   GRAHAM JOHN ROBBINS

Applicant

AND

CITY OF WANNEROO
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building work - Local Government - Section 401 Notice

Legislation:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, s 401(1)(c)

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, s 60

Result:

Application for review upheld
Decision to issue notice set aside and notice revoked

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented

Respondent:     Self-represented

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Self-represented

Respondent:     Self-represented

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER):

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

1. An application for review was lodged by Graham John Robbins ("Applicant") against the requirements of a notice issued by the City of Wanneroo ("Respondent"), pursuant to section 401(1)(c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (the Act), with respect to building work at Lot 386 (1075) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.

Jurisdiction

1. Prior to 1 January 2005, applications for review under Pt XV of the Act were submitted to the Minister for Housing and Works. On the coming into force of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, jurisdiction for handling those reviews passed to the State Administrative Tribunal ("SAT") and by order of the President of SAT dated 9 February 2005, all applications before the Minister but not determined as of 1 January 2005 were transferred to SAT. This application was one of those transferred.

2. Furthermore, having considered the matter I believe that pursuant to Section 60 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, it is appropriate in this case that the matter be decided on the papers without the need for a hearing.

Facts

1. The applicant advised the respondent of the unauthorised building works (lean‑to structure) in November 2004 following which the respondent issued a notice to remove the building works dated 7 December 2004.

Consideration

1. On 26 November 2004 the applicant submitted an Application for Review to the Minister of Housing and Works.  In his submission the applicant advised that he had overlooked submitting a building application, due to the fact that the lean-to was built in accordance with engineers specifications.  The applicant submitted photographs of the lean-to, supporting comments from adjoining owners, drawings of the structure, and "as constructed" engineer's certification for the structure.

2. The engineer's certification made two recommendations.  The first, that a concrete floor be cast over footings around the columns so making an integral solid structure.  The second, that additional knee braces be installed from the roof purlins to the columns on the eastern wall.  The applicant has provided photographs confirming the installation of the knee braces as recommended.  However, as the concrete floor is estimated to cost $2 500, the applicant confirms it will be installed if his application is upheld.

3. On 16 December 2004 the respondent advised that the building work, the subject of the notice, did not contravene the Building Code of Australia, or the Council's Town Planning Scheme and local laws. The respondent also advised, that it received a structural engineers certification for the lean-to structure, and therefore supports the applicants review.

Orders

1. On the basis that the respondent is now satisfied and the applicant has confirmed that the concrete floor will be installed I order that:

2. The application for review is upheld on the condition that a concrete floor slab is cast to the satisfaction of Rolliston Engineering, and a structural engineer's certification on the structural adequacy of the lean-to structure, including the slab, is submitted to the respondent by Rolliston Engineering, upon the completion of the works; and

3. The decision to issue the notice dated 16 November 2004 is set aside and the notice is revoked.

   I certify that this and the preceding four pages comprise the reasons for decision of the Tribunal.

   ____________________

   M Spillane

   Member