Sharose Investments Pty Ltd & Anor and City of Joondalup - [2006] WASAT 271

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: SHAROSE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD & ANOR and CITY OF JOONDALUP [2006] WASAT 271

MEMBER: MS J SMITHSON (SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 2 MAY 2006

DELIVERED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2006

FILE NO/S: DR 570 of 2005

BETWEEN: SHAROSE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
P & A CHEMELLO NOMINEES PTY LTD
Applicants
AND
CITY OF JOONDALUP
Respondent

Catchwords:

Child care centres WAPC Bulletin No. 72 WAPC Policy DC2.6 (Residential Road Planning) Categorisation of road Residential zone Neighbours’ objections Child Care Policy Amenity impacts Appropriate location Noise Regulations Application upheld

Legislation:

City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 6.6, cl 6.8
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997(WA)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)

Result:

The application for review be upheld
The submissions approved subsequent to conditions

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Mr PD Webb (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Mr S Allerding (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicants: Peter D Webb & Associates
Respondent: Allerding Burgess

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

Love and City of Joondalup [2006] WASAT 69

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

These proceedings concerned an application for review of the refusal by the City of Joondalup (the City) for an application for a child care centre at 107 Warwick Road, Duncraig (the site). The site is situated on the corner of Currajong Road.
The application proposed the use of a residence, formerly converted and used for the purposes of a doctor's surgery, for the purposes of a child care centre.
The application was refused by the City essentially on the basis that the proposal was contrary to orderly and proper planning, in that the site did not adjoin non‑residential uses, was not compatible with adjoining uses due to its intensity and the parking arrangement, and was located on an access road which would result in more traffic on local roads. The applicants argued that the site had a previous commercial use, was appropriately located and the impacts on adjoining residential properties would not be significant.
The Tribunal found that, on balance, the application should be approved. There was precedent for child care centres in similar locations, the previous use of the site was of a commercial nature and the proposed use had been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining neighbours. The use would comply with the noise regulations, and the traffic impact assessment, indicating minimal impact, was accepted by the City.
The application for review was upheld.

Introduction

On 11 November 2004, the applicants applied to the City of Joondalup (the City) for approval to convert former consulting rooms at Lot 401 (No 107) Warwick Road, Duncraig, into a child care centre. Revised plans were submitted on 2 March 2005.
The application proposed modifications to the existing building to facilitate 47 children of varying ages and eight staff. The modifications included reconfiguration of the car parking area. The application was accompanied by an acoustic report and a traffic management study.
The application was advertised and numerous objections were received from adjoining and nearby residential properties. Evidence was provided to the Tribunal by three neighbours who lodged objections to the development, namely Mr Jaggard residing at 39 Currajong Road (adjoins the northern boundary of the site), Mr Sabin residing at 10 Mahonia Place (rear partially also adjoins the northern boundary of the site) and Mr Bowen residing at 40 Currajong Road (opposite and west of the site). It was noted no objection was received from the property immediately east of the site, and that Warwick Road adjoins to the south.
On 9 August 2005 the application was refused by the City for the following reason:
"1)The proposal is contrary to orderly and proper planning as:
(a)The proposed site is not considered appropriate as it does not adjoin non‑residential uses as encouraged by Policy 3.1.1 ‑ Child care centres;
(b)The commercial nature of the proposed use is not compatible with existing uses of the land within the locality, contrary to clause 6.8.2(a) of DPS 2;
(c)The proposal is located on an access road in a residential area, contrary to Policy 3.1.1 ‑ Child care centres;
(d)The nature of the roads giving access to the subject land is inappropriate contrary to clause 6.8.2(c) as it will distribute traffic to nearby access roads;
(e)The changes to the car parking area and the increased intensity of uses will adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residential property at No. 39 Currajong Road; and
(f)The potential for car parking overflows into the access road and the adverse impact on adjoining and surrounding residential properties."

The site and planning context

The subject site has a total area of 1409 square metres and is situated on the north‑east corner of Warwick Road and Currajong Road. Warwick Road is designated as an "Other Regional Road" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme MRS), whilst there was disagreement between the parties as to whether Currajong Road was an access road or local distributor road (refer to Issues below).
The site had previously been approved as consulting rooms for up to three practitioners although evidence suggested it was largely only used by one psychologist and this use had ceased with the building now vacant.
The site is zoned "Urban" under the (MRS) and "Residential" under City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2). Immediately adjoining properties are zoned "Residential".
Child care centres are discretionary uses in all zones in which they can be approved in the City, including the Residential zone. Discretionary uses mean that the use is not permitted unless the Council exercises discretion under clause 6.6 of DPS 2, whilst clause 6.8 of DPS 2 prescribes the matters Council is required to have regard to when considering applications for planning approval. These include a range of planning criteria as well as State and local policies.
The City has adopted a Local Planning Policy No 3.1.1 (LPP 3.1.1) for child care centres which guides the City in determining applications for child care centres. LPP 3.1.1 has been formulated based on Planning Bulletin No. 72 issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

Overview of issues

The refusal issued by the City was essentially based on a concern with the suitability of the proposed use for the site. This was the subject of evidence to the Tribunal in terms of the following inter-related issues:
1.the locational criteria for child care centre, in terms of the appropriateness of the proposed centre in the location proposed;
2.impact on amenity of adjoining properties, particularly in terms of parking arrangements and intensity of use;
3.implications for the road network and access (that is, traffic impact);
4.car parking;
5.noise; and
6.objections from neighbours.

Locational criteria for child care centres

The City argued that the use needed to be assessed, having regard to the overall purpose and objective of the Residential zone and that their child care policy assisted with determining this. In this regard, the City stated that the site did not accord with the preferred locational criteria, in that LPP 3.1.1 stipulated that child care centres should be located only on local distributor roads (where they would not encourage the use of local access roads) and adjoin non‑residential uses, such as shopping centres and community buildings. This was to minimise the impact that the centres could have on the amenity of residential areas.
In the view of the City, the centre should also be co-located or close to other complementary facilities such as schools or community facilities to enable combined trips to complementary destinations.
Mr Sullivan appearing on behalf of the City argued that LPP 3.1.1 and DPS 2 provide a proper measure of orderly and proper planning and child care centres are presumed to not be permitted in the Residential zone unless they meet the requirements of LPP 3.1.1. Further, local residents have the right to expect that the area would contain only appropriate residential uses.
Mr Webb, appearing for the applicants, argued that DPS 2 does not permit child care centres in any zone except on the same presumptions, yet other centres had been approved which did not comply with LPP 3.1.1 and the provisions of the policy were not necessarily appropriate in all instances.
Examples were provided of child care centres in: Beach Road, Duncraig (operated by the applicants); Glenunga Way, Craigie; on the corner of Gorman Street and Wanneroo Road; in Eddystone Avenue, Craigie; and in Kinross Drive, Kinross. Mr Webb claimed all these child care centres were adjoined and surrounded by residential properties and/or were located on roads exhibiting similar characteristics to the site.
The Tribunal heard evidence that there were a number of commercial premises approved along Warwick Road within 320 metres of the site including an eye centre, dental centre and medical centre. All adjoined residential properties.
The site had approval to be used for consulting rooms for up to three practitioners (psychiatrists) and had been used as consulting rooms. Evidence was provided to the Tribunal, by Mr Webb, that this former use had a similar number of required car bays, could have generated substantially more vehicle movements than the proposed use had it been fully operational in accordance with the City's approval, could have resulted in after hours activity unlike the child care centre, and could have attracted anti-social activity had there been drugs on the premises.
Furthermore the site is in close proximity to complementary facilities being the Duncraig Primary School also on Currajong Road, less than 500 metres to the north, and the Duncraig Local Centre. Some of the students from the school would go to the proposed centre for after school care.
Mr Webb informed the Tribunal that the applicants have operated or been involved in 10 child care centres, all but one being adjacent to residential properties.
Ms Chemello, one of the applicants, has qualifications in Teaching and Children's Studies and gave evidence that her role included identifying appropriate sites for the development of child care centres and their fitout. They had purchased the site knowing it had a previous approval for consulting rooms and, importantly, had an external parking area which could accommodate up to 15 cars. Being on the corner of Warwick Road, "it appeared to be an ideal location for a child care centre, and is located similarly to other centres which had been approved by the City".
Mr Webb indicated to the Tribunal that it was extremely difficult to find any site that met all of the City's policy requirements and it had taken the applicants eight years to find a site which was suitable.
Ms Chemello also queried the merits of a policy which encouraged child care centres adjoining commercial sites which could comprise hotels, service stations, fast food outlets or similar inappropriate activities to be adjoining children's play areas and centres of care.

Impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties

The City argued that the site is surrounded by single residential properties which would be adversely impacted upon by the proposed use. The Council is required to have regard to these impacts. The centre would house up to 47 children and be operational from 7 am to 6 pm weekdays.
The main areas of concern for the City in terms of impact were that:
1.Outdoor playing areas were located immediately adjacent to habitable rooms and/or private outdoor areas of the adjoining dwellings.
2.Vehicle parking areas are located, and will be extended, adjacent to habitable rooms and/or private outdoor areas of the adjoining dwelling/s. In particular, there was a concern with the impact associated with the relocation of the car park to adjoin the common boundary of the adjoining house at 39 Currajong Road, with this parking area accessed by a driveway for much of the length of that property.
3.The use would introduce a new significant noise impact on adjoining dwellings associated with traffic and play areas.
4.The proposed use would have more impact than the previous use of the site for consulting rooms.
During advertising of the proposal, six submissions were received with the majority from residents adjoining or in the vicinity. These raised objections including: inappropriateness of the proposed use in the residential area, increased intensity of use, impact on amenity, concerns with traffic in Currajong Road, visual impact, existing centres already adequately servicing the area, inadequate parking and egress, and noise.
The applicants argued that they had provided the required Acoustic Report and Traffic Impact Assessment to demonstrate the development would have no significant impact. Furthermore, the existing amenity of the area was already compromised by its proximity to Warwick Road and the centre had been designed to relocate the car park adjacent to the residential property to the north so that the (noisier) outdoor play areas could adjoin Warwick Road rather than residential properties.

Traffic Impact

The City contended that the centre would generate an additional 110 vehicle movements per day, access to the site would be from Currajong Road which is an access road under the Metropolitan Road Hierarchy, and access from an access road is contrary to LPP 3.1.1. The reason for this restriction in the policy is that access roads serve residential areas "where amenity, safety and priority must take priority". LPP 3.1.1 therefore encourages access from local distributor roads.
Access to and from Warwick Road is restricted as there is no median breaks for right turn movements into or out of the site. This combined with the configuration of the local road network would result in most of the traffic having to use Currajong Road and the local road network.
Traffic movements would be concentrated during specific times (that is, drop off and pick up). The City argued that this would increase the traffic on local streets, thus impacting on the residential amenity of those streets, albeit that the roads may have the technical capability to accommodate the increased traffic. This would be exacerbated by social functions being held at the centre.
A Traffic Impact Assessment by Transcore was submitted with the application "which demonstrated there were no traffic issues of any consequence", and this was accepted by the City from a traffic engineering perspective. However, the City was still concerned with the potential for street and verge parking and the consequent requirement for traffic management devices to be installed to control this and/or the possible impact for traffic entering Warwick Road.
Currajong Road was estimated to carry 300‑500 vehicles per day and provides access to the Duncraig Primary School. Mr Webb argued that under the definition of WAPC Policy DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning, Currajong Road should in fact be classified as a local distributor road and therefore the site met this locational criteria of LPP 3.1.1. The Tribunal heard various arguments on the issue of the appropriate classification of Currajong Road.
No issues of safety were raised by the City other than if street or verge parking associated with the centre occurred. The applicants indicated that no street or verge parking was anticipated and nor did it occur at their other centres.
The applicants argued that the proposed traffic movements were not unreasonable and could be considerably less than those generated by the approved former use.

Car parking

Parking is currently provided on the western portion of the site. The application proposed to convert the south west corner into a play area and to concentrate parking adjacent to the property at 39 Currajong Road. The City argued this would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residential property at 39 Currajong Road which had habitable rooms and major openings and private outdoor areas adjoining the common boundary, and also because it required the removal of an existing landscaped strip along the common boundary.
The applicants argued that:
a)Their development complied with DPS 2 car parking requirements;
b)The car park had been relocated to adjoin the northern boundary so that the noisier outdoor play areas could be situated away from this boundary and instead adjoin Warwick Road;
c)Staff parking would be allocated closest to the adjoining residential property to minimise traffic movements to and from the car park in this location; and
d)Experience in their other centres was that the car parks were rarely full and that parking on the verge or in the street also rarely happened.

Noise

The City argued that the relocation of the car parking and the location of the outdoor play areas would have an adverse impact on adjoining residential properties, exacerbated when social activities were held.
A noise assessment was submitted with the application by Herring Storing Acoustics and found that the noise levels would comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) (the Regulations) "at all residential locations". The City argued that compliance with the Regulations should not be the key consideration in that the relocation of the parking area, the consequent loss of landscaping along the northern boundary, and the use of external play areas would still result in a diminution of amenity as a result of increased noise.
Mr Favacho, the City's Environmental Health Officer, argued that the noise assessment did not consider tonal noise, noise from vehicles parking and driving on the road, or noise from vehicles arriving before the centre opened at 7 am (when the impact would be greater) and these could impact on amenity. Further, if Warwick Road was treated as a secondary road this would impact on the levels assigned to the existing situation (although both parties agreed Warwick Road was a major road). Even if the operation of the centre complied with the Regulations, the noise levels would be higher than currently experienced from adjoining properties.
The City raised the Tribunal's decision in Love and City of Joondalup [2006] WASAT 69, where the Tribunal had refused an application for review because the proposal did not comply with the provisions of LPP 3.1.1. The Tribunal was particularly concerned with the impact of noise on residential amenity in that instance.
Mr Reynolds from Herring Storer Acoustics appeared for the applicants. His evidence was that the Regulations stipulate the maximum allowable external noise levels that are permitted to be emitted from premises so that the noise received from another premises is free from annoying characteristics (in terms of tonality, modulation and impulsiveness).
Both parties agreed that:
i)noise received at neighbouring premises from children playing in the outside area would comply with the Regulations;
ii)the amenity of the neighbouring property to the west would not be affected by the development;
iii)the amenity of the neighbouring property to the east would not be affected by car movements to and from the centre; and
iv)the amenity of the neighbouring property to the north would not be affected by noise from the outside play area.

Mr Reynolds believed that the amenity of the residence to the east would not be affected by noise from the outdoor play area, given the background noise in the area at the time children were allowed outside but Mr Favacho believed that the congregation of children from time to time in the eastern play area could impact on this neighbour.
Mr Reynolds also believed that the amenity of the residents to the north would not be affected by noise from car movements to/from the centre given the background noise in the area and the fact that the previous commercial use of the site had car movements in the car park. However, Mr Favacho believed that there could be some impact (particularly from car doors closing) on this neighbour.
Ms Chemello advised the Tribunal that, as the centres she was involved with were within residential neighbourhoods, she was "very conscious of possible noise nuisance" and always sought "to ensure that noisier activities are away from adjacent/nearby residential properties". Toys and play equipment were selected to minimise noise and music was always low key and low volume. All children slept indoors between 11.30 am and 2 pm and no child would be allowed outside between 10.30 am and 3 pm.
Ms Chemello further advised the Tribunal that the car park was designed so that staff would park adjoining the northern boundary, and parents and visitors away from this boundary and towards the southern (Warwick Road) portion of the site. Furthermore, the landscaping along the northern boundary was proposed to be supplemented to enhance the appearance of the centre.
Finally, Ms Chemello indicated that noise was a potentially bigger issue for staff and for sleeping children than it was for neighbours if it wasn't controlled and, for that reason, work policies were adopted to keep noise levels to a minimum.

Objections from neighbours

Under the provisions of DPS 2, the City is to have regard to "the comments or wishes of any objectors to/supporters of the application". For "Discretionary" uses the City is also to have regard to any relevant submission or objections received.
During advertising of the proposal, objections were received from five neighbours: the neighbour immediately to the north, one at the rear and three opposite. Three of these neighbours gave evidence to the Tribunal.
Mr Jaggard, the immediate neighbour to the north and arguably the most affected, raised concerns regarding the impact of the extension to the building, relocation of the car parking area and location of the outdoor play areas, on his property and amenity. His evidence included a concern with the intensification of the use being out of keeping with "a quiet residential neighbourhood", given that the previous commercial use was low key, only used internal areas and had low patronage.
Mr Jaggard raised a specific concern with noise (from cars and outdoor play areas), exacerbated by the removal of the landscaping strip, and the appearance of the facility given the appearance of other child care centres (that is, signage, shade sails and colours) which were out of character with a residential area.
Mr Sabin, whose rear boundary partially adjoins the site to the north, is a long term resident who gave a history of the site. Mr Sabin objected to the development essentially on similar grounds to Mr Jaggard, namely:
i)the former commercial use was low key and not out of character with the residential area relative to the proposed use;
ii)the site is well landscaped with a substantial 2.5m ‑ 5m strip along the northern boundary. This strip will be removed to accommodate the relocated car park;
iii)there were insufficient details on the appearance of the development, including fencing, to enable the Council to determine the extent of its inappropriateness;
iv)inspection of other child care centres indicated that the proposed centre would be inappropriate to the site, out of keeping with its surroundings and damage residential amenity; and
v)the former commercial use does not justify a more intensive new commercial use including an expanded building.
Mr Bowen, who lives opposite the site, raised similar concerns to the other objectors with regard to the fact that the centre was an intensification of a commercial use inappropriate in a residential area. Mr Bowen indicated that the former use was low key and unobtrusive relative to the proposed use. Concern was raised about the appearance, relocation of the parking and loss of landscaping.
Mr Bowen raised a particular concern about the increase in traffic impacting on his ability to access his property particularly when going to/from work which would coincide with peak drop off and pick up times for the centre. Mr Bowen's driveway is opposite the access to the proposed centre. Observations from other centres suggest parents in a hurry would park in the street, or could park on his verge, rather than use the centre's car park, albeit the car park met Council requirements. This could damage the verge and/or cause a traffic hazard in Currajong Road with small children trying to cross the road, particularly from cars entering Currajong Road from Warwick Road.
Mr Webb reiterated that, as the applicants operated a number of child care centres adjoining residential properties, "they are aware of their responsibility to protect the amenity of the area in which they establish these centres". The Tribunal was advised that the applicants had never experienced complaints from neighbours associated with their centres and that any significant social events (which were limited in number in any event) would be held off-site to ensure there would be no impact on neighbours.
Mr Webb also contended that the building would still retain a residential appearance, even with extensions, there would be no "bunting or unnecessary decoration", and signage would comply with the City's policy.
Ms Chemello indicated that the landscaping along the northern boundary was proposed to be supplemented to enhance the appearance of the centre and, apart from the erection of open screen fencing for child security, there would not be any installation of "bunting or other colourful paraphernalia which might detract from the residential character of this area".
The City did not provide any evidence to suggest there would be safety issues associated with traffic in the street or in terms of the impact on Mr Bowen's access.

Other issues

LPP 3.1.1 requires that the City have regard to available child care services in the area. They should also be within easy walking distance of commercial, recreational or community nodes or education facilities.
The issue of available child care centres in the area, and their location relative to other services, was not addressed by the City in their consideration of the application. However, the applicants contended that there were inadequate child care facilities in the area and they had an extensive waiting list of parents seeking local facilities. Furthermore, there were other commercial facilities in close proximity to the site and the local school was within 500 metres on the same road.
The applicants also highlighted the fact that the application complied with all of the required development standards in DPS 2 including setbacks, required parking, and landscaping provision. The only areas of concern raised by the City related to guidelines in a policy and the objections of some neighbours.

Findings and conclusion

For the reasons summarised below, the Tribunal on balance determines that the application for review be upheld.
The Council is required to exercise its discretion in approving child care centres in all zones and the Tribunal notes the applicants' contention that it would be difficult to find any sites which met all the preferred locational criteria.
Whilst being adjoined by residential properties on three sides, the site also adjoins a major road and was previously approved and used for a non‑residential (commercial) activity albeit at a lesser intensity than the proposed use.
Currajong Road arguably performs at a level beyond that of a local residential access road as it carries traffic to and past the Duncraig School and local centre and intersects with Warwick Road.
The visual appearance of the building would remain essentially residential and was not inappropriate given the intended use and main road location.
The conditions of approval require additional landscaping to minimise the potential for visual impact and to provide a buffer to adjoining residences.
It is accepted that there will be some noise from external play areas as there would be from private outdoor areas of most residential properties from time to time. However, the Tribunal noted the times in which these areas would be used, the location of the play areas predominantly away from residential properties, and that all parties agreed that the proposal complied with the Noise Regulations.
There were no issues of traffic safety raised by experts and the City accepted the findings of the applicants' Traffic Impact Assessment.
Given the precedent of a previous commercial use of the site (both of the building and of the external parking area), its size, and the location on a major road, there should be some acceptance by local residents that a non-residential use could eventuate subject to amenity considerations. The Tribunal does not therefore accept that approving the use would undermine the purpose and intent of the residential zone given a child care centre is a contemplated use for the zone.
In terms of Love and City of Joondalup referenced by the City the Tribunal agrees that there needs to be cogent reasons to depart from the Council's policy on child care centres (LPP 3.1.1). However in that instance, the proposed centre involved the demolition of existing residential dwellings to establish a purpose built centre and external parking area. The centre was for more children (generating more traffic), had the potential to involve overflow parking in the street, and was on a site that had only ever been used for residential purposes. Furthermore, there were no commercial or educational uses in the area.
Of most relevance however, was that, in the instance of Love and City of Joondalup, the Tribunal was not convinced that noise from play areas in the locations proposed adjoining residential properties could be adequately managed through the proposed conditions. This was not the case in the current review before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the amenity would change substantially for neighbours from that of a single house on each of the existing two lots to a purpose build child care centre and external car park on an amalgamated lot.
LPP 3.1.1 is a Policy for guidance only and the Tribunal has previously determined in Love that it is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for determining an application. For the reasons outlined in this decision, it is believed that certain aspects of LPP 3.1.1 should be set aside in this instance accordingly.
Subject to the maintenance and enhancement of landscaping along the northern boundary to overcome concerns with visual impact and to provide a buffer, the proposal is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the area. Signage will need to be subject to a separate application to the Council.

Orders

The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is upheld.
2. The application is approved subject to the following conditions:
(a)The parking bays, driveways and points of ingress and egress to be designed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Off Street Carparking (AS2890). Such areas are to be upgraded, drained, marked and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services prior to the development first being occupied. These works are to be done as part of the building programme.
(b)The proposed crossovers to be constructed to the specification and satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services.
(c)All stormwater must be contained on-site to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services.
(d)The air conditioning systems shall comply with the following to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services:
(i)The air conditioning units are not to be located on the side of the child care centre facing the adjacent residences.
(ii)The air conditioner condenser units with Sound Power Levels (Lw) shall not exceed the following:
(a)Lw = 76dB(A) on either heating or cooling cycle for only one condenser.
(b)Lw = 73dB(A) on either heating or cooling cycle for two condensers.
(e)The fixed play equipment should be plastic and comply with Australian Standards AS 4685-1-6.
(f)Hard surfaces are not to be used in the outdoor play areas. To minimise noise and reduce the potential for injuries, recycled rubber under‑surfacing or other suitable materials are to be used to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services.
(g)The play area for the kindergarten groups shall be positioned as far away as practicable from the boundary fences adjoining residential properties.
(h)The external windows and doors are to be kept closed when music is being played. Playing outdoor music is not permitted.
(i)A maximum of forty seven (47) children and eight (8) staff are permitted on site at any one time.
(j)A separate application is to be made to the City for approval to commence development and building licence prior to the installation of any shade cloths.
(k)A separate application is to be made to the City to commence development and sign licence prior to the installation of any advertising signage.
(l)The operating hours for the child care centre shall be between 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday.
(m)The lodging of landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services. A minimum 1.5 metre substantive landscaping strip is to be provided and maintained adjoining the northern boundary unless otherwise agreed between the City and the applicants.
(n)Any fencing on top of the retaining wall shall be visually permeable as defined by the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002 to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services.
(o)The retaining walls shall be of a clean finish and made good to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services.

I certify that this and the preceding [79] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS J SMITHSON, SESSIONAL MEMBER

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Sharose Investments Pty Ltd & Anor and City of Joondalup [2006] WASAT 271

Most Recent Citation

IENCO and CITY OF MELVILLE [2007] WASAT 56

Cases Citing This Decision

1

IENCO and CITY OF MELVILLE [2007] WASAT 56

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

6

LOVE and CITY OF JOONDALUP [2006] WASAT 69