SPENCE and CITY OF STIRLING - [2010] WASAT 8

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: SPENCE and CITY OF STIRLING [2010] WASAT 8

MEMBER: MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 28 JANUARY 2010

FILE NO/S: DR 363 of 2009

BETWEEN: KEITH SPENCE
KIM SPENCE
Applicants
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Application for approval to commence development - Carport - Garage - Portico - Visually permeable - Acceptable development provisions - Performance criteria - Character of the prevailing streetscape - The need for clear and unobstructed views through to the dwelling

Legislation:

City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.1.6
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 26, s 241(1)(a), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008), cl 1.2, cl 2.1, cl 2.4, cl 2.5, cl 6.2, cl 6.2.3, cl 6.3.2, Appendix 1

Result:

The application for review is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: No appearance
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicants: No appearance
Respondent: No appearance

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

Trickey and City of Subiaco [2005] WASAT 256
Waller and City of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 328

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The application for review was lodged against a decision of the City of Stirling to refuse the construction of a double carport (as defined by the applicants) and portico at No 52 (Lot 163) Bentwood Avenue, Woodlands.
The Tribunal examined the respective arguments of the parties, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislative and policy provisions, the components of the development application and matters relating to previous relevant Tribunal decisions and streetscape.
The Tribunal determined that the proposed structure was not a carport, would be out of character with the prevailing streetscape if it was allowed to be constructed within the front setback area, and would not accord with the relevant performance criteria of the Codes.
The application for review was dismissed.

Introduction

The application for review, dated 22 September 2009, was lodged with the Tribunal by Mr Keith Spence and Mrs Kim Spence (applicants) against a decision of the City of Stirling (respondent or City) on 26 August 2009 to refuse an application for approval to commence development, dated 27 May 2009, for a carport and portico at No 52 (Lot 163) Bentwood Avenue, Woodlands.
The application for review was lodged under the provisions of s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act).
The reasons for refusal were:
1.The proposed development does not meet the performance criteria of design element 6.2.3 Setback of garages and carports of the Residential Design Codes.
2.The proposed development does not meet Clause 3.2.3 Setback of garages and carports of Council Policy N101425 Streetscape (including fencing).

Subject land

The subject land can be described as No 52 (Lot 163) Bentwood Avenue, Woodlands, on Certificate of Title Vol 2121, Folio 710, and is located on the north side of the street. It has a frontage (south) and rear (north) boundary dimension of 18.10 metres and a western and eastern boundary depth of 40.23 metres. There is an existing single storey residence on the site with a double carport at the front.
The immediate locality essentially comprises a single storey housing stock built in or around the 1960s. There is some evidence of change by way of renovations, additions and new residences.

Legislative and policy framework

The subject land is zoned 'Urban' in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and 'Residential R20' in the City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2).
Of relevance are the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes) and, as they have been prepared as a State Planning Policy, the Tribunal is required to have regard to them under the provisions of s 241(1)(a) of the PD Act.
The respondent's Streetscape (including Fencing) Policy (N101425) (Streetscape Policy) is also relevant to this matter.

Respondent's position

The position of the respondent is outlined in its statement of issues, facts and contentions (respondent's SIFC) dated 16 October 2009. The respondent contends:
a)The proposed development is considered to be a 'garage' in accordance with the definition and explanatory guidelines of the Codes, such that:
i)the definition of a 'carport' does not allow the proposed structure to be enclosed on its northeast side or the rear, as neither of these sides abut a boundary or existing dwelling;
ii)the explanatory guidelines specify that carports are to be entirely open at the front, sides and rear. The proposed structure is considered to be enclosed on all sides; and
iii)the definition of a 'carport' only refers to the permissibility of a 'visually permeable' door in the singular sense, and consequently makes no allowance for multiple doors on all sides as this would result in an entirely closed structure which would be contrary to the objectives of the relevant acceptable development provisions, performance criteria and explanatory guidelines of the Codes.
b)The proposed development does not meet the Acceptable Development provisions of cl 6.2.3 (Setback of garages and carports) of the Codes and cl 3.2.3 (Setback of garages and carports) of the Streetscape Policy which requires that the proposed structure be set back 4.5 metres from the front boundary.
c)The proposed development does not meet the Performance Criteria of cl 6.3.2 of the Codes because:
i)the enclosing of the carport on all sides will result in a structure which would not allow clear views between the dwelling and the street and vice versa;
ii)by way of its entirely enclosed nature, and resultant building bulk, the proposed garage will detract from the visual amenity of the streetscape; and
iii)the existing streetscape is open with few structures being located within the 6.0 metre front setback area. The proposed garage will therefore be inconsistent with the existing streetscape.
d)The objectives of the streetscape requirements of the Codes are not met by the proposed garage as it does not contribute to the desired streetscape due to its overall building bulk within the front setback area.
e)By removing the proposed side and rear walls, the structure will conform to the definition of a 'carport' in the Codes. The structure would then comply with the acceptable development provisions of the Codes and the City's Streetscape Policy.

Applicants' position

The position of the applicants is outlined in their statement of issues, facts and contentions (applicants' SIFC), dated 29 October 2009, as prepared by Mr Gavan Reilly, a qualified architect. The applicants broadly contend:
a)The proposed development is considered to be a 'carport' under the acceptable development provisions of the Codes and is in accordance with the definitions and Explanatory Guidelines (Guidelines) because:
i)The definition of a 'carport' allows for doors or gates to be included, as noted in the Guidelines.
The proposed doors/gates are to be 'visually permeable' and only to a height to match the brick piers. The doors/gates are to be open with gaps sized and spaced in accordance with the Codes, with a minimum 50% open space between the slats of the doors/gates, as well as an additional 0.4 to 0.5 metre clear open space above the doors/gates and brick piers.
ii)The proposed doors/gates accord with the definition of 'visually permeable', as contained in the respondent's Streetscape Policy.
iii)The Guidelines (Design Element 6.2 - Carports and Garages) note that a carport with 'open grille doors or gates' is acceptable, while any structure with a solid door is deemed to be a garage. As the proposed development has doors and gates which are open slatted, and 'visually permeable', they cannot be defined as solid, and therefore comply with the definition of a carport.
iv)The proposed carport is to be physically attached to the dwelling via the portico roof and associated screen walls and floor structure. It therefore accords with the definition of a carport in the Guidelines.
v)The position of the carport and the forming of the modestsized courtyard space in front of the dwelling allows for natural light and ventilation. This concept is supported in the Guidelines (Design Element 6.2 - Carports and Garages).
vi)The respondent's reference to enclosing the carport at the rear of the structure with a fence and 'visually permeable' gate should not be in contention as the fence meets the Acceptable Development provision 6.2.5 (Street walls and fences A5). Also, the fence is behind the prescribed front setback area by 3.0 metres and is acceptable under this provision.
vii)The Guidelines clearly state that a carport may incorporate doors for the security of vehicles. By having the doors/gates as 'visually permeable', 'open' or 'see through', the proposed structure meets the definition of a carport in the Guidelines.
viii)The respondent's contention that the proposed structure is considered to be enclosed on all sides is incorrect. The western boundary fence does not form part of the carport and the front 'visually permeable' door and the other 'visually permeable' doors and gates meet the definition of a carport in the Guidelines.
ix)The definition of a carport in the Guidelines refers to doors in the plural. That is, there can be more than one door, but the proposed development does not have 'multiple doors on all sides' as claimed by the respondent.
b)The proposed development meets the required 1.5 metre setback of both the Codes and the Streetscape Policy for a carport. The proposed setback is 2.0 metres from the front boundary.
c)The proposed development meets the Performance Criteria of cl 6.2.3 (Setback of garages and carports) of the Codes because:
i)The open grilletype doors/gates to the front and eastern side of the carport are 'visually permeable' in accordance with the Codes' definition. There is also a continuous open space to all sides above the 'visually permeable' gates/doors and rear fence.
ii)The carport allows clear views between the dwelling and the street and vice versa, in accordance with the definition of 'visually permeable' in the Codes and the definitions of 'open' and 'see through' in the Streetscape Policy. How the respondent can argue otherwise is not understood.
iii)It is incongruous that the respondent would allow a 1.8 metre high front fence with piers to 2.0 metres high and 'visually permeable' panels between the piers to enclose the full front garden setback area, and yet refuse the retention of an open front garden with an associated carport with a 'visually permeable' side door/gate on the grounds that there would be a lack of clear views to and from the dwelling.
iv)The respondent's contention that the proposed carport will have a different building bulk to that of a carport without the side door/gate and rear screen fence and detract from the visual amenity of the streetscape is basically nonsense. The building bulk would be no different if the carport had a visually permeable side door/gate or not.
d)The Streetscape objectives of the Codes and the Streetscape Policy are met as the proposed carport contributes to the desired streetscape by maintaining a similar design, placement, bulk and scale to the existing carport. The existing carport is only being replaced to allow for a better arrangement of the existing piers, and to help provide some security for the applicants' vehicles. Also, the proposed carport has less than 60% of its structure within the prescribed setback area.
e)The respondent's reference to the side 'visually permeable' door/gate and the rear fence, and its 'visually permeable' gate as 'walls', is incorrect.

Planning issues

The principal planning issue is:
Does the proposed development accord with the relevant planning provisions of the statutory and policy documents?

Assessment of proposal

Background

An 'application for approval to commence development', dated 27 May 2009, for a replacement carport and portico roof was lodged with the City on 29 May 2009.
Based on the applicants' written submission, dated 12 November 2009, it appears that discussions took place between Mr Reilly and various Council officers on separate occasions on the basis of the proposal having:
… a smooth passage through the Acceptable Development approvals process.
However, on 22 July 2009, Mr Reilly wrote to the City on the following basis:
… we would like to request Council to exercise its discretion and approve the Carport as meeting the R Codes' Performance Criteria set out in 6.2 Streetscape requirements [Clauses 6.2.1 and 6.2.3] and its Streetscape Policy [including Fencing] N101425. …
On 26 August 2009, the respondent refused the application for the reasons outlined in [7] above.
An application for review, dated 22 September 2009, was lodged with the Tribunal on 23 September 2009.

Legislation and policy provisions

City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2

The Scheme provisions most relevant to this matter include at cl 1.1.6:
1.1.6Relationship of Scheme to Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes)
…
1.1.6.2The R-Codes shall be read in conjunction with the Scheme as if they form part of the Scheme. Except as otherwise provided for by the Scheme, the use or development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the R-Codes shall conform to the provisions of the R-Codes.
1.1.6.3Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 1.1.6.2, where the provisions of the R-Codes are inconsistent with the provisions of the Scheme, the provisions of the Scheme shall prevail.
…
1.3.5Use and Development of Land
1.3.5.1Application for Approval to Commence Development and Council's Approval
(a)Subject to clauses 1.3.5.1 (b) and (c) all use or development of land zoned or reserved under this Scheme requires the prior approval of the Council.
…
(f)The local government in considering an application for planning approval is to have due regard to such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the local government relevant to the use or development the subject of the application: [AMD 514]
(i)the objectives and provisions of the Scheme …;
(ii)the requirements of orderly and proper planning …;
(iii)any approved statement of planning policy of the Commission;
…
(v)any relevant policy or strategy of the Commission and any relevant policy adopted by the Government of the State;
(vi)any Local Planning Policy adopted by the local government … and any other plan or guideline adopted by the local government under the Scheme;
…
(ix)the compatibility of a use or development with its setting;
…
(xiv)the preservation of the amenity of the locality;
(xv)the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land …
…
(xxvii)any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant.

State Planning Policy 3.1, 'Residential Design Codes (Variation 1)'

This Policy was prepared under the provisions of s 26 of the PD Act as a State Planning Policy by the Commission.
The purpose of the Codes is described under cl 1.2:
1.2Purpose of the R-Codes
The purpose of the R-Codes is to provide a comprehensive basis for the control, through local government, of residential development throughout Western Australia.
The matter of planning approval is addressed in cl 2.1 in this way:
2.1Planning Approval
…
2.1.2The planning application should provide details regarding the manner in which the requirements of the codes, being part of the scheme, are satisfied.
Discretionary provisions are outlined in cl 2.4:
2.4Discretionary decisions
In relation to the codes, discretionary decisions shall be decisions made by the council with respect to any aspect of a proposed development that varies from the relevant acceptable development provision or a provision of a local planning policy.
The exercise of discretion is covered in cl 2.5:
2.5Exercise of discretion
…
2.5.2Discretion shall be exercised having regard to the following considerations:
…
(c)the performance criterion or criteria in the context of the coding for the locality that corresponds to the relevant provision;
(d)the explanatory guidelines of the codes that correspond to the relevant provision;
…
(f)a provision of a local planning policy pursuant to this policy …; and
(g)orderly and proper planning.
…
2.5.4A council shall not refuse to grant approval to an application in respect of any matter when the application complies with the relevant acceptable development provision and the relevant provisions of the council's planning scheme or a local planning policy.
2.5.5For the purpose of the codes, a local planning policy will be a relevant consideration in the exercise of discretion where the policy:
(a)is specifically sanctioned by a provision of the codes; and
(b)is not inconsistent with the codes.
The matter of garages and carports is addressed in cl 6.2 (Streetscape requirements) with the 'objective' being:
To contribute towards attractive streetscapes and security for occupants and passersby, ensure adequate privacy and open space for occupants, and provide an attractive setting for buildings.
The relevant performance criteria, under cl 6.2, for garages and carports is contained in subclause 6.2.3:
6.2.3Setback of garages and carports
P3The setting back of carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street or vice versa.
The relevant acceptable development provisions, under cl 6.2 for garages and carports, is also contained in subclause 6.2.3:
6.2.3Setback of garages and carports
A3.1Garages and carports located behind the primary street setback line.
…
A3.4Carports within the street setback area, provided that the width of carport does not exceed 50 per cent of the frontage at the building line and the construction allows an unobstructed view between the dwelling and the street …
A3.5Garages set back 4.5 m from the primary street …
Under the Guidelines, the matter of carports and garages is explained in this way:
For the purpose of the codes, carport means an unenclosed roofed structure designed to accommodate a motor vehicle. Carports are entirely open at the front, sides and rear, except where one side is physically attached to a dwelling or built-up to a side boundary. A carport may incorporate doors to provide security for vehicles. However, these must be designed and constructed so as to allow for clear and unobstructed views through to the dwelling, such as with open grille doors or gates. All other structures for housing vehicles, including opensided carports with solid doors, are deemed to be garages.
…
Consequently it is accepted that, where no feasible alternative exists, the street setback area may be used for carports and unroofed parking spaces. Carports are acceptable, because they allow a clear view between a public street and a private dwelling. Garages are not acceptable, unless they can be accommodated without obstruction to views between street and house at ground level. Such exceptions are likely to be rare.
It is desirable for carports in an existing setback area to be set back sufficiently clear of any window of the dwelling so as not to unduly obstruct light to that window. …

In 'Appendix 1 - Definitions' of the Codes, the following definitions are relevant:
Carport
A roofed structure designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles unenclosed except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling or a property boundary on one side, and being without a door unless that door is visually permeable.
…
Garage
Any roofed structure, other than a carport, designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles and attached to the dwelling.
…
Visually permeable
In reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:
•continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50 mm width occupying not less than one third of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50 mm, occupying at least one half of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or
•a surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

Streetscape (including Fencing) Policy (N101425)

The Council policy applies to all development within a residential zone and states:
This Policy is adopted under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes). Should an application not comply with the Acceptable Development standards of this Policy, it may be assessed under the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. This Policy is also intended to clarify Council's assessment process for applications seeking variations under the relevant Performance Criteria. …
Under the acceptable development provisions, the Policy states:
…
3.2.3Setback of Garages and Carports
Clause 3.2.3 - A3.1 to A3.5, inclusive, of the R-Codes are substituted with the following:
A3.1Setback from the primary street:
i)Garages 4.5m or in accordance with Table 1 of the R-Codes (whichever is lesser) except where the garage adjoins a dwelling and the garage is at least 0.5 metres behind the dwelling alignment;
ii)Carports - 1.5m.
…
A3.4The width* of a garage or carport not exceeding 50% of the lot frontage, where it is located in front or within 1.0 m of the dwelling façade.
(Note: *as measured across the vehicle opening or, where aligned parallel to the street, between the outermost piers or along the garage wall)

The proposed development

The proposed development comprises a new double carport (as defined by the applicants) to replace that existing and a translucent roof to link the new structure to the front entry of the residence. The estimated cost, in May 2009, was $50,000 but the proposal also includes a courtyard positioned between the new structure and the existing residence and a water feature located against the western wall of the courtyard. There is a new portico pavement between the new structure and the front entry to the house.
The proposed new structure (including piers) is 6.5 metres wide (east/west) and 7.0 metres long (north/south), and is set back 2.0 metres from the front (south) boundary and 0.5 metres from the side (west) boundary. Approximately 40% of the structure is positioned behind the 6.0 metre front setback line.
The components of the new structure can be described in this way:
a)the new roof tiles and roof pitch to match that existing;
b)the front (south) street elevation will comprise a 50% 'visually permeable' timber slatted screen tiltadoor;
c)the rear (north) elevation will comprise two solid screen walls at an approximate height of 2.1 metres. There are two centrally located timber slatted gates to link the two walls and they provide access to and from the new courtyard;
d)the east elevation, or side of the new structure, will comprise a 50% 'visually permeable' timber slatted access door at 2.1 metres high (approximately), and similar construction sliding screens; and
e)the west elevation is open, but the adjacent boundary wall (0.5 metres) away will comprise 50% 'visually permeable' timber slatted screening above a 0.75 metre boundary wall to a total height of 2.1 metres (approximately). As this combined arrangement is only 4.0 metres long from the front street boundary, the remainder will comprise part of a brick boundary screen wall approximately 2.1 metres high to replace the existing fibro fencing.

The matter of previous Tribunal decisions

In the applicants' SIFC, a number of previous Tribunal decisions relating to carports were referred to from the City of Subiaco, Town of Vincent and Town of Cambridge.
It appears that the intent of the applicants was to draw the Tribunal's attention to the distinction between the term 'visually permeable' in relation to a garage, and 'visually permeable' in relation to a carport. Also, to draw attention to the use of the 'plural' form in council policies to describe doors, panels or openstyle grilles in relation to a carport.
In the respondent's response to the applicants' SIFC, dated 19 November 2009, it advises:
The City has reviewed those decisions cited and contends that none of the decisions cited have tested whether a carport may be enclosed on all sides, even where that enclosure, although indicated as a 'door', [on the proposed structure] will rarely function as such. Although on its own the front and side 'doors' are visually permeable (note the rear wall is solid and visually impermeable) the cumulative effect of enclosing it on all sides is that, due to the cumulative bulk of the 'doors' and rear wall, the structure will in reality have the effect of being visually impermeable.
The Tribunal would agree with the respondent that although none of the cases cited by the applicants replicate the proposed development, each case that comes before the Tribunal still needs to be treated on its merits, and some of the considerations in those cases are relevant here. Part of the consideration in this matter is whether the proposed development would be out of character with the prevailing streetscape, as was determined with the proposals in Waller and City of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 328 and Trickey and City of Subiaco [2005] WASAT 256.

The matter of streetscape

The position of the applicants is that the proposed development is very similar in scale, placement, streetscape presence and design to that of the existing carport, with the main difference being the 'visually permeable' gates which have been provided to achieve a level of security for the vehicles.
The applicants also argue that the established native front garden with its open aspect to the street and unobstructed views through to the dwelling are retained. Also, that there are other nearby structures bulkier than the proposed development.
The position of the respondent is that the proposed development does not contribute to the desired streetscape due to its overall building bulk within the front setback area. Also, whereas the existing carport is entirely opensided, the proposed structure is entirely enclosed and it would be the only enclosed structure along the street to be so substantially located within the front setback area.
The Tribunal was assisted in the matter of streetscape by way of photographic material provided by the applicants and the respondent as part of its Section 24 Bundle. Also, an onsite visit by Senior Sessional Member Graham on 20 November 2009 was useful in noting the open nature of the existing Bentwood Avenue streetscape.

Conclusions

The application for review was lodged against a decision of the City to refuse the construction of a double carport (as defined by the applicants) and a portico on the subject land.
In undertaking this review, the Tribunal examined the respective arguments of the parties, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislative and policy provisions, the components of the development application and the matters of previous relevant Tribunal decisions and streetscape.
An important point in this matter is that the proposed structure does provide an innovative design solution for the needs of the applicants in terms of improved convenience and motor vehicle security, as opposed to the existing narrow double carport. Also, the design solution has attempted to work within the relevant provisions of the Codes and the Streetscape Policy.
However, of particular relevance is the definition of a carport in the Codes, as outlined at [31]. The definition provides for the accommodation of one or more vehicles in an 'unenclosed' roofed structure and without a door (singular), unless that door is 'visually permeable'.
Based on the definition at [31], the proposed structure could not be considered a carport.
The applicants argue, though, that under the Guidelines a carport can incorporate doors (plural) as described at [30] above. This definition is very much central to their argument that the proposed structure is in fact a carport.
However, on close examination of the Guidelines at [30], the definition also states that a carport is an unenclosed roofed structure designed to accommodate a motor vehicle (singular). This loose definition is at variance with that in Appendix 1 of the Codes, which more relevantly describes a carport as '… designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles …'
Again, although the Guidelines use the term 'doors' (plural), this is again at variance with the definition of a carport in Appendix 1 of the Codes, which uses the term 'door' (singular).
It is the Tribunal's view that the use of the term 'doors' in the Guidelines is done so in the overall context of a person(s) obtaining clear and unobstructed views through to the dwelling. That is to say, that when viewing the residence directly from the street through the carport, that this can be through an open grille, doors (plural) or gates (plural).
Although in the majority of cases only a single grille, door or gate (including automatic) would be used as described in Appendix 1 of the Codes, it is certainly possible that doors (plural) or gates (plural) could be used to access a carport.
However, in the view of the Tribunal, the use of the term 'doors' or 'gates' does not anticipate them being used to achieve an enclosed structure, such as that proposed by the applicants in this case.
Based on the Guidelines, the proposed structure would fall within the definition of 'All other structures … are deemed to be garages'.
An important point to be made is that the proposed structure is either contemplated to be locked, or could be locked, for security purposes and would represent a totally enclosed space (with the exception of the 0.4m to 0.5m space above the 'visually permeable' gates and doors and the underside of the roof). A carport is specifically intended to be 'unenclosed'.
In terms of the performance criteria of the Codes as defined at [28], it would be the case that the views of a person(s) within the dining room of the residence to the street and vice versa would be obstructed by some 4.0 metres to 4.5 metres of solid wall (forming part of the north elevation of the proposed structure).
Although the proposed wall is behind the front setback line, and so is some 40% of the proposed structure, it still does not assist the applicants when assessing the development under the relevant performance criteria.
On the matter of streetscape, the proposed structure, because of its more bulky design to that existing and being predominantly located within the front setback area, would detract to a degree from the current openness of the street.
Again, although the Tribunal would acknowledge the applicants' argument that the existing front garden is to be retained in the proposal, this would also be the case if a fully enclosed garage was to replace the existing carport footprint. Such a structure would not be allowed under the setback provisions of the Codes and the Streetscape Policy, and neither should the proposed structure.

Order

The application for review is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [61] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

SPENCE and CITY OF STIRLING [2010] WASAT 8

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

4

Waller and City of Subiaco [2006] WASAT 328

TRICKEY and CITY OF SUBIACO [2005] WASAT 256