SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD and CITY OF BAYSWATER
[2009] WASAT 114
•10 JUNE 2009
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD and CITY OF BAYSWATER [2009] WASAT 114
MEMBER: MS M CONNOR (MEMBER)
HEARD: 7 APRIL 2009
DELIVERED : 10 JUNE 2009
FILE NO/S: DR 53 of 2009
BETWEEN: SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
CITY OF BAYSWATER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Review of conditions of approval - Access and egress to primary school site - Impact on adjoining residential properties and local street network
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
The application is allowed
Conditions varied
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr A Santelli (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Mr D Martin
Solicitors:
Applicant: Santelli Architects Pty Ltd
Respondent: City of Bayswater
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ienco and City of Melville [2007] WASAT 56
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This matter concerned two conditions of development approval for the refurbishment of the Infant Jesus Primary School in Morley. The disputed conditions restricted access and egress to the site and required the establishment of an on‑site crossing point between the school site and Peters Place Reserve. The parties agreed that if the condition relating to access and egress was not imposed on the development approval, then there would be no need for the establishment of an on‑site crossing point as required by condition 17. Consequently, the only issue in dispute in these proceedings was whether access and egress to the site should be restricted to Russell Street and Smith Street only, as required by condition 16.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proposed development would increase traffic flows on the local street network but considered that the magnitude of those increases would be acceptable and would not have an undue adverse effect on the residential amenity of the locality. Further, the Tribunal was not convinced that the alternative proposal, formed as a consequence of condition 16, would achieve the desired results and could possibly produce outcomes not anticipated by the respondent.
The application for review was allowed and condition 16 and condition 17 were deleted.
Introduction
An application for planning approval was lodged with the City of Bayswater (respondent or City) on 7 July 2008 for the refurbishment of the Infant Jesus Primary School at No 1 ‑ 11 (Lot 1165) Russell Street, Morley (site).
The application was approved by the respondent at its meeting of 22 December 2008 subject to 17 conditions and four advice notes. It is condition 16 and condition 17 of that approval that are in dispute in these proceedings.
Condition 16 states:
Revised traffic plans shall restrict access to Russell Street and Smith Street only. That is[,] no access or egress from Peters Place and emergency egress only to Lovegrove Way.
Condition 17 states:
The school ensure an on-site crossing point be established to allow student access to the Peters Place Reserve in a safe and organised manner.
Background and site context
The school has been operating on the current site since 1954 and until recently has catered for 581 students; however, with the departure of the year seven students, that number has reduced to 526 students. The site is located on the south-western corner of Russell Street and Smith Street and is approximately 1.58 hectares in area. The school buildings are primarily located adjacent to the Russell Street and Smith Street road alignment and open playing fields abut existing residential development to the south.
The proposal
The proposed development involves the demolition and reconstruction of existing school buildings on the site and the retention of the existing administration building to be converted into classrooms. Development is proposed to occur in the following manner:
•Stage 1 ‑ the construction of new buildings on the southern portion of the site;
•Stage 2 ‑ the demolition of the existing main section of the school and construction of remainder of proposed buildings; and
•Stage 3 ‑ the demolition of the remaining part of the school and construction of the oval, play areas and fence components.
As a consequence of the design, the school is reoriented away from the corner of Russell Street and Smith Street towards the southern portion of the site, which is closer to the existing residential development. The playing fields are relocated to the north-western corner of the site.
It is anticipated that the school will accommodate 526 students and 45 teachers. Access and egress to the site is proposed via two main entry and exit points being:
•one-way access off Peters Place and exit onto Smith Street; and
•one-way access off Russell Street and exiting onto Lovegrove Way.
There are currently 11 on-street car parking bays provided on Smith Street and 13 on-street car parking bays on Russell Street. It is intended that these bays will remain. The proposal also proposes to increase the number of car parking bays on-site from 25 to 93 bays.
Disputed Conditions
The disputed conditions restricted access and egress to the site and required the establishment of an on-site crossing point between the school site and Peters Place Reserve. The parties agreed that if the condition relating to access and egress (condition 16) is not imposed on the development approval, then there is no need for the establishment of an on‑site crossing point as required by condition 17. Consequently, the only issue in dispute in these proceedings is whether access and egress to the site should be restricted to Russell Street and Smith Street only.
The respondent contended that the traffic flows resulting from the proposed one-way access routes will disproportionally burden surrounding residents by way of significant increases in traffic in Peters Place, and further exaggerate traffic issues in Lovegrove Way and Massey Place. The respondent considered that the majority of traffic associated with the school should be contained within the school boundaries and that the traffic layout should be redesigned to provide for a circular traffic movement through the site with traffic coming in off Russell Street and exiting onto Smith Street, thereby prohibiting access to Peters Place and limiting through access to Lovegrove Way.
The applicant contended that the restrictions imposed by condition 16 will result in significant congestion on Russell Street and jeopardise the safety of the children at drop off and pick up times. The applicant argued that the spread of traffic movements around the site will have less amenity impacts than concentrating the traffic at one point, which is what the respondent's condition will do. The applicant asserted that the proposal will not alter existing traffic patterns.
The evidence
Russell Street and Smith Street are both classified as local distributor roads in the Main Roads 'Functional Road Hierarchy' and would be capable of accommodating daily traffic flows of up to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Assessment (TPRSA), prepared by Riley Consulting on behalf of the applicant and submitted with the development application to the respondent, estimates the existing daily traffic flow on Russell Street as approximately 2,700 vehicles and on Smith Street as 3,200 vehicles per day (vpd). There are drop off/pick up embayments located on Russell Street and Smith Street.
Both Peters Place and Lovegrove Way are cul‑de‑sacs and are described in the TPRSA as local access roads. Although vehicle access to the site is currently restricted from Peters Place, according to Mr Joseph Fitzgerald (a resident of Peters Place) 'a dozen or so parents use it to drop off and pick up their children'. Both Lovegrove Way and Massey Place currently provide access to the school car park located on the Water Corporation easement.
The respondent called two resident witnesses, Mr Fitzgerald of Peters Place and Mr Ripley of Massey Place, to give evidence on the perceived impacts of the proposed development.
Mr Fitzgerald was greatly concerned about the impact the re‑routing of the traffic along Peters Place would have on residential amenity of the street. He perceived that the increase in traffic would result in a 'devastating, negative and permanent lessening of the [residents'] quiet enjoyment of their property' and that the tranquil haven that exists in Peters Place will be extinguished if the school traffic is allowed to use Peters Place. He also maintained that the additional traffic will have a deleterious impact on the valuation of properties in the street. While the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of the surrounding residential area is a relevant planning consideration, the perceived impacts of the proposal on property values is not a relevant planning consideration: see Ienco and City of Melville [2007] WASAT 56 at [39].
Mr Fitzgerald told the Tribunal that, at times, the current level of traffic on Peters Place resulted in congestion and unsafe driving manoeuvres and that this problem occurred because of the fact that hundreds of vehicles arrived at the same destination within a very short time frame and not from the limitation on ingress and egress. He considered that the re‑routing of the traffic would not cure the problem but simply transfer the problem to other locations, including Peters Place and Lovegrove Way. Mr Fitzgerald envisaged that there would be bumper‑to‑bumper, non‑stop, traffic occupying the whole seven metres width of Peters Place, which would prevent residents entering and exiting their own driveways.
Mr Ripley considered that the reorientation of the school to the south of the site would result in a large increase in the amount of traffic in Lovegrove Way and Massey Place. The basis for this assertion was that Lovegrove Way will be the nearest road to the new classrooms and, as such, it could reasonably be anticipated that more parents would drop off and pick up students using Lovegrove Way and Massey Place. He contended that the resultant increase in traffic would have an adverse impact on the lifestyle of residents in these streets, which was already diminished by students from the Morley Training Centres often parking all day in Massey Place.
Councillor Terrance Blanchard was called by the respondent to give evidence about his understanding of the Council's reasons for imposing condition 16 and condition 17. Councillor Blanchard explained that there are major traffic problems with the current arrangements, particularly with the parking in Lovegrove Way and Massey Place, and that the opportunity existed with the redevelopment of the school to contain the traffic within the school site and lessen the impact on the nearby residential properties. He contended that the redesign, whereby access is restricted to Russell Street and Smith Street only, will remove the existing traffic problems encountered by residents in Peters Place, Lovegrove Way and Massey Place.
Councillor Blanchard further explained that it was considered that the reorientation of the school would result in a change in the traffic patterns as there would be an attraction to drop off and pick up children in the south‑eastern corner closest to the school buildings. It was considered that there would be a transfer of use from the existing set down bays in Russell Street and Smith Street to the drop off area accessed via Peters Place and additional use of Lovegrove Way and Massey Place. Councillor Blanchard expected the traffic flows in Peters Place to be trebled if the current plan was implemented. He also considered that as there is no proposed connection between the Russell Street/Lovegrove Way area and Peters Place, visitors who want to access the southern end of the school would do so via the parking area off Peters Place.
The Tribunal had the benefit of expert traffic evidence from Mr Rodney Ding, a civil engineer with 20 years' experience in traffic management, road safety engineering and traffic planning, who was called on behalf of the applicant; and Mr Gordon Macpherson, a charactered professional engineer with over 30 years' experience in civil engineering and project management, including traffic engineering, traffic management and transport planning, who was called by the respondent.
Based on their observations, the traffic experts were of the view that existing traffic flows in the vicinity of the school are typical for primary schools throughout the metropolitan area. It was observed that there was considerable use of Russell Street and Smith Street with varying degrees of use in Lovegrove Way and Peters Place.
The traffic experts agreed the following existing total traffic flow figures for the local access roads:
•Peters Place ‑ 184 vehicle trips per day (vpd);
•Lovegrove Way ‑ 323 vpd; and
•Massey Place ‑ 270 vpd.
The existing traffic flow figures for Peters Place are based on traffic movements generated by both the residential properties with access to Peters Place and traffic associated with the school. The traffic evidence indicates that at present 10 parents use Peters Place to park, which is consistent with the evidence given by Mr Fitzgerald. The experts estimated that the current school trips equate to 40 movements over the entire day.
In relation to Peters Place, the experts agreed that the proposed development would result in an additional 35 vpd in Peters Place, increasing the total traffic flow to approximately 219 vpd, which equates to a 19% increase. This calculation is based on the car park area being primarily for the use of staff, with 31 staff parking there each day. Consequently, staff would use Peters Place to access the car park in the morning from about 0700 hrs onwards but not use Peters Place in the afternoon as they would exit onto Smith Street. It was considered that this would be a limiting factor on the use of Peters Place as the number of bays available for use by parents would be restricted to a maximum of seven car bays.
Although the experts agreed on the existing traffic flow figures for Lovegrove Way, they disagreed on the change of flow resulting from the proposed development in Lovegrove Way. Mr Macpherson estimated that the traffic flow will increase by 50 vpd to 373 vpd, whereas Mr Ding was of the view that traffic flows will reduce by approximately 20 vpd to 30 vpd. It was explained that the difference in calculations results from differences when determining traffic distributions; however, both experts agreed that difference in the amount was considered to be minor and the resultant flows in either scenario were considered to be acceptable.
Both experts agreed that the resultant traffic flows in Peters Place and Lovegrove Way following the proposed development will be well within the defined desirable capacity of 1,000 vpd and that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not adversely impact on the amenity, safety or access and egress from residential properties in the locality of the school site.
Further areas of agreement between the experts included:
•the impact of the school traffic occurs over a 30 minute period each week day and outside these times the traffic environment will not change in Lovegrove Way or Peters Place;
•the impact of traffic flows on Peters Place and Lovegrove Way are ameliorated by the fact that there is parkland abutting a substantial portion of the affected streets; and
•the benefits and risks associated with an option for an internal link road between Russell Street and Smith Street cannot be determined without details of the proposal being available but it would be difficult to see how such a proposal would provide any material benefits given that there is agreement that the current proposal has negligible impact on the surrounding street network.
As to whether the reorientation of the school may result in possible changes in traffic patterns, the TPRSA and the traffic experts agreed that there might be some slight change in traffic patterns. However, the experts were of the opinion that it would not be significant as it was considered that the Russell Street and Smith Street embayments will be used to access the site, along with parking arrangements currently available in Lovegrove Way.
The traffic engineers did not expect that the proposed layout would result in the problems envisaged by the two residents, as they were of the opinion that the constraints on available parking within the site would be a significant limiting factor that would moderate the use of these roads. It was their agreed position that the likelihood of stacking in Peters Place would be low. Both experts held the view that the current proposal does not create an unacceptable impact on the surrounding street network.
The experts were reluctant to comment on the benefits and risks of the alternative proposal resulting from the imposition of condition 16, as no traffic assessment had been undertaken for that proposal. However, both experts held concerns about the possibility for that proposal to cause congestion in Russell Street at the proposed entrance to the site and similar congestion and internal queues at the Smith Street exit. Mr Macpherson, in particular, raised concerns about the limitation of the intersection of Russell Street and the internal access way to deal with the concentration of traffic likely to result from directing all school traffic to one entrance. As to the impacts on Peters Place and Lovegrove Way, the experts envisaged that if the school was fenced, then parents parking in Peters Place and Lovegrove Way would be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. However, if access was provided as required by condition 17, then parking by parents in Peters Place and Lovegrove Way would continue and may potentially increase as a result of congestion arising from the internal road system. Mr Ding also identified the possibility of safety issues relating to pedestrians crossing the internal road to access Peters Place Reserve.
Conclusions based on the evidence
It is the nature of school sites to attract a large number of vehicles at specific periods during the day within a short time frame. How these concentrations are managed will undoubtedly affect the local street network and the amenity of adjoining residential properties.
The Tribunal is cognisant of the concerns raised by the residents, and the Tribunal accepts that increased traffic flows will occur on both Peters Place and Lovegrove Way/Massey Place as a result of the applicant's proposal. However, as to the extent of that increase and the effect on traffic patterns, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the two expert traffic engineers over Councillor Blanchard and the residents, given their specialist qualifications and experience.
The expert evidence of the traffic engineers clearly indicates that the traffic flows resulting from the applicant's proposal are well within the capacity of the surrounding local roads and will not adversely impact on the amenity, safety or access of residential properties in Peters Place, Lovegrove Way or Massey Place. The Tribunal considers that the magnitude of the increases in traffic flow on the local street network is acceptable and will not have an undue adverse effect on the residential amenity of the locality. Further, the evidence does not satisfy the Tribunal that the alternative proposal will achieve the desired results and may possibly produce outcomes not anticipated by the respondent, as indicated by the traffic experts.
The Tribunal, therefore, considers that the application for review should be allowed and condition 16 and condition 17 deleted from the planning approval granted by the respondent on 22 December 2008.
Orders
For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision of the respondent made on 22 December 2008 to grant conditional development approval for the refurbishment of the Infant Jesus Primary School at No 1 ‑ 11 (Lot 1165) Russell Street, Morley is varied by deleting condition 16 and condition 17.
I certify that this and the preceding [39] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS M CONNOR, MEMBER