SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD and CITY OF GOSNELLS - [2010] WASAT 16

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD and CITY OF GOSNELLS [2010] WASAT 16

MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)

HEARD: 15 JANUARY 2010

DELIVERED : 11 FEBRUARY 2010

FILE NO/S: DR 433 of 2009

BETWEEN: SANTELLI ARCHITECTS PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
CITY OF GOSNELLS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development - Condition of approval - Development of multipurpose hall - Primary school - Condition requiring relocation of multipurpose hall to northern side of oval away from adjoining houses - Proposed location - Impact on neighbouring houses - Impact on neighbouring streetscape - Effect on operation of school - After hours use of hall - Noise

Legislation:

City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6, cl 10.4, cl 11.2
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008)

Result:

The application for review is dismissed
The conditional approval of the proposed development by the City of Gosnells in its decision of 27 October 2009 is affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr A Santelli (Representative)
Respondent: Mr T Price (Representative)

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: City of Gosnells

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

This matter involved an application for review of a condition imposed by the City of Gosnells on the development approval granted for a multipurpose hall at the Sacred Heart Primary School, Lot 3 Ovens Road, Thornlie. The development application had proposed that the hall be at the southwest corner of the school oval set back five metres from the boundary common with houses at the head of a neighbouring culdesac, Cammaray Court.
Condition 1 of the approval required that the proposed multipurpose hall be relocated toward the northern side of the school oval away from the nearby residences. The City of Gosnells considered that the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the neighbouring houses and streetscape would be too great. The school said that amenity impacts could be managed and locating the multipurpose hall on the northern side of the oval would have an unacceptable impact on the operation of the school.
The Tribunal concluded that because of its size, location and bulk, the proposed multipurpose hall would have some adverse impact on the neighbouring houses and the streetscape of Cammaray Court.
The Tribunal also found that noise that might be generated by the use of the building, the impact this might have on the amenity of the neighbours and whether any adverse impact might be appropriately mitigated had not been satisfactorily addressed for the proposed location. Finally, the Tribunal formed the view that the location of the multipurpose hall at the northern side of the oval would not unreasonably compromise the operation of the school.
On balance, the Tribunal determined that the adverse impact on the neighbouring houses and streetscape of the multipurpose hall in the proposed location outweighs the impact there would be on the operation of the school if the multipurpose hall were located consistent with condition 1 of the approval.
The Tribunal therefore decided to dismiss the application for review.

Introduction

The proceedings involve an application brought by Santelli Architects Pty Ltd (applicant), pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) for a review of the decision of the City of Gosnells (respondent or Council) to grant conditional development approval for the development of a multipurpose hall, extensions to an early childhood learning centre and other minor works at the Sacred Heart Primary School (school), Lot 3 Ovens Road, Thornlie (site).

Background

At its meeting of 22 September 2009, the Council resolved to defer consideration of the development application and invited the submission of a revised proposal with the multipurpose hall located further north away from the residences adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the site. The school declined to make this change. At its meeting of 27 October 2009, the Council granted conditional approval for the development. Condition 1 of the approval states:
The applicant is to submit amended plans for the multipurpose hall to incorporate the hall being located towards the northern side of the oval and away from nearby residences. Such plans are to be to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.
The applicant then applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Council's decision, seeking to have condition 1 deleted and the multipurpose hall sited in the applicant's proposed location.

Site and locality

The site is rectangular in shape and has an area of 3.7067 hectares. It has frontage to Ovens Road at the northwestern boundary and to Discovery Drive on the northeastern boundary. To the west and southeast of the site the adjoining development is single residential. To the northeast across Discovery Drive is the South Thornlie Primary School and the Thornlie High School.
On the Ovens Road frontage of the site at the south-western end is a presbytery and at the northeastern end at the corner of Ovens Road and Discovery Drive is a building which includes a Catholic church and a parish centre. The church has a peaked roof and features a brick tower with a cross incorporated into the design. Between the presbytery and the church is a parking area.
To the south of the presbytery and the car park are the school buildings which include general purpose learning areas (classrooms) for Year 1 to Year 6 built around internal courtyards, a library, administration, an early childhood centre (day care), a kindergarten and preprimary. The early childhood centre and the kindergarten and preprimary building have securely fenced play areas separate from the use of the remainder of the site. To the south of the church is the access drive between Discovery Drive and the car park, then the school oval which extends to the southeastern boundary. The southeastern boundary of the site is common with residential lots which are situated at the head of two culsdesac, Cammaray Court and Ambassador Court. The two houses at the head of Cammaray Court, No 7 and No 8, have a common boundary with the site, and more particularly the southwestern corner of the school oval.

The development and its proposed location

The building the subject of the application for review is referred to as a multipurpose hall. It has a total floor area of about 630 square metres which includes the hall area of 363 square metres. At the northern end of the building are a foyer, a meeting room and an office. Opening off the western side of the hall are toilets, storage rooms and a kitchen. The eastern wall of the hall incorporates folding glass doors opening onto a paved terrace from which there are two limestone and grass terraces down to the school oval.
In the school's proposed location the multipurpose hall would be cut into the bank at the southwestern corner of the oval. The application plans showed the development would have a floor level at RL9.42. The contour information provided by the applicant shows that the general level of the site to the west where the school buildings are located to be generally at RL10.6. The school oval to the east is shown at about RL8.7.
There was no dispute between the parties that the finished floor level of the proposed multipurpose hall would be 0.35 metres below the corresponding level of the boundary opposite the southeastern corner of the building and 1.54 metres below the level of the boundary opposite the southwest corner of the building. The 25 metrelong southern wall of the multipurpose hall with its three highlight windows would be set back 5 metres from the southeastern boundary.
The building is designed to have a vaulted ceiling above the hall with skylights and a ridge height of about 7.2 metres. The ridge is set back about 11 metres from the site boundary. At the southern end the building has a hipped roof so that the southern wall has a plate height of about 3.4 metres. The applicant stated that the gutter of the southern wall would be between 3.15 metres and 2.63 metres above the corresponding points at the boundary.
The applicant said the development is to be funded under the 'Building the Education Revolution' initiative of the Federal Government.
This funding arrangement is relevant to the use to be made of the proposed multipurpose hall. The respondent put into evidence at 7 of the 'Building the Education Revolution Guidelines' (BER guidelines) highlighting the fourth paragraph under the heading 'Conditions for Funding', which states:
The school must agree to provide access at no, or low, cost to the community to libraries and multipurpose halls funded under this element of BER. This must include reasonable access by any community or notforprofit groups in the local community. Schools must agree to advertise the availability of the infrastructure for use by the community through any avenue available to them which does not incur significant cost to the school (e.g. newsletters, school website, free community papers). Schools may charge a low fee for the use of the facility where the charge is to cover recurrent costs incurred by the school in providing the community access (e.g. electricity, cleaning, security).

Planning framework

The site and the neighbouring residential lots are within the Residential zone of the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6 (TPS 6), with a density coding of R17.5. Under the Zoning Table of TPS 6, the school and the proposed development have the use classification of 'educational establishment'. The proposed development, as an 'educational establishment' is an 'A' use in the Residential zone which means:
... that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 10.4;
…
The proposed multipurpose hall was advertised in accordance with the requirements of cl 10.4 of TPS 6. Forty six submissions were received with 10 objections, 34 raising no objections and two with comments only. Eight of the objections were from Cammaray Court.
Clause 11.2 of TPS 6 lists matters to be considered when deciding an application for planning approval. These include:
...
(i)the compatibility of a use or development with its setting;
...
(n)the preservation of the amenity of the locality;
(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;
(p)whether the proposed means of access to and egress from the site are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles;
...
(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;
...
(y)any relevant submissions received on the application;
...

The issues

Having regard to the matters to be considered when deciding an application for planning approval as listed at cl 11.2 of TPS 6 and issues identified by the parties, the Tribunal has identified that the following arise in respect of the review of condition 1 of the respondent's approval:
1)whether the size, location and bulk of the proposed multipurpose hall will have an adverse impact on the neighbouring houses;
2)whether use of the proposed multipurpose hall will have adverse noise impacts on adjoining houses;
3)whether the proposed multipurpose hall will materially impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court; and
4)whether the location of the proposed development will adversely impact on the operational requirements of the school and its activities.
In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal conducted a view of the site and Cammaray Court in the company of the representatives of each of the parties and the witnesses. On the site, a licensed surveyor had pegged for viewing by the Tribunal an outline of the proposed multipurpose hall in the applicant's proposed location and in a location at the northern edge of the oval just to the east of the fenced play areas of the day care, preprimary and kindergarten.
The respondent provided a schedule of additional and amended conditions it would want imposed if the development were allowed in the applicant's proposed position. Where appropriate, requirements raised in relevant suggested conditions have been included in the discussion on the issues.

Discussion

Issue 1: Whether the size, location and bulk of the proposed multipurpose hall will have an adverse impact on the neighbouring houses

The proposed multipurpose hall would be set back 5 metres from the boundary common with No 7 and No 8 Cammaray Court. Number 7, at the northeast corner of the culdesac head is owned by Mr Rudolph Tander, who appeared as a witness, and Mrs Tander. The house on No 7 is set back about 1.5 metres from the chainlink fence on the boundary, and the floor level would be about 0.35 metres higher than the proposed floor level of the multipurpose hall.
The applicant's drawing SK01.06 includes a vertical aerial photograph with the proposed development superimposed. This shows the multipurpose hall would be adjacent to the carport at the eastern end of No 7, and the proposed deck at the eastern side of the proposed building would be adjacent to the garage. The proposed building would not obstruct views through the chainlink fence across the oval from the habitable rooms and a patio at the eastern end of No 7, but would obstruct views to the existing school buildings.
Mr Tander said he was concerned about the impact of the bulk of the proposed building on his home. He was particularly concerned about the eastern elevation which would intrude into and dominate the view from his habitable rooms and frequently used patio.
Mr Robert Stevens, who also appeared as a witness, lives at No 8 Cammaray Court, which he owns with Mrs Stevens. Number 8 is at the northwestern corner of the culdesac head. The house at No 8 is set back about 1 metre from the school boundary, with a finished floor level that would be about 1.6 metres above the proposed finished floor level of the multipurpose hall. Drawing SK01.06 shows that the multipurpose hall would be adjacent to the double carport and one of the bedrooms which Mr Stevens said occupy the northern elevation of the house.
Mr Stevens has erected a colourbond fence about 1800 millimetres high abutting the chainlink fence along the boundary for the length of his house. Mr Stevens said that the view from the windows of his habitable rooms above the fence would now be of the proposed building rather than treetops and sky, and he would feel closed in. Views across the oval from the front and side yard of his house through the chainlink fence would be lost if the building was located where proposed by the applicant.
Ms Gordana NesicSimic is an urban designer who appeared as a witness for the respondent. It was her opinion that if the new building was located as proposed, it would, because of its proximity and bulk, loom over and therefore have an adverse impact on the amenity the adjoining residences.
Mr Santelli, the architect who appeared as a witness for the applicant, said the impact on the neighbours had been considered. This had resulted in the hipped roof design at the southern elevation to shift the peak of the roof further from the boundary and the lowering of the floor level relative to the houses in Cammaray Court by cutting into the bank at the side of the oval. The school would be prepared to accept a further condition requiring the floor to be lowered a further 300 millimetres, if required, to further reduce the impact of the building. In his opinion, the impact would be equivalent to having a twostorey house next door set back 5 metres, whereas the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) require a minimum setback of 1.5 metres for a wall of the same length. Mr Santelli said the applicant would also accept an additional condition that required landscaping along the boundary that would further screen the building.
The Tribunal notes that the current amenity of the neighbouring houses includes aspect across the open area of the proposed location to trees and buildings beyond. The proposed multipurpose hall would occupy that space. The Tribunal also noted that the building would be generally of the height of a two storey house when viewed from Cammaray Court because of the relative height difference. A house of nearly this height can be considered in this Residential zone. However, the proposed building, at 630 square metres, would be of considerable bulk compared to the neighbouring houses, and the two neighbouring houses would have an oblique view of the long axis of the building.
The Tribunal considers that the proposed multipurpose hall would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring houses because of its size, location and bulk. However, because the building would be offset from the views directly out from the two neighbouring houses and a considerable proportion of current outlook from the houses would remain, the Tribunal has concluded that the impact of the building would not be so great to be of itself a reason to refuse the application.

Issue 2: Whether use of the proposed multipurpose hall will have adverse noise impacts on adjoining houses

Both Mr Tander and Mr Stevens expressed concern about the potential for unacceptable noise impacts from the hall, particularly after hours from activities by both schoolrelated groups and community groups who are entitled to use the hall. Both neighbours said they had been disturbed by noise from the parish centre generated by afterschool activities, particularly wedding receptions, discos and twentyfirst birthday parties. They said that the proposed building was about 100 metres closer so any disturbance would be unacceptable. Of particular concern were people gathering on the proposed outdoor deck to socialise and smoke only metres from the fence.
Ms NesicSimic and Mr Tander were both of the view that the proposed location would create a 'blind spot' and this would increase the potential for increased noise from antisocial behaviour associated with after hours activities in the vicinity of the fence of No 7.
Mr Stevens said that because of their particular occupations, both he and his wife went to bed at about 8.30 pm and left for work at about 6.00 am. Noise would disrupt this pattern.
Mrs Suzanne Fox, the school principal, who appeared as a witness, said the school did not control the parish centre but would control use of the multipurpose hall. She acknowledged the funding conditions in the BER guidelines required that community groups be allowed to use the hall. Mrs Fox said that the afterhours use of the hall would be tightly controlled with guidelines set out in a policy. The whole school site was a 'nonsmoking' venue and most afterschool hours use would be schoolassociated uses, such as student discos and parents and friends quiz nights. These uses and activities by community groups, such as gymnastics and craft, would finish in the early evening. One control measure would be to require that the bifold doors in the eastern wall of the hall remain closed after hours.
Mr Santelli was confident that the noise could be controlled. He said the school would address sound insulation, including glass thickness, fence off the area between the hall and the boundary, and increase the setback from the deck to the boundary. If it would assist, the school would plant a vegetation screen along the boundary and erect solid screen fencing.

The respondent has imposed the following condition, condition 5, on its approval of a multipurpose hall located toward the northern edge of the oval, which would be about 50 metres from the proposed location:
Satisfactory arrangements being made to ensure the proposed multipurpose hall incorporates design and management measures to mitigate noise impacts on nearby residents to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services.
An advice note included with the decision letter states:
In relation to Condition 5, the satisfaction of this condition will require the submission of a noise management plan detailing the measures of controlling the potential noise emanating from the hall. Such details shall include, but [are] not limited to, the hours of operation and building and landscape design measures.
The respondent was asked by the Tribunal whether it considered a variation to this condition would be required if the multipurpose hall were to be located as proposed by the applicant. The respondent asked that in that circumstance the condition be amended to read:
Satisfactory arrangements being made to ensure the proposed multipurpose hall incorporates design and management measures based on the findings of an acoustic report, prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic engineer, to mitigate noise impacts on nearby residents to the satisfaction of the Manager of Health Services.
The applicant said it would not object to the respondent's suggested alternative condition.
No noise expert appeared before the Tribunal. The difficulty for the Tribunal was that it had no evidence on noise levels that might be generated by the various activities in the multipurpose hall and what measures might be required to achieve any necessary reduction of noise levels at noise sensitive locations. The respondent included in its bundle of documents copies of two articles on the use of vegetation to reduce noise levels. No expert opinion was provided to relate those articles to the types of noise to be generated by the use of the multipurpose hall and any impact on the neighbouring development.
At the proposed location, noise would be generated closer than 20 metres from the sensitive residential locations. Noise with potential to annoy would be generated after the hours when it might otherwise be expected that the school would be quiet. The BER guidelines require access to the multipurpose hall by community groups. The school says it will decide what is the 'community' and this will be narrowly construed, but this is untested and, on the face of the wording in the BER guidelines, the community might well have wider connotations. It is not known what type of noise the community groups and the schoolrelated groups might generate. There was also no evidence the building design measures identified by Mr Santelli and management of the use would reduce noise to levels where nearby residents could no longer reasonably claim that the after hours noise levels were offensive.
The condition suggested by the respondent to address noise at the proposed location would require the incorporation of design and management measures, based on the findings of an acoustic report prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic engineer, to mitigate noise impacts on nearby residents 'to the satisfaction of the Manager of Health Services '. It is simply not possible to have no audible noise. It might well be that the noise generated can be controlled so that it does not exceed the prescribed noise levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) (Noise Regulations). However, audible noise might still be offensive. Whether noise is offensive or not depends upon the context.
It was not satisfactorily explained to the Tribunal at what level noise would no longer be a concern and the Manager of Health Services would be satisfied. It was also not clear that to satisfy the condition, steps might be required that have an unacceptable physical impact on the neighbours, such as an overheight fence on the common boundary, which is the northern boundary of the neighbouring lots, or strike at the heart of the proposed use of the multipurpose hall by children by overly restricting their activities. It was also not clear whether the requirements to control noise would compromise the implementation of the BER guidelines under which the government money is provided for the development by affecting the use of the hall by the community.
The Tribunal has concluded that the use of the multipurpose hall in the proposed location will have the potential to generate noise. The Tribunal has found that what impact this noise will have on the amenity of the neighbours and whether any adverse impact might be mitigated has not been satisfactorily addressed. This is considered to outweigh what inconvenience there might be to the operation of the school from the relocation of the multipurpose hall.

Issue 3: Whether the proposed multipurpose hall will materially impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court

The applicant's drawings SK01.05 and SK01.06 included photographs of the view northward towards the head of Cammaray Court. These showed in the foreground Mr Stevens' manicured lawns and neat garden beds, which sit between No 7 and No 8 Cammaray Court, the mature trees on the school site at the boundary and, beyond, glimpses to the day care centre and the roof and tower of the church.
Both drawings also included photomontages with the multipurpose hall inserted in the applicant's proposed location. A tall gumtree on the boundary would be removed and the upper part of the southern wall of the building and of the roof would fill the view of the space between No 7 and No 8 Cammaray Court.
It was Ms NesicSimic's submission that the multipurpose hall in the proposed location would have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court, which she described as being of 'an open aspect of a parklike nature'. Ms NesicSimic described the proposed building as dominating the view, replacing the perception of openness with one of enclosure. It was her opinion that landscaping would do little to soften the impact of the building because it would be difficult to include trees in the 3 metre wide landscape strip in the setback.
Mr Santelli pointed out that nearby residents had no right to a view into and across the school grounds. He added that, in any event, by lowering the level of the building relevant to Cammaray Court, having a hipped roof at the southern end rather than a gable so that the ridge was well back from the from the boundary and including landscaping within the setback, the impact of the building would be greatly reduced and be an acceptable backdrop to Cammaray Court.
The Tribunal considers that the proposed multipurpose hall would have an impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court. The site is zoned Residential with approved 'educational establishment' buildings. In this regard it is not unreasonable that further school buildings be considered and the respondent has issued an approval. Proposed, however, is not just another classroom. The existing aspect to the head of the culdesac would be replaced by a view of the back of the multipurpose hall adjacent to the site boundary.
The respondent listed in the additional conditions that it would want imposed additional detailing to minimise the scale of both the upper and lower levels of the building and landscaping in the setback. These might assist in mitigating the impact of the building but the Tribunal is of the view that it is unlikely to result in what the applicant said would be a building equivalent to a dwelling because the characteristics of a dwelling would be absent.
Given the conclusion reached with issue 1 and issue 2, unless the impact on the operation of the school of the building remaining in the approved position outweighs the impact of the building in the proposed location on the streetscape of Cammaray Court, the Tribunal considers the approved position is to be favoured. As addressed in issue 4, the Tribunal has found the balance in this regard is in favour of the respondent's approved position for the multipurpose hall.

Issue 4: Whether the location of the proposed development will adversely impact on the operational requirements of the school and its activities

The Tribunal was presented with sketches showing three locations for the multipurpose hall. One was the applicant's proposed location at the southwest corner of the oval. A second location was set out in a sketch at Attachment D of the respondent's bundle of documents. This sketch was prepared by the respondent as 'indicative' and showed the multipurpose hall at the northwestern edge of the oval, reorientated to have the long access northsouth with the folding doors and terrace facing the oval at an angle. The building is shown with a corner situated about 5 metres from the verandah of the preprimary building and about 12 metres from the day care centre. The building would occupy much of the southern section of the fenced play area of the preprimary and kindergarten. The third location was set out on drawing SK01.08, prepared by the applicant, which shows the multipurpose hall at the northwest corner of the oval with the same orientation on Attachment D, but shifted about 15 metres eastward to a location 3 metres outside the fenced play area of the preprimary and the kindergarten. Both of the locations at the northern side of the oval are adjacent to the access road with its adjacent parking and opposite the entrance to the church.
Ms NesicSimic considered that the architect's brief was too constrained and strategic planning was required for the site. She was of the opinion that the classrooms and the internal courtyards of the core school area, the oval and the church all presented as segregated facilities. The day care centre, being in the middle of the site, was also said to be poorly located. Ms NesicSimic explained how she considered locating the multipurpose hall on the northern side of the oval would be comparatively neutral in the impact on the usable area of the oval and would provide the opportunity to improve the layout, connectivity, functioning and presentation of the school grounds.
Ms NesicSimic was also of the opinion that use of the multipurpose hall by community groups and the associated servicing of the hall would be facilitated by a location adjacent to the access road to the site. This would avoid service vehicles and outsiders, particularly after hours, having to traverse the edge of the oval between the access road and car park and the proposed location.
Ms NesicSimic said the proposed location created a 'blind spot' for a supervising teacher viewing children playing on the oval when viewed from the top of the path adjacent to the day care building. It was Ms NesicSimic's submission that any new development should be undertaken cautiously to avoid compounding what she considered to be the 'illconsidered relationship between the facilities' on the site.
Mrs Fox said the proposed location was adjacent to classrooms at the southwestern part of the site. The multipurpose hall would be a learning area. It could be divided by folding doors into two learning areas if required, and would be integrated into the use of the other classrooms. She considered that if relocated to the northern side of the oval, the building would be segregated from the school learning areas.
Mrs Fox said that the location shown on Attachment D was unacceptable because it removed a significant proportion of the secured outdoor play area from the day care centre, preprimary and kindergarten. A particular area was required because of the number of children and there were no suitably located replacement areas.
Mrs Fox said the northern location as shown on drawing SK01.08 occupied too much of the limited oval space. She said that in both of the northern locations the hall would either 'turn its back' on the school or, if reversed, 'turn its back' on the church. The view from the classrooms to the church would be blocked, adding to the segregation. Location of the multipurpose hall at the approved location would, in her submission, disrupt the effective operation of the school.
Mrs Fox emphasised the 'duty of care' owed to the children. This was described as the capacity to readily supervise children at play and moving around the school grounds and to observe the entrances and exits to the school. In her opinion, the two northern locations would make this more difficult whereas the proposed location did not present the same problems. The building would also be used for assemblies and in extreme wet or hot weather, and it was her concern that the respondent's decision would result in children being required to gather near the access road before entering the hall. This, she said, would further compromise the school's ability to fulfil its duty of care to the students. Mrs Fox said the proposed location would provide a safer, more direct and shorter access route for the students between their classrooms and the multipurpose hall.
The Tribunal notes that Ms NesicSimic's submission on the need for a strategic analysis of the use of the whole school site might well result in a rearrangement of the use made of the various buildings and, ultimately, a more efficient and integrated overall operation in the school. However, the proposal is to add a multipurpose hall to the existing school. The BER guidelines do not provide time or money for the reorganisation of the operation of the school as a whole.
The Tribunal has accepted that Mrs Fox, as school principal, is best placed to comment on how a multipurpose hall in different locations might be integrated into the daytoday school activities. The Tribunal has noted that locating the multipurpose hall, as shown on Attachment D, in what is now the secured play areas for the kindergarten and preprimary, would create difficulties for the operation of those uses for which there appears to be no readily available solution. Comparison was made by the parties between the applicant's proposed location for the building and the location, if not the building orientation, shown on drawing SK01.08.
With each hall location, no one spot would enable observation of all the open areas that would be used by the children. When questioned, Mrs Fox explained that the teacher with the task of observing the oval and a second teacher who moves between different sections of the site would not be stationary observers. It is not readily apparent to the Tribunal that one location for the multipurpose hall is significantly worse than the other in this respect. The Tribunal noted that elsewhere on the site, where it has been deemed necessary, the school has measures such as restricting access, areas for children to assemble and measures to ensure separation of children from the access road and parking areas.
The oval would be more irregular in shape if the multipurpose hall were at the northern edge. At the hearing, it was seen that the area available would be similar in both cases, and the Tribunal is of the view that there would be areas of oval with similar dimensions available for use in both cases.
From the evidence, the Tribunal has formed the view that, if it were concluded that the preferable planning solution required the location of the multipurpose hall at the northern side of the oval, the operation of the school would not necessarily be unreasonably compromised.

Conclusion

The first issue was whether the size, location and bulk of the proposed multipurpose hall will have an adverse impact on the neighbouring houses. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed multipurpose hall would have some adverse impact on the aspect from the neighbouring houses because of its size, location and bulk. However, because the building would be offset and a considerable proportion of current outlook from the houses would remain, the Tribunal has concluded that the impact of the building on the neighbouring houses would not be so great to be of itself a reason to refuse the application.
The second issue was whether the proposed multipurpose hall will have adverse noise impacts on adjoining houses. The Tribunal considers that the use of the multipurpose hall will have the potential to generate noise. The Tribunal has found that, for the proposed location, what impact any noise might have on the amenity of the neighbours and whether any adverse impact might be appropriately mitigated has not been satisfactorily addressed. This concern about potential noise is considered by the Tribunal to outweigh what inconvenience there might be to the operation of the school from the relocation of the multipurpose hall to the northern side of the oval.
The third issue was whether the proposed multipurpose hall would materially impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed multipurpose hall would have an impact on the streetscape of Cammaray Court.
It is not unreasonable that further school buildings be considered for the site and the respondent has issued an approval. Proposed, however, is more than another classroom. Replacing the exiting open aspect to the head of the culdesac would be the back of the multipurpose hall. The applicant said it would accept additional conditions requiring landscaping in the setback and detailing to minimise the scale of both the upper and lower levels of the building. The Tribunal is of the view that it is unlikely to result in what the applicant said would be a building that would be equivalent to a dwelling, as the characteristics of a dwelling would be absent.
The fourth issue was whether the location of the proposed development will adversely impact on the operational requirements of the school and its activities. The Tribunal has formed the view that if it were concluded that the preferable planning solution required the location of the multipurpose hall at the northern side of the oval, the operation of the school would not necessarily be unreasonably compromised.
From the conclusions it has reached in respect of each of the issues, the Tribunal has weighed the effect of the multipurpose hall in the proposed location against the impact the multipurpose hall would have on the operation of the school if located toward the northern side of the oval.
On balance, the Tribunal has determined that the adverse impact on the neighbours and the Cammaray Court streetscape of the multipurpose hall in the proposed location outweighs the impact there would be on the operation of the school if the multipurpose hall were in a location consistent with condition 1 of the approval.
The Tribunal has therefore decided to dismiss the application for review.
The Tribunal, having concluded that developing the multipurpose hall in the applicant's proposed location cannot be supported, considers that there does not arise the need to further address the amended and additional conditions that the respondent had provided without prejudice to its position.

Orders

1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The conditional approval of the proposed development by the City of Gosnells in its decision of 27 October 2009 is affirmed.

I certify that this and the preceding [76] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, MEMBER