STEWART and TOWN OF COTTESLOE
[2015] WASAT 56
•25 MAY 2015
STEWART and TOWN OF COTTESLOE [2015] WASAT 56
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 56 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:32/2015 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 25/05/15 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review allowed Condition 6(d) (requiring the deletion of the proposed 'roof terrace') deleted and substituted with agreed conditions pertaining to the 'roof garden' | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RUSSELL STEWART TOWN OF COTTESLOE |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development Application 'Roof garden' Building height Minor projection Building bulk Impact on adjoining properties and streetscape Noise impacts Privacy impacts Impacts on views |
Legislation: | Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013), Appendix 1 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31(1) Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 1.6, cl 4.2, cl 4.2.1, cl 5.3.3, cl 5.5, cl 5.7, cl 5.7.2(b), cl 10.2, cl 10.2.1, cl 10.2.2, Sch 1 Sch 13 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | On the application heard before Senior Sessional Member Patric De Villiers on 25 May 2015, it is ordered that:,1. The application for review is allowed.,2. Condition 6(d) (requiring the deletion of the proposed 'roof terrace') is deleted and substituted with the following condition:,6(d)(i) The design and development of the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be in accordance with the approved plans and not changed without further planning or building applications and approvals as required.,(ii) All air conditioning and other equipment to the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be:,(a) selected, designed, positioned and screened to be visually concealed and not unattractive or unduly affecting views; and,(b) suitably housed or treated so that sound levels do not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA),,with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.,(iii) The swimming pool pump and filter equipment associated with the roof garden shall be selected, designed, positioned and suitably housed or treated so that environmental nuisance due to noise and vibration does not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.,(iv) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool filtration system shall be contained within the property and disposed of into adequate onsite soakwells with a minimum capacity of 763 litres and located a minimum of 1.8 metres away from any building or boundary (unless contained internally) and installed to the satisfaction of the Principal Building Surveyor and Principal Environmental Health Officer.,(v) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool shall not be disposed of into the Town of Cottesloe's street drainage system or the Water Corporation's sewer. |
Summary | The subject of this review was a condition required the deletion of a proposed 'roof garden' attached to a planning consent issued by the Town of Cottesloe for single dwelling located at 32 Avonmore Terrace, Cottesloe on 30 March 2015.,The substantive concerns of the respondent were that the lift shaft providing access to the 'roof garden' infringed the limit of the wall height provisions of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3 and the potential amenity impacts of the 'roof garden' on adjoining properties.,The two issues in regard to the review were determined by the Tribunal as:,1. Whether the respondent, or the Tribunal on review, had discretion to consider the proposed 'roof garden.,2. If so, whether that discretion should be exercised.,In regard to the former, the Tribunal determined that the lift shaft constituted a minor projection under the relevant planning provisions and that, on this basis, the Tribunal had discretion to consider such a variation to building height.,In regard to the latter, the Tribunal found that the location of the lift protrusion would ameliorate its visual impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape.,In addition, given that the adjoining lots are being developed by the same applicant, the lack of objections when the proposed residence was initially advertised, and the separation between the 'roof garden' and the existing residence at No 20 Deane Street, the Tribunal found that any noise impacts could generally be regarded as falling within the ambit of acceptable residential amenity standards.,Finally, in regard to potential impacts on views, the Tribunal found that no convincing evidence was provided that the lift shaft would infringe the relevant provisions of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3.,For these reasons, the Tribunal determined that the condition requiring the deletion of the 'roof garden' should be deleted. However, a number of conditions attaching to the 'roof garden' agreed between the parties were substituted for the original condition. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : STEWART and TOWN OF COTTESLOE [2015] WASAT 56 MEMBER : MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : DR 32 of 2015 BETWEEN : RUSSELL STEWART
- Applicant
AND
TOWN OF COTTESLOE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development Application 'Roof garden' Building height Minor projection Building bulk Impact on adjoining properties and streetscape Noise impacts Privacy impacts Impacts on views
Legislation:
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013), Appendix 1
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31(1)
Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 1.6, cl 4.2, cl 4.2.1, cl 5.3.3, cl 5.5, cl 5.7, cl 5.7.2(b), cl 10.2, cl 10.2.1, cl 10.2.2, Sch 1 Sch 13
Result:
Application for review allowed
Condition 6(d) (requiring the deletion of the proposed 'roof terrace') deleted and substituted with agreed conditions pertaining to the 'roof garden'
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The subject of this review was a condition required the deletion of a proposed 'roof garden' attached to a planning consent issued by the Town of Cottesloe for single dwelling located at 32 Avonmore Terrace, Cottesloe on 30 March 2015.
The substantive concerns of the respondent were that the lift shaft providing access to the 'roof garden' infringed the limit of the wall height provisions of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3 and the potential amenity impacts of the 'roof garden' on adjoining properties.
The two issues in regard to the review were determined by the Tribunal as:
1. Whether the respondent, or the Tribunal on review, had discretion to consider the proposed 'roof garden.
2. If so, whether that discretion should be exercised.
In regard to the former, the Tribunal determined that the lift shaft constituted a minor projection under the relevant planning provisions and that, on this basis, the Tribunal had discretion to consider such a variation to building height.
In regard to the latter, the Tribunal found that the location of the lift protrusion would ameliorate its visual impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape.
In addition, given that the adjoining lots are being developed by the same applicant, the lack of objections when the proposed residence was initially advertised, and the separation between the 'roof garden' and the existing residence at No 20 Deane Street, the Tribunal found that any noise impacts could generally be regarded as falling within the ambit of acceptable residential amenity standards.
Finally, in regard to potential impacts on views, the Tribunal found that no convincing evidence was provided that the lift shaft would infringe the relevant provisions of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3.
For these reasons, the Tribunal determined that the condition requiring the deletion of the 'roof garden' should be deleted. However, a number of conditions attaching to the 'roof garden' agreed between the parties were substituted for the original condition.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M Swift
Respondent : Mr A Jackson (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Michael Swift & Associates (Town Planners)
Respondent : Town of Cottesloe
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 On 14 January 2015, the Tribunal received an application for review in relation to a number of conditions attached to the planning consent issued by the Town of Cottesloe (respondent) on 22 December 2014 for a single dwelling located at No 32 Avonmore Terrace, Cottesloe (subject site).
2 Subsequent to that application, all matters with the exception of condition 6(d) (the 'roof garden') were resolved between the parties following an invitation to the respondent to reconsider its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
3 Therefore, the only matter remaining in dispute and the subject of this review is condition 6(d) attached to the (revised) planning consent issued by the respondent on 30 March 2015, which reads as follows:
The entire 'roof garden' level being deleted from the design, including the lift protrusion.
Site and locality
4 The subject site is bounded by Avonmore Terrace to the west, Deane Street to the south and a right of way - Fig Tree Lane - to the north. The residence the subject of this review comprises one of six proposed dwellings being developed by a single developer on a recently approved subdivision. The land for the six dwellings, comprising approximately 2028m2, was previously occupied by a large single residence, set well back from Avonmore Terrace on the southern portion of the land, and a tennis court on the northern portion of the land.
5 The approved dwelling the subject of this review occupies a site of 30.26 metres by 9.55 metres (that is, 288.98m2) facing Avonmore Terrace, with newly subdivided lots on either side. It contains four bedrooms, WIR, one shared bathroom, WC, two ensuites, two family rooms, dining room/kitchen, laundry, lift, front/side balconies, undercroft garage, and a roof garden with swimming pool.
6 The area of Cottesloe south of Pearse Street is coded R30 under the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3 or Scheme) rather than the R20 coding which, other than along Marine Parade, generally characterises the area north of Pearse Street. Avonmore Terrace includes a range of lot sizes, with many blocks having right of ways which run east-west. The street has a rather mixed character in terms of residential development, and includes many large single houses, unit developments and a number of blocks of flats.
The proposed 'roof garden'
7 The report of the Council officer, provided to the respondent at its meeting of 17 November 2014, described relevant aspects of the development as follows:
The proposed dwelling has been designed to comply with the 7m maximum building height permitted under TPS 3 …
The highest section of solid balustrading located on the north-western side of the proposed central roof garden is 6.73m (TOW 28.83) above an interpolated NGL (RL 22.1), while the heights of the floor level of the proposed roof garden … do not exceed 5.7m above NGL. An L-shaped shade canopy is proposed above a portion of the roof garden to a maximum height of 6.9m (RL 29.9), which complies with LPS 3 in terms of permitted building heights.
A 2m sq lift shaft is proposed to project 2.1m (RL 29.9) above the proposed roof garden level, providing access to that level and resulting in an overall height of approximately 7.65m above NGL. Although this protrusion exceeds the 7m building height limit, it will be set back 7.82m and 15.26m from the front and rear of the dwelling respectively.
8 The L-shaped shade canopy to the 'roof garden' forming a component of the original plans was subsequently deleted in the revised plans submitted to Council on 20 November 2014 and does not therefore form part of the plans approved on 30 March 2015.
Planning framework
9 The property is zoned R30 under LPS 3.
10 The aims of the Scheme are set out in cl 1.6 and include the following:
…
(e) provide opportunities for housing choice and variety in localities which have a strong sense of community identity and high levels of amenity;
(f) sustain the amenity, character and streetscape quality of the Scheme area;
…
(q) recognise the principle of the maintenance and enhancement of important views to and from public places.
11 The objectives of the Residential zone are established in cl 4.2.1 of LPS 3, and include:
(a) encourage residential development only which is compatible with the scale and amenity of the locality;
(b) provide the opportunity for a variety and choice in housing in specified residential areas[.]
12 While cl 5.5 of LPS 3 provides powers to the respondent to consider variations to site and development standards and requirements, this clause does not apply to residential development.
13 Schedule 13 of LPS 3, which deals with variations to site and development standards and requirements, provides the following which applies to residential development:
As set out in clause 5.5.1, the discretion provided in clause 5.5.1 does not apply to any residential development. To avoid any uncertainty, if the discretion provided in clause 5.5.1 is applied to any form of residential development, then subject to clause 5.3, the discretion may only be exercised to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Residential Design Codes dealing with the type of development standard or requirement sought to be varied.
14 However, in regard to building height, cl 5.3.3 of LPS 3 states:
Despite anything contained in the Residential Design Codes to the contrary, the building height for Residential Development shall comply with the provisions of clause 5.7.
15 Clause 5.7 of LPS 3 deals with building height and, at cl 5.7.2(b), requires that all buildings shall comply with each of the following maximum heights, as applicable to the building, which, in the case of two storey buildings, is as follows:
i) Building Height - 8.5 metres maximum height.
ii) Wall Height (to level of roof) - 6.0 metres maximum height.
iii) Wall Height (to top of a parapet) - 7.0 metres maximum height.
16 Schedule 1 of LPS 3 defines 'Building Height' as follows:
'building height' means the maximum vertical distance between any point of natural ground level and the uppermost part of the building directly above that point (roof ridge, parapet, or wall), excluding minor projections above that point.
17 Clause 10.2 of LPS 3 sets out matters to be considered by local government in considering an application for planning approval, and includes at cl 10.2.1:
…
(h) the compatibility of a use or development with its setting;
(i) the preservation of the amenity of the locality[.]
18 Finally, cl 10.2.2 of the Scheme requires that, in addition to the matters referred to in cl 10.2.1, the local government 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. These provisions include:
…
(g) 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;
…
(q) the suitability, durability, quality and aesthetic appeal of building materials, finishes and colours in relation to the development and locality;
(r) the effect of the proposal on the maintenance and enhancement of important views to and from public places, including views to the public domain and views of the coastal and inland landscapes, and the need to control the position, height, setback and design of the proposal in the interest of important views to and from public places[.]
The issues
19 The issues in regard to the current review are as follows:
1) Whether the respondent, or the Tribunal on review, has discretion to consider the proposed 'roof garden'.
2) If so, whether that discretion should be exercised.
Whether the respondent, or the Tribunal on review, has discretion to consider the proposed 'roof garden'
20 The respondent submitted that the lift shaft would project 2.1 metres above the proposed 'roof garden' level and would result in an overall height of approximately 7.6 metres above NGL. This was not challenged by the applicant. This exceeds the building height provisions established by cl 5.7.2(b) of LPS 3.
21 The issue then arising is whether the respondent, or the Tribunal on review, has discretion to consider such a variation to building height.
22 The general discretion provided by cl 5.5 of LPS 3 to consider variations to site and development standards and requirements does not apply to residential development. Clause 5.3.3 of LPS 3 explicitly requires that the building height for residential development shall comply with the provisions of cl 5.7. Clause 5.7 of LPS 3 provides no discretion to vary the requirements of cl 5.7.2(b).
23 However, while the Scheme provisions provide no explicit discretion, the definition of 'building height' established in Sch 1 specifically excludes minor projections. The question then arising is whether the lift shaft can be regarded as a minor projection.
24 A 'minor projection' is defined in the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013) (Codes) as follows:
In relation to the height of a building: a chimney, vent pipe, aerial or other appurtenance of like scale[.]
25 The report dealing with this issue, prepared by the Senior Planning Officer of the respondent and presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 November 2014, argued:
Although this protrusion exceeds the 7m building height limit, it will be set back 7.82m and 15.26m from the front and rear of the dwelling respectively, which will ameliorate visual impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape. On this basis the lift shaft may be treated as a minor projection above the roof level and exempt from the height limit under LPS 3.
- The Tribunal is prepared to accept the view that the lift shaft constitutes a minor projection for the following reason: while the footprint of the lift shaft is clearly larger than that of a typical chimney, the intrusion above the 7 metre height limit is only 600 millimetres as opposed to a chimney, which would generally project 1.2 metres to 1.5 metres above a roofline which could potentially go to 8.5 metres above natural ground level under the provisions of cl 5.7.2(b) of LPS 3. In this context, the proposed lift shaft can be regarded as a minor projection.
26 On this basis, the Tribunal determined that, on review, it has discretion to consider such a variation to building height.
Whether discretion should be exercised
27 In its written submission, the respondent raised the following 'significant implications' with the proposed 'roof garden':
i) The proposed 'roof garden' and lift protrusion would result in additional building bulk, would be detrimental to the locality and would create an unacceptable loss of amenity to nearby residents by way of activity, noise and paraphernalia at the roof level, which includes a swimming pool and alfresco BBQ area.
ii) The proposed 'roof garden' and lift protrusion would sit below the neighbouring eastern dwelling at No 20 Deane Street, whereby noise from this activity area would be likely to project upwards and outwards, resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity to that property, as well as potentially impacting on other surrounding properties.
iii) The inclusion of a dedicated swimming pool and alfresco BBQ facilities in the 'roof garden' area demonstrates an intended high degree of use and activity as a primary recreational and entertaining space, which would be likely to lead to excessive and prolonged noise impacting on the amenity of the locality, contrary to the ordinary standards of residential quietude.
iv) Associated with the proposed 'roof garden' is a 2.1 metre high lift shaft which, as a not insubstantial structure occupying 3.6m2, would create additional bulk as a significant projection and would result in an overall building height of 7.6 metres above the nominated natural ground level. This would exacerbate the building's bulk, especially when viewed from the higher neighbouring eastern dwelling, as well as from second storey vantage points from other dwellings opposite or nearby. Together with the projecting undercroft and two storeys above, the 'roof garden' level would result in a dwelling exhibiting the appearance of a four-level building of considerable bulk and scale. This relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land is considered unsatisfactory.
v) As part of Council's deliberations, the proposed dwelling and others were presented to the respondent's Design Advisory Panel and Elected Members on 10 December 2014. The Panel noted the site conditions and contemporary designs, whilst acknowledging Council's underlying concerns in relation to overdevelopment, bulk and scale, built form, streetscape and amenity. The Panel's suggestions as to how to improve the designs included:
a) Articulation of built form to ameliorate bulk and scale.
b) Provision of a sense of relief, separation or space between dwellings by design treatments such as setbacks to common boundaries and balconies, and the position and style of any permitted screens.
c) Engagement with the street by open aspect, visually permeable designs, rather than solid walled front yards and heavily screened buildings.
d) Attention to detail of quality materials, finishes and colours.
Although the designs of the dwelling and others have undergone some minor revisions, they have not really embraced this advice to introduce dramatically meaningful improvements. Indeed, the applicant has negotiated transferring the 1.2 metre wide side setback, imposed as a condition on the subject dwelling, to the design of the southern adjacent future dwelling so as not to lose floor space from the proposal. This has the effect of maximising building bulk and minimising ground level open space.
vii) As an extension of this visibility and activity, the principle of privacy would also be compromised, whereby the eastern adjacent dwelling would be exposed to view from the 'roof garden' area, contrary to the normal expectation of what may exist and be visible; that is, simply a roof.
viii) It is emphasised that the proposed 'roof garden' area was initially claimed towards the provision of private open space required under the Codes , as the design of the dwelling exploited the lower levels to generate internal floor space or covered/partially enclosed outdoor floor space in lieu of private open space, which is normally provided at ground level outdoors and as open balcony space, is to generate additional building bulk by way of increased floor space limiting setbacks, increasing façade mass and reduced yard space and landscaping. Coupled with the fact that parking is underground in order to generate floor space, it can be seen that, in this sense, such a design is greedy and has greater impact than would otherwise be anticipated or is considered reasonable in terms of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of amenity. In this respect, it is noted that neither the adjacent proposed dwellings and [nor?] Nos 34 and 34A Avonmore Terrace seeks to fall short on conventional private open space in such a way as to be detrimental.
28 In regard to the building bulk of the lift protrusion, the Tribunal is willing to accept the assessment of the Senior Planning Officer of the respondent that, given that 'it will be set back 7.82 [metres] and 15.26 [metres] from the front and rear of the dwelling respectively', its location 'will ameliorate visual impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape'.
29 In regard to concerns over the potential impact of the proposed 'roof garden' on the existing residence at No 20 Deane Street associated with noise and privacy, the Tribunal would note that the distance from the proposed 'roof garden' to the western boundary of that dwelling is over 21 metres, and an additional dwelling is to be developed between the two properties. Given this level of separation, any potential impacts would not breach the visual privacy requirements of the Codes. In regard to potential noise impacts, swimming pool areas irrespective of their location can often generate impacts on neighbouring buildings. However, as no objections were received when the proposed residence was initially advertised, and given the separation between the 'roof garden' and the existing residence at No 20 Deane Street, any such impacts can generally be regarded as falling within the ambit of acceptable residential amenity standards.
30 It should be noted that while the submission of the respondent noted 'negative experiences with roof gardens/terraces' and the applicant submitted that the respondent 'has approved this type of facility previously', no substantive evidence was provided by either party in regard to precedent.
31 In regard to the impact on views, cl 10.2.2 of LPS 3 is explicit in regard to:
the maintenance and enhancement of important views to and from public places, including views to the public domain and views of the coastal and inland landscapes, and the need to control the position, height, setback and design of the proposal in the interest of important views to and from public places.
(Emphasis added)
- No convincing evidence was provided that the lift shaft would infringe these provisions.
32 As to the concerns over the inadequate response by the applicant to either the views of the Design Advisory Panel or the provision of open space, these are matters that go to the question of whether the respondent should have approved the development in the first place. That matter is decided and the Tribunal does not intend to reopen that question.
33 Finally, in its submission, the respondent included the following statement:
This scheme and the detailed provisions therein are directly relevant to this review, as discussed below. In this respect the Scheme avoids intentionally providing for roof gardens/terraces; that is, they are not encouraged and the thrust of the Scheme is not supportive of them.
34 There are, however, no explicit provisions in LPS 3 which support the interpretation that the Scheme is 'not supportive' of roof gardens/terraces.
Conclusion
35 The proposed residence the subject of this review was approved by the respondent as one of a number of proposed dwellings located in a recently approved subdivision which involved the demolition of an existing residence and the provision of six new lots on the corner of Avonmore Terrace and Deane Street in Cottesloe.
36 In approving the development, the respondent attached a condition requiring the deletion of the proposed 'roof terrace'. This was the matter under review.
37 In its submission, the respondent raised concerns over the height of a lift shaft which did not comply with the Scheme provisions covering height and the potential impacts of the 'roof garden' on residences in the locality.
38 The Tribunal found that there was discretion under the relevant planning provisions to consider the proposal and, given the particular circumstances of the proposal, the potential impacts were not unreasonable.
39 For these reasons, the Tribunal determined that the condition should be deleted. However, the parties agreed the following set of conditions attaching to the 'roof garden':
1) The design and development of the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be in accordance with the approved plans and not changed without further planning or building applications and approvals as required.
2) All air-conditioning and other equipment to the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be:
i) selected, designed, positioned and screened to be visually concealed and not unattractive or unduly affecting views; and
ii) suitably housed or treated so that sound levels do not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA),
with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.
3) The swimming pool pump and filter equipment associated with the 'roof garden' shall be selected, designed, positioned and suitably housed or treated so that environmental nuisance due to noise and vibration does not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.
4) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool filtration system shall be contained within the property and disposed of into adequate onsite soakwells with a minimum capacity of 763 litres and located a minimum of 1.8 metres away from any building or boundary (unless contained internally) and installed to the satisfaction of the Principal Building Surveyor and Principal Environmental Health Officer.
5) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool shall not be disposed of into the Town of Cottesloe's street drainage system or the Water Corporation's sewer.
- These conditions were duly substituted for the original condition 6(d).
Orders
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. Condition 6(d) (requiring the deletion of the proposed 'roof terrace') is deleted and substituted with the following condition:
6(d)(i) The design and development of the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be in accordance with the approved plans and not changed without further planning or building applications and approvals as required.
(ii) All air-conditioning and other equipment to the 'roof garden' level of the dwelling shall be:
a) selected, designed, positioned and screened to be visually concealed and not unattractive or unduly affecting views; and
b) suitably housed or treated so that sound levels do not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA),
with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.
(iii) The swimming pool pump and filter equipment associated with the roof garden shall be selected, designed, positioned and suitably housed or treated so that environmental nuisance due to noise and vibration does not exceed the limits specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), with the details being shown in the building permit plans submitted and to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.
(iv) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool filtration system shall be contained within the property and disposed of into adequate onsite soakwells with a minimum capacity of 763 litres and located a minimum of 1.8 metres away from any building or boundary (unless contained internally) and installed to the satisfaction of the Principal Building Surveyor and Principal Environmental Health Officer.
(v) Wastewater or backwash water from the swimming pool shall not be disposed of into the Town of Cottesloe's street drainage system or the Water Corporation's sewer.
I certify that this and the preceding [39] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR P DE VILLIERS, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
0
5