STILMARK HOLDINGS PTY LTD and CITY OF WANNEROO

[2022] WASAT 60

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION:   STILMARK HOLDINGS PTY LTD and CITY OF WANNEROO [2022] WASAT 60

MEMBER:   MR R POVEY, MEMBER

HEARD:   11,12 AND 13 MAY 2022

DELIVERED          :   13 JULY 2022

FILE NO/S:   DR 173 of 2021

BETWEEN:   STILMARK HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

CITY OF WANNEROO

Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development - Telecommunications tower - Fixed wireless transmission facility - 20 metre monopole - Need - Visual impact - Conditions

Legislation:

City of Wanaroo Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.6, cl 3.14.2, cl 3.14.3, Sch 1
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), reg 8, Sch 2, cl 1, cl 67(2), cl 74(1), cl 74(2), cl 75(2)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241(1)(a), s 252(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 18, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 31(1), s 32(1), s 32(2)(a), a 32(2)(b)
Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1977

Result:

Application allowed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr M A Etherington
Respondent	:	Mr J Algeri (Planning Advocate)

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Clayton Utz
Respondent	:	Altus Planning (acting as Agent)

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

NBN Co-Limited and City of Albany [2016] WASAT 61

Nield and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2021] WASAT 94

Optus Mobile Pty Ltd and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 238

Optus Mobile Pty Ltd and City of Stirling [2019] WASAT 31

Telstra Corporation Limited and Shire of Murray [2009] WASAT 117

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1. Stilmark Holdings Pty Ltd (applicant) seeks review by the Tribunal, under s 252 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), of the decision made by the City of Wanneroo (respondent or City) to refuse to grant development approval for 'Telecommunications Infrastructure' at Lot 1450 (No 9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos (subject site).  The telecommunications infrastructure (proposed development) comprises a 20 metre high monopole with six panel antennas mounted at the uppermost level.  It also includes associated ground level equipment contained in a metal cabinet which is to be screened with landscaping and located in the south-west corner of the subject site.

2. In these reasons, firstly I describe the proposed development, the applicable planning framework, the procedural history and public consultation.  Next, I will consider the question of need, before describing the subject site and its locality and character.  I will then set out the four principal issues for determination in these proceedings and address each of the issues in turn.

3. The Tribunal's review jurisdiction in planning matters is usefully set out in Nield and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2021] WASAT 94 at [27] to [30], and, for completeness, is set out below:

   27 By reason of s 17 of the [State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)] SAT Act, the application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. In exercising the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is to deal with a matter in accordance with the SAT Act and the PD Act (referred to as the 'enabling Act' for the purposes of the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, which may modify the operation of the SAT Act in relation to the matter).[1] 

   28 The Tribunal is to review the respondent's decision by way of a hearing de novo for the purposes of producing the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the information and evidence before it.[2]

   29 The Tribunal is not bound to apply the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), the rules of evidence, or any practices and procedures of courts of record[3] but is bound by the rules of natural justice unless authorised expressly or by implication to depart from those rules by the SAT Act or the enabling Act.[4] 

   30 The Tribunal is not limited to the material before [the respondent] as the original decision-maker but may consider new material.[5]  The Tribunal is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities.[6] Section 29(3) of the SAT Act confers specific power on the Tribunal to make any order that it considers appropriate, including an order to set aside the original decision, affirm that decision or vary that decision.

   [1] Section 18, SAT Act

   [2] Section 27, SAT Act.

   [3] Section 32(2)(a), SAT Act.

   [4] Section 32(1), SAT Act.

   [5] Section 27(1), SAT Act.

   [6] Section 32(2)(b), SAT Act.

4. For the reasons that follow, I have determined 'the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review', under s 27(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) in the exercise of planning discretion, is that the proposed development, the subject of this review, should be approved with the imposition of appropriate conditions.  The Tribunal will set aside the City's decision and substitute a new decision.

The proposed development

1. The proposed development involves:[7]

   [7] Exhibit 2, Respondent's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions (SIFC) paras 16 and 18.

   a)one monopole with a total height of 20 metres, located in the south-west corner of the subject site.  The base of the monopole is set back 1.9 metres from the eastern boundary and 8 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site.  The monopole is to be painted a non­competing colour with the surrounding area (N53 blue-grey);

   b)six panel antennas mounted on a circular head frame at no higher than the top of the monopole;

   c)one equipment cabinet, approximately 2 metres high, set back 1.2 metres from the eastern boundary and 10 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site;

   d)a 1 metre wide panel (for metering and isolation), approximately 1.5 metres high, located next to the monopole;

   e)six removable bollards located on the western side of the monopole and equipment cabinet to provide protection from vehicles using the immediately adjacent vehicle accessway; and

   f)landscaping to be established, primarily to the east of the monopole and equipment cabinet.

Planning framework

1. As the proposed development involves a freestanding monopole, associated antennas and equipment it cannot be considered as low­impact and as such, pursuant to the Telecommunications (Low­impact Facilities) Determination 1997, is not exempt from State and local planning laws and therefore the provisions of the PD Act and the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2) are applicable.

2. The relevant planning framework, which I have considered in determining the application, is summarised in Annexure A, and includes: 

   •Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)

   •DPS 2 which incorporates the deemed provisions by virtue of reg 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (Deemed Provisions).[8] 

   •State Planning Policy 5.2 - Telecommunications Instructure (SPP 5.2).

   •Local Planning Policy 2.5 - Telecommunications Instructure (LPP 2.5).

   •North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No 73 (NALSP 73).

   •Local Development Plan No 15 - North Alkimos (LDP 15-NA).

   •Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia (VLP Manual).

Evidence

[8] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC paras 28-49; Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, paras 47-48 and Attachment BD4.

1. The final hearing (hearing) was conducted on 11, 12 and 13 May 2022.   

2. The Tribunal received a witness statement from Mr James Archibald Macarthur Lamb, an employee of the applicant, who is the Executive Director of Infrastructure.[9]  Mr Lamb's evidence is not disputed by the respondent and he was not required to attend the hearing.

Expert evidence

[9] Exhibit 17, Witness Statement of James Lamb.

1. At the hearing I heard expert evidence from visual experts, Mr Mark Jumeaux, a senior landscape and conservation development officer of the City, called on behalf of the respondent, and Mr David Bruce Kaesehagen, a consultant landscape ecologist, called on behalf of the applicant.  I also heard expert town planning evidence from Mr Nick Bertone a town planner of the City, called on behalf of the respondent and Mr Mark William Baade and Mr Ben Doyle, both consultant town planners, called on behalf of the applicant.  At the commencement of the hearing, I together with the representatives of the parties and these experts, had the benefit of a view of the subject site and the immediate and wider surrounds.[10] 

   [10] Exhibit 22, Alkimos site view map. 

2. In addition to the town planning and visual assessment experts mentioned above, the Tribunal received expert witness statements from four other expert witnesses called on behalf of the applicant.  These experts, detailed below, were not required for cross-examination and their evidence is not disputed by the respondent. 

   •Mr Brian Trevor Menzies, a qualified radio frequency engineer employed by the applicant;[11] 

   •Mr Howard Clifford Game, a qualified town planner, employed by Optus Mobile Pty Ltd;[12]

   •Mr Patrick David Jordan, a landscape architect and director of Ecoscape Pty Ltd;[13] and  

   •Ms Natasha Kim Whitfield, who holds qualifications in cartography and is a consultant Senior GIS analyst employed by Ecoscape Australia Pty Ltd.[14]  

   [11] Exhibit 18, Witness Statement of Brian Menzies.

   [12] Exhibit 14, Witness Statement of Howard Game.

   [13] Exhibit 15, Witness Statement of Patrick Jordan.

   [14] Exhibit 19, Witness Statement of Natasha Whitfield.

3. The town planning experts, Mr Doyle, Mr Baade and Mr Bertone, and visual assessment experts, Mr Kaesehagen and Mr Jumeaux, also filed individual witness statements.  The visual assessment experts were ordered by the Tribunal to confer and filed a joint witness statement on 6 May 2022, prior to the hearing.

4. For the assessment of visual impact of the proposed development, the respondent relies upon the expert evidence of Mr Jumeaux, a qualified landscape architect and horticulturalist with 30 year's experience in landscape and urban design.  However, Mr Jumeaux's witness statement does not detail his experience undertaking visual impact assessments.  In oral evidence, Mr Jumeaux concedes he has no previous experience.[15]  Also, in undertaking his visual impact assessment (VIA), Mr Jumeaux's witness statement says he employed the methodology contained in part 2 of the VLP Manual,[16] however he does not set out a detailed analysis.  In cross-examination, Mr Jumeaux concedes he did not employ the methodology detailed in the VLP Manual and did not strictly apply SPP 5.2 to inform his opinions.[17]  Additionally, Mr Jumeaux, in cross-examination, says he had access to Mr Bertone's witness statement (in either draft or final form) in the preparation of his own evidence (and that certain paragraphs are identical).  Under further cross-examination he concedes this could possibly have influenced his opinions, because he accepts that either consciously or sub-consciously, he could have approached his opinion to align with Mr Bertone's.[18]  This admission casts significant doubt as to the impartiality and independence of Mr Jumeaux's evidence.  Further, the photomontage images in Annexure 2[19] of Mr Jumeaux's witness statement, which I accept are accurate as to height, are not accurate with respect to colour, form and width, and are therefore of limited assistance to the Tribunal.[20]  

   [15] ts 25-26, 12 May 2022.

   [16] Exhibit 5, Witness Statement of Mark Jumeaux, para 31.

   [17] ts 25-26, 12 May 2022.

   [18] ts 3-4, 12 May 2022,

   [19] Exhibit 5, Witness Statement of Mark Jumeaux, Annexure 2, Images 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

   [20] Exhibit 20, Joint Statement of Visual Experts, para 12 and ts 56-57, 11 May 2022.

5. Because of these factors, I prefer the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen, who I found to be a reliable witness and because of his comprehensive and methodical approach (consistent with the VLP Manual and SPP 5.2) to the VIA and the production of accurate photomontage images. 

Summary of procedural history

1. The procedural history is set out in the respondent's SIFC and is summarised below.[21]

   [21] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, paras 16-27.

2. On 26 February 2021 the applicant lodged an application to commence development with the respondent for telecommunications infrastructure.  A key difference with this application and the proposed development, now subject of this review, is that a 25 metre high monopole was initially proposed. 

3. The application was advertised, and public consultation occurred between 15 and 30 April 2021.  Public consultation is considered further at [21]-[32].

4. On 10 August 2021, the owners of the subject site (Blackmont Capital Pty Ltd) wrote to the City, advising that the applicant would be willing to modify its application to reduce the height of the proposed monopole from 25 metres to 20 metres and paint the monopole a colour which is non-competing with the surrounding area (Colour N53 blue grey was identified).  Also, on 10 August 2021 the respondent's Council considered an officer report which recommended refusal of the 25 metre high monopole proposal.  At that meeting, the Council resolved to defer its consideration to enable the applicant to provide amended plans and photomontage images demonstrating the amendments.

5. On 23 August 2021, the applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal, because of the 'deemed refusal' of the application.[22] Following a directions hearing at the Tribunal, the respondent was invited to reconsider its decision pursuant to s 31(1) of the SAT Act. Amended plans were provided by the applicant on 8 October 2021 and it is these plans which are now the subject of this review.

   [22] Pursuant to cl 75(2) of the Deemed Provisions.

6. At the 16 November 2021 Council meeting, an officer report was provided which assessed the proposed development and which recommended refusal and the respondent's Council resolved to refuse the proposed development for the following reason:[23]

   The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of LPP 2.5 and SPP 5.2, and Clause 67 (m) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, as the scale, visibility and location of the Monopole is not compatible with the surrounding residential development and is inconsistent with the desired character, streetscape appearance and amenity of the surrounding locality.

Public consultation

[23] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, para 25.

1. Public consultation was conducted by the City between 15 to 30 April 2021.  Notification included a notice placed on the City's website, a sign on the subject site, and a letter to landowners within a 200 metre radius of the subject site.  The original application was advertised depicting a 25 metre high monopole.  No readvertising occurred when the height was reduced to 20 metres and the colour of the proposed monopole amended. 

2. At the conclusion of advertising 218 submissions were received by the City.  A further two submissions were received after the Council deferred consideration on 10 August 2021.  In terms of the location of the 220 submitters, the City officer report, authored by Mr Bertone, indicates that 26 of the submissions were from within 200 metres of the proposed development and 140 were from within 1 kilometre.[24] 

   [24] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 546.

3. At the hearing Mr Bertone was cross-examined on the submissions.[25]   Mr Bertone accepts that a significant number of submissions can be classed 'pro-forma' submissions,[26] although there is no evidence of the precise number.  Under lengthy cross-examination, Mr Bertone conceded numerous submissions, identified by the applicant's counsel Mr Etherington, contain the statement (or are expressed in similar terms), that 'the tower will be visible from my home and alfresco area and will detract from my enjoyment of my home', are false to the extent of this statement, or likely to be so, because the proposed development cannot be visible from the addresses of those submitters.[27]  Mr Bertone also accepts there was an orchestrated community campaign opposing the proposed development.[28]  However, Mr Bertone's evidence, which I accept, is that the proforma submissions raise other planning issues and while one statement in a submission may be identified as false that does not necessarily negate the submissions overall.[29]

   [25] Exhibit 7, Respondent's amended supplementary s 24 bundle.

   [26] ts 67, 12 May 2022.

   [27] ts 68-128, 12 May 2022.

   [28] ts 79-80, 12 May 2022.

   [29] ts 79, 12 May 2022.

4. Clause 67(2)(y) of the Deemed Provisions requires I give due regard to 'any submissions received on the application'. The question of weight to be accorded to any of the submissions is a question for me to consider and determine. While I accept there are many submissions, this is not a significant factor in according weight. I will return to this a little later.

5. Mr Bertone's evidence, which I accept, is that he identifies three planning issues of concern from the submissions.[30]  

   [30] ts 63-64, 12 May 2022; Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, pages 513 and 551-552.

6. The first is the negative visual impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the suburb and the residents particularly being at the entrance of the suburb and the adjoining public open space. 

7. The second is overshadowing from the proposed monopole to residential properties.  Here Mr Bertone says, and I accept, that under the provisions of LDP15-NA, overshadowing is exempt and as a result the impacts of overshadowing is acceptable, although Mr Bertone says this can be considered when assessing amenity impacts identified in the first concern.  

8. Third, the proposed development would be more appropriate in industrial locations, such as the Water Corporation land located approximately 1.7 kilometres south of the subject site.  Here Mr Bertone says that this site is already used by Optus for telecommunications infrastructure, and further he says the City is unable to designate a preferred location given the land is privately owned. 

9. It is apparent from Mr Bertone's assessment of the submissions that the visual impact of the proposed development is the key planning issue to be considered from those identified in the submissions.  Mr Bertone says his concerns with the anticipated impact on visual amenity are also reflected in the many submissions received.[31]  Mr Doyle's evidence in respect to submissions from landowners in closest proximity to the subject site (in Waypoint Mews), which I accept, is that only one submission was provided from this street and this is from the owner of the immediate adjoining property to the south of the subject site.  While this submission provides comment, it does not object to the proposed development.[32]  

   [31] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, paras 51-52 and 55.

   [32] ts 60, 12 May 2022.

10. Returning to the question of the weight to be given to be given to resident opinion, this was previously considered by the Tribunal when considering the issue of visual impact in NBN Co-Limited and City of Albany [2016] WASAT 61 at [50]-[52] (NBN Co), as follows:

    50While the evidence and submissions made by the property owners within the locality are matters to be taken into account in determining whether or not to grant development approval, their opinions in relation to the visual impact of the proposed development, and any possible impact on tourism in the area, cannot be given significant weight because none of these witnesses was established as having any relevant expertise on which opinions of this type could be said to be based.  Their opinions must be understood, and taken into account, only as their personal, subjective opinions and beliefs as people living in the locality.

    …

    52The fact that part of the proposed development will be visible does not, of itself, mean that the proposed development will have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the locality.  As can be seen from SPP 5.2, factors such as the prominence of the development within the landscape, the extent to which visual aspects of value to the community as a whole might be compromised, and the degree to which the development is sympathetic to the surrounding landscape are relevant to this assessment.

1. In the present case, Mr Bertone concedes the respondent did not undertake an assessment of the visual impact from any submitter's private properties[33] and none of the submitters were called by the respondent to give evidence at the final hearing. 

   [33] ts 60, 12 May 2022.

2. To assess the visual impact of the proposed development, I place greater weight on the evidence of the visual experts and minimal weight on the submissions received during advertising because, consistent with the Tribunal's approach in NBN Co, none of the submitters were established as having any relevant expertise upon which opinions of this type could be based.  As to the opinions of the visual experts, for the reasons outlined earlier, I prefer the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen.[34] 

The question of need

[34] See [13]-[14].

1. SPP 5.2 outlines the policy intent as follows:[35]

   Installation of telecommunications network infrastructure usually involves the development of land and/or alteration to the appearance of buildings or structures, which may have visual impacts.  This planning policy aims to balance the need for effective telecommunications services and effective roll-out of networks, with the community interest in protecting the visual character of local areas.  Using a set of land use planning policy measures, the policy intends to provide clear guidance pertaining to the siting, location and design of telecommunications infrastructure.

   [35] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 4.

2. As identified by the Tribunal in Optus Mobile Pty Ltd and City of Stirling [2019] WASAT 31 at [34] (Optus Mobile), SPP 5.2 acknowledges that there is a tension between the objectives of effective telecommunications services and the effective roll-out of networks to meet the community's needs and the community's interest in protecting visual character of local areas.

3. However, unlike in Optus Mobile, in this case the respondent does not dispute, and I accept, there is a need for the proposed development.[36]   While the visual impact of the proposed development on the locality is the key consideration in this case, this is to be balanced with the need for effective telecommunication services and the effective roll-out of networks.

   [36] ts 60, 13 May 2022.

4. To protect visual character, it is unfortunate that in Alkimos, which is a relatively new suburban area, the City has not planned for telecommunications infrastructure, such as the proposed development.  This is particularly the case given the ubiquitous and necessary nature of mobile communications and the objective of SPP 5.2 (adopted in 2015) to 'ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is included in relevant planning processes as essential infrastructure for business, personal and emergency reasons'.[37]  Mr Doyle identifies, and Mr Bertone concedes, that the NALSP 73 (adopted in 2017) while addressing 'telecommunications'[38] it does not plan for above ground or mobile telecommunications infrastructure.[39]  This lack of planning will continue to lead to conflicts, such as in the present case, and does not optimise opportunities to protect visual character for the benefit of the community.

Subject site, locality and character

Subject site

[37] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 504, SPP 5.2, Policy objective (c).

[38] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, pages 467-468.

[39] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, para 43 and ts 50, 12 May 2022.

1. The subject site is more particularly known as Lot 1450 on Deposited Plan 402542, being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 2846 and Folio 685 and is 3,255m² in area. 

2. The subject site:

   a)is zoned 'Urban' under the MRS and 'Urban Development' under DPS 2.  The Urban Development zoning of the subject site requires (by virtue of cl 3.14.3 and 3.14.4 of DPS 2) reference to an applicable structure plan when considering subdivision or development;

   b)is in the area identified in NALSP 73 (which is to be given due regard under cl 67(2)(h) of the Deemed Provisions) as the 'Central Precinct', and the zoning plan classifies the subject site as 'Commercial'. The land use permissibility of the proposed development (telecommunications infrastructure) is identified in Table 1 - Zoning Table of DPS 2 as a 'D' use within the 'Commercial' zone. Class 'D' use is defined in the Deemed Provisions as 'a use that is not permitted in the zone unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting approval'.[40]  The land surrounding the subject site (also within the central precinct) is designated 'Residential' with a density code ranging from R20 to R40;

   c)is developed with a single storey, commercial building containing a drive through liquor store and three shop tenancies; 

   d)is irregular in shape and has street frontages to Pacific Promenade (to the west), Waypoint Mews (to the south) and Shorehaven Boulevard (to the north); 

   e)has frontage to Shorehaven Park (to the north-east, a reserve for drainage and public recreation).  Marmion Avenue is located further to the east, beyond Shorehaven Park, and its intersection with Shorehaven Boulevard is the main entry to the Shorehaven Estate;

   f)directly abuts Lot 1451 (No 11) Shorehaven Boulevard (to the west) which contains a service station and has reciprocal access with the subject site;[41]  

   g)obtains vehicle access from Shorehaven Boulevard (entry only) and Pacific Promenade; and

   h)directly abuts Lot 1449 (No 13) Waypoint Mews, located to the south.  This residential lot, and the adjoining residential lot at No 15 (further to the south) are currently vacant.  The monopole of the proposed development is located approximately 8 metres from the northern boundary of No 13 Waypoint Mews.

Extent of the locality

[40] See also Appendix A.

[41] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Mark Bertone, para 10.

1. For the purposes of assessing the town planning impacts of the proposed development, Mr Doyle considers the relevant locality to be the area comprising a relatively unobstructed view of the proposed development within the area generally bounded by:[42]

   •Mayday Lane and Canister Rise in the west;

   •the northern side of Shorehaven Boulevard, east of Bosun Close, to the west;

   •Shipmaster Avenue, to the northern corner of Shipmaster Park, to the north;

   •the eastern side of Marmion Avenue, to the east; and

   •Waypoint Mews to the south.

   [42] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, para 20 and illustrated at Attachment BD3.

2. Mr Bertone in his witness statement describes the locality as the subject site, the adjoining service station, and Shorehaven Boulevard,[43] but in oral evidence concedes the locality identified by Mr Doyle is 'probably the more accurate one'.[44]

   [43] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Mark Bertone, paras 6-10.

   [44] ts 37, 12 May 2022.

3. For the VIA of the proposed development, Mr Kaesehagen and Mr Jumeaux agree the view experience of the proposed development and its impact on the local site character is greatest at distances of 200 metres or less.  Both experts agree the view experience and its impact from a distance greater than 200 metres from the proposed development is diminished and will be filtered by surrounding buildings and trees to varying amounts.[45]

   [45] Exhibit 20, Joint Statement of Visual Experts, paras 10-11.

4. Considering the extent of the locality and the importance of the assessment of visual impact in this case, I accept the evidence of the visual assessment experts that the view experience and impact is greatest within 200 metres of the proposed development and that this is diminished from a distance greater than 200 metres.  While this goes beyond the extent identified by the town planning experts, I accept and consider the relevant locality is a 200 metre radius from the proposed development.[46]

Character of the locality

[46] Exhibit 8, Map showing 200 metre zone from monopole.

1. The character of the locality is set out in detail by Mr Doyle and identifies three factors being topography, land use and built form, and vegetation.[47]  Mr Doyle's assessment, which I accept, was agreed in oral evidence by Mr Bertone.[48]  While the extent of the locality extends beyond that identified by Mr Doyle, this does not materially alter the description of its character.

Topography

[47] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement Ben Doyle, para 60.

[48] ts 37, 12 May 2022.

1. In terms of topography, the terrain of the locality is quite diverse featuring a series of hills and slopes reflecting the coastal dunes prior to urban development.  The locality is at a relatively low point in the local topography as the adjoining land rises to the north, west and south.

Land use and built form

1. As to land use and built form, the subject site contains commercial uses which include a drive through liquor store and three other commercial tenancies and associated car parking.  Adjoining the subject site, to the west, is a service station.  The commercial buildings are single storey and contain higher elements such as the service station canopy.[49]

   [49] ts 45, 12 May 2022.

2. There are four parks in the locality, being:

   •Shorehaven Park (which includes a drainage basin which is unkempt) located immediately to the east of the subject site;

   •Skysail Park, a bushland park located to the west of the subject site;

   •Shipmaster Park, to the north on the corner of Marmion Avenue and Shorehaven Boulevard, which incorporates a large public art sculpture approximately 15 metres in height; and

   •Gangway Park (which includes a fenced drainage basin), located further to the east, on the eastern side of Marmion Avenue.

3. Marmion Avenue and Shorehaven Boulevard (the two major roads in the locality) both contain numerous street light poles.  The street light poles in Marmion Avenue are approximately 12 metres high.[50] 

   [50] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, para 60.

4. The predominant land use in the locality is low to medium density residential, and the built form is mostly single storey, but with some two storey, single dwellings.  The residential area immediately abutting the subject site (located to the south) is Waypoint Mews.  The dwellings at Nos 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 Waypoint Mews have frontage facing the rear of subject site.  The rear of the subject site contains back of house services and loading areas and a 6 metre wide access driveway along the southern boundary, exiting onto Pacific Promenade.  The other dwellings in this street face either east or west, with garages fronting Waypoint Mews.  Mr Doyle says, and I accept, Waypoint Mews largely functions as a 'rear laneway'.[51] 

Vegetation

[51] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, para 60.

1. In terms of vegetation the area was completely cleared of all vegetation when subdivided in 2010, except for the remnant vegetation in Skysail Park.  Substantial mature trees have been provided in the public open space and along Shorehaven Boulevard, and substantial Norfolk Island Pine trees are provided at the northern perimeter of Shorehaven Park.

2. The one addition Mr Bertone gave in oral evidence, is the existence of a 'connection' of two areas of public open space, being Shorehaven Park and Gangway Park, which he states are separated by Marmion Avenue.[52]  While I accept there may be a limited visual relationship, this is significantly impacted by Marmion Avenue, at the intersection with Shorehaven Boulevard.  There is no evidence of, and I do not accept there is, a functional connection between these parks as they are separated by a major road, with a road reserve 50 metres wide.

Landscape character

[52] ts 37-38, 12 May 2022.

1. From a landscape character perspective, the visual experts agree, and I accept, the topography of the locality is undulating, and the subject site is situated in a low point topographically.[53]  For the purposes of his VIA, Mr Kaesehagen assesses the landscape character from a combination of biophysical and social characteristics, and categorises the study area into four Landscape Character Units (LCU),[54] which Mr Jumeaux accepts,[55] being:

   a)suburban LCU, the predominant LCU in the study area and characterised by detached single storey dwellings of a similar age and architectural style;

   b)parkland LCU, incorporating the public open spaces and entry statement environments which are characterised by low shrubs and ground covers, tree plantings, lawned areas and a range of public amenities including seating.  Shorehaven, Shipmaster and Gangway Parks are identified in this LCU;

   c)bushland LCU, which accounts for the remnant vegetation, predominantly located in Skysail Park and the undeveloped land to the south of Shorehaven Estate and on the eastern side of Marmion Avenue.  This is characterised by an undulating landscape of Banksia woodland, grass trees, large shrubs and small trees and some larger scattered Tuart trees; and

   d)urban LCU, which includes the subject site and adjoining service station, located to the west.  This LCU is characterised by predominantly hard surfaces (carparks and access ways), commercial buildings and signage.

   [53] Exhibit 20, Joint Statement of Visual Experts, para 8.

   [54] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK1, page 7.

   [55] Exhibit 20, Joint Statement of Visual Experts, para 9. 

2. In his VIA, Mr Kaesehagen identifies 'best practice siting and design' as the most appropriate visual management objective (VMO) for each of the four LCUs in the study area.[56]  Mr Jumeaux also accepts this.[57]  This VMO requires the 'existing character will be taken into account, but not necessarily maintained in its existing form'.[58]

Future character

[56] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Annexure DK1, pages 14-15; The VMO's (as adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission in 2007) are set out in the VLP Manual, Exhibit 11, Applicant's supplementary bundle, pages 37-40.

[57] Exhibit 20, Joint Witness Statement of Visual Experts, paras 9 and 13.

[58] Exhibit 11, Applicant's supplementary bundle, page 38.

1. When asked as to how the current character of the locality is likely to change in the future, Mr Bertone says the bushland located to the south is likely to develop into a residential estate, which he anticipates will be a 'standard residential suburb'.[59]  Mr Bertone also considers the presently unkempt areas at Shorehaven Park will be landscaped, and the built form of the locality is expected to remain residential.  Mr Doyle agrees, but says he expects that even when landscaped Shorehaven Park will also continue to serve the function of a drainage basin, and it may be formalised with a similar fenced treatment as the drainage basin located immediately to the east in Gangway Park, on the opposite side of Marmion Avenue.  Mr Doyle also says, and I accept, the two vacant residential lots to the south of the subject site in Waypoint Mews (Nos 13 and 15) are likely to be developed with single houses with a similar built form to the other houses to the south, as this is guided by LDP15­NA.[60]

   [59] ts 39, 12 May 2022.

   [60] ts 40-41, 12 May 2022; Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, paras 47-48 and Attachment BD4.

2. Mr Doyle and Mr Bertone agree the desired future character of the locality is encapsulated in the description of 'Precinct 2 - Central' in NALSP 73 which is:[61]

   Predominantly low-medium density residential development capitalising on open space, a primary school and proximity to the Coastal Village.  This precinct will accommodate mixed use neighbourhood and local centres.

   [61] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 258.

3. They agree this can be summarised as a north-western coastal suburban estate which is reasonably typical of the wider locality.[62]  

Issues for determination

[62] ts 39, 12 May 2022.

1. The parties agree there are four issues for determination:[63]

   1)whether the location of the proposed development is consistent with cl 5.1.1 ii) of SPP 5.2;

   2)whether the location of the proposed development is consistent with policy provisions L2 and L3 of LPP 2.5;

   3)whether the design of the proposed development is consistent with policy provision D1 of LPP 2.5; and

   4)whether, in having regard to the planning framework, the visual impact of the proposed development is acceptable.

   [63] ts 5-6, 11 May 2022.

2. I will now consider the issues in turn.

Issue 1 - whether the location of the proposed development is consistent with cl 5.1.1 ii) of SPP 5.2

1. It is uncontentious among the town planning experts that SPP 5.2 should be given significant weight by the Tribunal in this matter.[64]  This is consistent with the Tribunal's approach in other decisions on telecommunications infrastructure.[65] Also, pursuant to s 241(1)(a) of the PD Act, the Tribunal is required to have due regard to SPP 5.2 when determining this application.

   [64] ts 34-35, 13 May 2022.

   [65] See Optus Mobile Pty Ltd and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 238, at [47] and [59], and Telstra Corporation Limited and Shire of Murray [2009] WASAT 117, at [22].

2. Clause 5.1.1 ii) of SPP 5.2 requires that '[t]elecommunications infrastructure should be sited and designed to minimise visual impact whenever possible' and provides four policy measures which I will now consider in the context of the proposed development.

Clause 5.1.1 ii) a) - be located where it will not be prominently visible from significant viewing locations such as scenic routes, lookouts and recreation sites

1. In respect to cl 5.1.1 ii) a), while the respondent accepts that the proposed development arguably complies with this clause,[66] the respondent submits the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Shorehaven Drive is enhanced by the presence of public artwork which Mr Bertone identifies in his oral evidence.[67]  The respondent says this could give rise to a conflict between the public art and the proposed development which could be considered as being contrary to cl 5.1.1 ii) a).[68]

   [66] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, para 50.

   [67] ts 57, 13 May 2022.

   [68] ts 57, 13 May 2022.

2. However, on this point I accept the evidence of Mr Doyle,[69] that the respondent's argument is not a consideration that arises under cl 5.1.1 ii) a) because the entry to Shorehaven Estate is not, I find, a significant viewing location of the type intended by this clause (such as a scenic route, lookout or recreation site).  In any event, Mr Bertone's oral evidence identifies his concern that the proposed development impacts a public artwork, which he says is a place of cultural heritage or social value (a consideration under cl 5.1.1 ii) c)).[70]  I will return to this later.

   [69] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, paras 66-67.

   [70] ts 8-10 and 18, 13 May 2022.

3. Also, the respondent submits the proposed development will be highly visible from the entry to the Shorehaven Estate and says the objective for the central precinct in the NALSP 73, is relevant, which states:[71]

   High-quality yet affordable built form outcomes that encourage potential visitors and residents to turn off Marmion Avenue and enter the North Alkimos.

   [71] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 421 at 9.2.2 Objectives.

4. When considering this objective, I accept the evidence of Mr Kasehagen, that when travelling along Marmion Avenue from the south, the proposed development would be in a driver's peripheral vision, or is unlikely to be observable at all when approaching the subject site from the north.[72]  

Clause 5.1.1 ii) b) - be located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land

[72] ts 10, 12 May 2022.

1. As to cl 5.1.1 ii) b), the respondent's concerns relate to streetscape impact.  Streetscape impacts as identified by the respondent are Shorehaven Boulevard, Marmion Avenue and private residential land in the immediate locality.[73]  Mr Bertone's evidence is that the introduction of the proposed development will not only disrupt the streetscape as viewed from the public realm (Shorehaven Boulevard and Marmion Avenue) but will also detract from the established streetscape as viewed from private residential land in the immediate locality.[74] 

   [73] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, paras 51-52.

   [74] Exhibit 4, Witness statement of Nick Bertone, para 39.

1. However, in respect to views from private residential land, the respondent did not submit evidence that assesses or establishes the visual impact of the proposed development of a streetscape viewed from private residential land.  Mr Jumeaux and Mr Kaesehagen expressly acknowledge their VIA is from publicly accessible land, not from private residential land.[75]  Mr Bertone when assessing the submissions received during advertising concedes there was no assessment of the visual impact undertaken from the residential addresses identified in those submissions, where visual impact was identified as a concern by the submitters.[76]  In the absence of evidence, I find the respondent has not established this aspect of the contention.

   [75] Exhibit 5, Witness Statement of Mark Jumeaux, para 40 and Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, para 9 and Attachment DK1, page 5.

   [76] ts 60 and 62-63, 12 May 2022.

2. The Tribunal, in Optus Mobile, identifies the relevant consideration under SPP 5.2 applicable to visual impact, which I accept is also relevant in this case, as follows:[77]

   75The consideration is not that the telecommunications infrastructure is visible, as it is generally accepted that the technological requirements of providing an effective telecommunications network means that in all likelihood the infrastructure required to service the community will be visible, but whether the telecommunications infrastructure has been sited and designed to minimise its visual impact on the character and amenity of the locality.

   [77] Optus Mobile, [75].

3. I will return to this later,[78] but now I will consider the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding streetscapes.

Waypoint Mews

[78] At [76].

1. Mr Kaesehagen and Mr Jumeaux provide a VIA from the public realm immediately abutting private residential land in Waypoint Mews, which is the residential land in closest proximity to the proposed development.[79]  The visual experts differ in their opinion as to the visual impact of the proposed development in this location.  Mr Jumeaux says the proposed development is not in character with the existing built form of the commercial buildings or the residential dwellings.  He says it will have a significant view impact on the property at No 24 Waypoint Mews (although he states, he did not visit private property to inform his opinion) and even more so on the future property due to be built immediately south of the proposed development.[80]  However, Mr Jumeaux, under cross­examination, also concedes this streetscape view is not a significant view as described in cl 5.1.1 ii) b) of SPP 5.2.[81]  

   [79] Exhibit 16, witness statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK1, view C, pages 21-22 and 26-27; Exhibit 5, witness statement of Mark Jumeaux, paras 40-43 and Image 3.

   [80] Exhibit 20, Joint Witness Statement of Visual Experts, para 13.4.

   [81] ts 14-15, 12 May 2022.

2. As explained, I prefer the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen, because he has undertaken a VIA consistent with the methodology established in the VLP Manual, whereas Mr Jumeaux accepts he did not.[82]  Mr Kaesehagen's evidence, which I accept, is that the proposed development is clearly visible due its proximity (approximately 60 metres), but that it will not look out of place in this location because it borrows from the existing landscape setting which Mr Kaesehagen says includes other services and utilities associated with the commercial development located at the rear of the subject site.  Mr Kaesehagen also says the design of the proposed development also assists in reducing the visual impact using light colours consistent with the surrounding light poles and walls.  Mr Kaesehagan's evidence is that the VIA has identified the proposed development as being consistent with the VMO of 'best practice siting and design' for the urban LCU and that it is expected to have low adverse impact on landscape values (that is, the landscape features that are highly valued by the community and contribute to the visual character of the place).[83]  

   [82] ts 25-26, 12 May 2022.

   [83] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK1, pages 21-22 and 26; ts 51-53 and 67, 11 May 2022.

3. A further consideration is the location of submissions made during advertising.  While the owners in Waypoint Mews were notified, only one submission was received, and this was from the immediate adjoining vacant lot located to the south of the subject site.  This submission provides comment, but no objection, and suggests mature vegetation screening and the appropriate use of materials and colours, to mitigate the amenity impact of the proposed development.[84]  Since advertising the applicant has reduced the height and amended the colour of the monopole of the proposed development.

Marmion Avenue

[84] Exhibit 7, Respondent's amended supplementary s 24 bundle, page 16.

1. As to the streetscape consideration of Marmion Avenue, I have addressed this in part earlier at [63] and I accept Mr Kasehagen's evidence that drivers using Marmion Avenue will experience a view of the proposed development in their peripheral vision when approaching from the south, but when approaching the proposed development from the north they are unlikely to see it at all.  Evidence of visual impact from other viewing points that relate to Marmion Avenue includes from adjacent open space areas of Shipmaster Park and Gangway Park.  In both cases, the visual experts accept the visual impact is reduced by the presence of trees, including in the case of views from Shipmaster Park, substantial Norfolk Island Pine trees which will continue to grow and further screen the proposed development.[85] 

Shorehaven Boulevard

[85] ts 46, 11 May 2022; ts 54-55 11 May 2022; Exhibit 16 Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK 1, page 17.

1. In respect to the Shorehaven Boulevard streetscape, Mr Jumeaux's evidence, which considers the view of Shorehaven Boulevard at the entry to the Shorehaven Estate, is that there will be an oblique view of the proposed development which he says is only partially screened by the existing commercial building on the subject site.[86] Mr Kaesehagen's evidence is this is not a significant view of streetscape,[87] and I accept, that in terms of cl 5.1.1 ii) b) this is not a significant streetscape view.

Shipmaster Avenue

[86] ts 58, 11 May 2022.

[87] ts 58, 11 May 2022.

1. The visual impact on the streetscape from Shipmaster Avenue, located to the north of the subject site, is not considered by the visual experts. However, it is considered by the planning experts.  Mr Bertone and Mr Baade, in cross-examination, agree with Mr Doyle's evidence[88] that the proposed development would not be prominently visible in this streetscape, primarily because of its distance from the subject site and the fact that the street and the associated dwellings do not directly orient towards the proposed development.[89]  

Clause 5.1.1 ii) c) - not be located on sites where environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values may be compromised

[88] Exhibit 13, Witness Statement of Ben Doyle, para 82.1.

[89] ts 136-137, 12 May 2022.

1. As to cl 5.1.1 ii) c) the respondent accepts the proposed development may not compromise the environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values.[90]  However, Mr Bertone, in his oral evidence, argues the proposed development may impact the 'Leading Lights' public artwork.[91]  This public artwork concept is detailed in the NALSP 73[92] as a series of beacons which form a trail extending from the entry of Shorehaven Estate (at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Shorehaven Boulevard) westwards along Shorehaven Boulevard into the ocean, to the Alkimos shipwreck.  The design of the artwork is intended to reference the shipwreck.  Mr Bertone says this artwork trail (which he also says is partially complete) is an item of cultural heritage or social significance and he forms this view because this is identified in one submission received during public consultation.[93]  While I accept one submission raises this as a concern, Mr Bertone concedes under cross­examination, there is no evidence to establish the significance of the cultural heritage or social values of the public artwork or of the impact the proposed development may have, if any, on these values.[94]  Given the absence of evidence, Mr Bertone's position is simply misconceived and I do not agree the proposed development will compromise the public artwork in a manner that arises under cl 5.1.1 ii) c).

Clause 5.1.1 ii) d) - display design features, including scale, materials, external colours and finishes that are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape

[90] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, para 53.

[91] ts 142-145, 12 May 2022.

[92] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, pages 402 and 404.

[93] ts 9-10, 13 May 2022.

[94] ts 7, 13 May 2022.

1. When considering cl 5.1.1 ii) d), the respondent contends the design of the proposed development is not sympathetic to the surrounding landscape due to its scale, being 20 metres.[95]  Mr Bertone is of the opinion 'that the overall scale remains highly visible and non­sympathetic with the surrounding area'.[96]  Mr Bertone, under cross­examination, identifies that when considering the subject site he believes the proposed development would be better located more centrally to minimise its impact.[97]  However, under further cross­examination Mr Bertone concedes that a central location on the site will not necessarily make a difference to views where the lower portion is screened by the commercial building.[98]  

   [95] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, paras 53-54.

   [96] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, para 46.

   [97] ts 11, 13 May 2022

   [98] ts 12, 13 May 2022

2. Now I return to Optus Mobile, and the relevant consideration as to visual impact identified earlier at [66]. Significantly all the planning experts agree there are no further design mitigation measures that can be implemented, and that the visual impact of the proposed development has been minimised, as seen in oral evidence below.[99]  

   [99] ts 12-13, 13 May 2022

   Mr Etherington:  [applicant's counsel]

   In your view is there anything further that can be done to this development to minimise its visual impact?

   Mr Baade:

   I don't think so.  There has been two iterations of the proposal. Landscaping has been increased.  The amount of equipment has been decreased and the finish of the pole has been set out.  I think that's probably, in that location, all that can be done to minimise the impact. And the height has been reduced as well.

   Mr Doyle:

   Yes, I agree with Mr Baade.  I can't see that there's any other mitigation measures that could be implemented that would further reduce it.

   Mr Bertone:

   No, no other mitigation measures for this particular infrastructure.

   Mr Etherington:

   So to be absolutely clear, do I understand your collective evidence to be that for this development on this site the visual impact has been minimised?

   Mr Baade:

   Yes.

   Mr Doyle:

   Yes.

   Mr Bertone:

   Yes.

3. The town planning experts agree, and I accept, the proposed development satisfies the relevant test (outlined earlier at [66]) which requires that the proposed development has been sited and designed to minimise its visual impact on the character of the amenity of the locality.

Overall Context - Cl 5.1.1 ii)

1. Considering the overall context of cl 5.1.1 ii), Mr Kaesehagen, when referring to his VIA concludes he does not believe the study area contains any unique or significant elements from a visual, cultural or social standpoint.[100]  Having considered the evidence of the town planning and visual assessment experts, including the detailed description of the locality and its character provided in the evidence of Mr Doyle (which is accepted by Mr Bertone), and the submissions from the parties, I accept Mr Kaesehagen's opinion. 

   [100] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, para 11.

2. Also, Mr Kaesehagen's analysis of the view experience (from the viewpoints examined in his VIA) takes into account the height as well as colour, materials and finishes of the proposed development, and is assessed in the context of the existing visual landscape character of each view.  Mr Kaesehagen's evidence, which I accept, is that the visual impact of the proposed development is acceptable.[101]

Findings - Issue 1

[101] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK1, pages 26-27.

1. I find the location of the proposed development is consistent with cl 5.1.1 ii) of SPP 5.2 for five reasons.

2. First, consistent with the evidence of the planning experts and the visual expert Mr Kaeshagen, whose evidence I prefer, I find the proposed development has been sited and designed to minimise its visual impact.

3. Second, the proposed development satisfies cl 5.1.1 ii) a) because I find it is located where it will not be prominently visible from any significant viewing locations.

4. Third, the proposed development satisfies cl 5.1.1 ii) b) because I find it is located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a heritage place, a landmark, streetscape, vista or panorama, whether viewed from public or private land.

5. Fourth, the proposed development satisfies cl 5.1.1 ii) c) because I find it is not located on a site where environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values may be compromised.

6. Fifth, the proposed development satisfies cl 5.1.1 ii) d) because I find it has been designed at an appropriate scale and using appropriate materials, external colours and finishes that are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.    

Issue 2 - whether the location of the proposed development is consistent with policy provisions L2 and L3 of LPP 2.5

1. LPP 2.5, adopted in August 2017, 'establishes the standards for the assessment and determination of telecommunications infrastructure applications' and operates in addition to SPP 5.2.  LPP 2.5 advises that the City should have due regard to SPP 5.2 and LPP 2.5 in assessing development applications for telecommunications infrastructure.[102] Clause 67(2) (g) of the Deemed Provisions requires due regard be given to 'any local planning policy for the Scheme area'.

   [102] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 490.

2. The references to L2 and L3 of LPP 2.5 derive from the 'Policy Table' and describe various locational criteria, which are set out in the relevant extract below.[103]  

   [103] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 496.

COLUMN A	COLUMN B	COLUMN C	COLUMN D
Item Reference	Deemed-to-Comply provisions acceptable without consultation	Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions that may be considered subject to consultation (pursuant to Section 3 of the General Policy Provisions)	Unacceptable Standards (unless otherwise stated.  If any one of the following standards are met or exceeded, the application will be refused)
Location
L2	Proposed telecommunications infrastructure is not located on a lot where an adjoining lot is zoned 'Residential', 'Mixed Use', 'Special Rural' 'Rural Community', 'Landscape Enhancement' or 'Special Residential'.	Telecommunications infrastructure proposed on a lot where an adjoining lot is zoned 'Residential', 'Mixed Use', 'Special Rural', 'Rural Community', 'Landscape Enhancement' or 'Special Residential'.	Note:  There are no unacceptable standards.
L3	Proposed telecommunications infrastructure situated in the 'Business', 'Commercial', 'Civic and Cultural', 'Service Industrial' or 'General Industrial' zone should be located away from street boundaries, and behind any buildings that exist on the same land.	Proposed telecommunications infrastructure that does not or cannot satisfy the requirements prescribed in Column B.	Note:  There are no unacceptable standards.

1. It is common ground that the proposed development does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of L2 at column B of the Policy Table in LPP 2.5, and therefore falls under column C, which may be considered subject to consultation.  This procedure is outlined at s 3 of LPP 2.5, 'Community Consultation'.

2. With respect to L3, the respondent accepts the proposed development is located on a lot designated as 'commercial' under NALSP 73 but contends that it is not concealed by any building on the southern boundary, and therefore requires advertising. 

3. The respondent also points to the 209 submissions that were received raising objections for various reasons, including the proximity and visibility of the proposed development from residential dwellings.

4. The applicant contends LPP 2.5 does not contain development standards for determining whether the proposed development should be approved and that the number of submissions from a residential area should not be the sole determining factor in the review.  The applicant contends to the extent that visibility of the proposed development is raised in submissions, this is not the appropriate test to be applied under SPP5.2.[104]

   [104] Exhibit 9, Applicant's SIFC, para35.

5. It is common ground among the planning experts that, unlike SPP 5.2, LPP 2.5 does not contain policy measures.  As a result (although LPP 2.5 does not make this clear), it is accepted that an assessment of the proposed development where it does not meet the deemed­to­comply provisions in column B is necessarily confined to a consideration of the relevant policy objectives[105] with due regard to the town planning issues raised in any submissions received during advertising.

   [105] ts 20-21, 13 May 2022.

6. The proposed development is therefore to be considered against the relevant policy objective, which for L2 and L3, Mr Bertone identifies, and I accept, is policy objective 2:[106]

   Manage the environmental, cultural heritage, visual and social impacts of telecommunications infrastructure.

   [106] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, paras 50 and 59.

7. In considering objective 2, Mr Bertone places particular emphasis on the visual and social impacts of the proposed development.  From a social impact perspective, Mr Bertone says the proposed development may impact the amenity of Shorehaven Park when it is developed.[107]  However, on this point I accept the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen and Mr Jumaeux, who say this Park is likely to be used for transient types of recreation such as walking, jogging and cycling.[108]   There is no evidence the proposed development will impede these activities when the landscaping of Shorehaven Park is completed.  On this basis, I do not accept negative social impacts will arise from the proposed development.

   [107] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, para 53.

   [108] ts 59-60, 11 May 2022.

8. I also consider the visual impacts of the proposed development are acceptably managed for the reasons provided in issue 1[109] and issue 4.[110] 

Findings - Issue 2

[109] See [80]-[85].

[110] See [119]-[122].

1. I find the location of the proposed development is consistent with the policy provisions L2 and L3 of LPP 2.5 for two reasons.

2. First, the policy table descriptions in L2 and L3 are, in this case, a trigger to determine whether advertising is necessary, and cannot be applied directly in the planning assessment of the proposed development because LPP 2.5 does not contain policy measures or development standards and therefore assessment is against relevant policy objectives with due regard to the town planning issues raised in submissions received during advertising.

3. Second, I find the proposed development meets the relevant policy objective (objective 2) of LPP 2.5, which the proposed development is to be correctly assessed against, because it will not have negative environmental, cultural heritage or social impacts, and its visual impacts are acceptable (see findings on issue 1[111] and issue 4).[112]

Issue 3 - whether the design of the proposed development is consistent with policy provision D1 of LPP 2.5

[111] See [80]-[85].

[112] See [119]-[122].

1. The reference to D1 of LPP 2.5 derives from the 'Policy Table' and describe various design criteria, which is set out in the extract below.[113]  Similar to the locational criteria (in issue 2), assignment of D1 to column C requires consultation to be undertaken in this case.

   [113] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 496.

COLUMN A	COLUMN B	COLUMN C	COLUMN D
Item Reference	Deemed-to-Comply provisions acceptable without consultation	Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions that may be considered subject to consultation (pursuant to Section 3 of the General Policy Provisions)	Unacceptable Standards (unless otherwise stated.  If any one of the following standards are met or exceeded, the application will be refused)
Design
D1	The applicant demonstrates that the proposed telecommunications infrastructure is confined to a height and dimension that balances the need to provide for appropriate network coverage for the surrounding area, whilst minimising loss of amenity in the locality.	In the City's opinion, the applicant cannot adequately demonstrate that the proposed telecommunication infrastructure is at a height and dimension that would not result in a loss of amenity in the locality.	Note:  There are no unacceptable standards.

1. The respondent contends the proposed development will not minimise the loss of amenity in the locality balanced against the need to provide appropriate network coverage and contends the proposed development is highly visible and out of character with the urban fabric of the locality, both existing and future.[114]

   [114] Exhibit 2, Respondent's SIFC, paras 58-59.

2. For the same reasons as issue 2, the applicant contends LPP 2.5 does not contain development standards for determining whether the proposed development should be approved.  The applicant contends the respondent has not undertaken any balancing of the need for the proposed development with the minimisation of its visual impact, and therefore minimisation of the loss of amenity.[115]

   [115] Exhibit 9, Applicant's SIFC, paras 40 and 47.

3. The design features of the proposed development are considered in issue 1, when considering SPP 5.2 cl 5.1.1 ii) d).  This requires consideration of the scale, materials, external colours and finishes.  The design considerations expressed in D1 are limited to height and dimension (scale).

4. However, as LPP 2.5 contains no policy measures, assessment of the proposed development is required against the relevant policy objectives with due regard to the town planning issues raised in submissions received during advertising. 

5. Mr Bertone, while accepting there is a need for the proposed development to facilitate mobile telecommunications services, says the relevant policy objective is not met.  He identifies objective 2 is also relevant to this issue, which is:[116]   

   Manage the environmental, cultural heritage, visual and social impacts of telecommunications infrastructure.

   [116] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, para 62.

6. Mr Bertone says his concern about the design of the proposed development relates to its visual impact.[117] The visual impact of the design of the proposed development is, I find, acceptable for the reasons explained in issue 1[118] and issue 4.[119]  

Findings - Issue 3

[117] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, paras 62-63.

[118] See [80]-[85].

[119] See [119]-[122].

1. I find the design of the proposed development is consistent with the policy provision D1 of LPP 2.5 for two reasons.

2. First, the policy table description in D1 is, in this case, a trigger to determine whether advertising is necessary, and cannot be applied directly in the planning assessment of the proposed development because LPP 2.5 does not contain development standards or policy measures and therefore assessment is against relevant policy objectives with due regard to the town planning issues raised in submissions received during advertising.

3. Second, I find the proposed development meets the relevant policy objective (objective 2) of LPP 2.5, which the proposed development is to be correctly assessed against, because its design, considering its height and dimensions have an acceptable visual impact in the locality (see findings on issue 1[120] and issue 4).[121] 

Issue 4 - whether, in having regard to the planning framework, the visual impact of the proposed development is acceptable

[120] See [80]-[85].

[121] See [119]-[122].

1. Clause 67(2) of the Deemed Provisions sets out the various matters that a local government is to have due regard to, to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the subject of the application. In this case, the town planning experts agree on the matters in cl 67(2) which are to be given due regard.[122]  These are considered below (and listed in Annexure A).

   [122] ts 32-33, 13 May 2022.

2. SPP 5.2, which I give due regard under cl 67(2)(c) as well as s 241(1)(a) of the PD Act, requires, at cl 5.1.1, that 'the benefit of improved telecommunications services should be balanced with the visual impact on the surrounding area'.[123]  In this case, the respondent does not dispute the need for the proposed development or that the services will provide an amenity benefit.  The key contention is the visual impact of the proposed development.  However, this concern must be balanced against the benefit of improved telecommunications services and the effective roll-out of networks.

   [123] Exhibit 3, Respondent's s 24 bundle, page 504.

3. When considering the visual impact of the proposed development, issue 1 requires an assessment of the location, siting, design of the proposed development by considering the relevant policy measures in cl 5.1.1 ii) of SPP 5.2.  I found the proposed development satisfies criteria a) to d) of cl 5.1.1 ii)[124] and, as a consequence, I find the visual impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality is acceptable.

   [124] See [80]-[85].

4. Considering LPP 2.5, to which I give due regard under cl 67(2)(g), the respondent accepts it contains no development standards or policy measures.[125]  In the absence of development standards or policy measures, it is uncontroversial among the planning experts that the proposed development is to be assessed against relevant policy objectives, and that in this case only objective 2 is relevant.  Issue 2 and issue 3 require consideration of this policy objective in respect to visual and social impacts of the location and design of the proposed development and I find policy objective 2 is satisfied.[126]  As a consequence, I find the proposed development satisfies LPP 2.5.

   [125] ts 60, 13 May 2022.

   [126] See [96]-[98] and [106]-[108].

5. In respect to cl 67(2)(m), which requires consideration of the compatibility of the proposed development in its setting, I accept the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen, who completed his VIA, consistent with the VLP Manual and SPP 5.2, and relevantly concludes:[127]

   From a visual impact assessment perspective, the proposed Stilmark Facility [proposed development] is acceptable.

   The [proposed] development will not significantly interrupt or impact any view or locations of national, state, regional or local significance. Though visible from the surrounding areas, overall it achieves the objective of 'best practice siting and design' through being of an appropriate scale for the surrounding tall trees, and by its location within the commercial development area where a telecommunications tower is not out of character with the surrounding built form and amenities of the Urban LCU.

   [127] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Attachment DK1, page 27.

6. Also relevant to cl 67(2)(m), I accept the evidence of the town planning experts that the proposed development has been located, sited and designed in manner that minimises its visual impact and that there are no further mitigation measures that would reduce its impact.[128]

   [128] ts 12-13, 13 May 2022.

7. In considering the amenity of the locality (under cl 67(2)(n)), it is also common ground among the town planning experts that the mobile telecommunication service to be provided by the proposed development is a beneficial amenity consideration.[129]  As to the impact of the proposed development on the character of the locality, the key contention is its visual impact, and this, I find, is acceptable when assessed in accordance with SPP 5.2 cl 5.1.1 ii) and objective 2 of LPP 2.5.

   [129] ts 34, 13 May 2022.

8. Clause 67(2)(u)(ii) and (v) require consideration of the availability and adequacy of public utility services and the potential loss or benefit arising from the development.  I accept, and the respondent does not dispute, that in this case there is a need for the telecommunications services the proposed development will facilitate.

9. I have also considered the submissions received, as required by cl 67(2)(y), and while I give them due regard, for the reasons outlined earlier at [30]-[32], I accord greater weight to the evidence of the visual experts, and in particular Mr Kaesehagen, as to assessment of visual impact.

10. In respect to cl 67(2)(x), this requires a balancing of the broader benefits of the proposed development with consideration of the impacts on individuals.  In this case, the broader telecommunication benefits to the community are not in dispute.  When considering the impacts on individuals, it is noteworthy that no submissions objecting to the proposed development were received from individual residential properties located in Waypoint Mews (closest to the subject site), which Mr Bertone and Mr Jumeaux say are likely the most impacted.[130]  However, despite their proximity of the subject site, and a lack of screening (such as substantial vegetation), the dwellings in Waypoint Mews do not orient towards the proposed development.  Therefore, I accept the evidence of Mr Kaesehagen that the visual impact of the proposed development at this location is acceptable.[131]

Findings - Issue 4

[130] Exhibit 4, Witness Statement of Nick Bertone, paras 39, 51-52 and Annexure 1, locations 1-4; Exhibit 5, Witness Statement of Mark Jumeaux, paras 40 and 56 and Annexure 2, Images 3-4.

[131] Exhibit 16, Witness Statement of David Kaesehagen, Annexure DK1, View C, pages 21-22 and 26-27.

1. In having regard to the planning framework, the visual impact of the proposed development is, I find, acceptable for three reasons.

2. First, the visual impact of the proposed development satisfies the relevant policy measures of SPP 5.2, contained in cl 5.1.1 ii), as detailed in the findings in issue 1 and therefore approval is consistent with SPP 5.2.[132] 

   [132] See [80]-[85].

3. Second, the visual impact of the proposed development satisfies the relevant policy objective (objective 2) of LPP 2.5, as detailed in the findings in issue 2[133] and issue 3[134] and therefore approval is consistent with LPP 2.5.

   [133] See [96]-[98].

   [134] See [106]-[108].

4. Third, I am satisfied that, having carefully considered the facts and the evidence before me, and having due regard to the relevant matters in the applicable planning framework, including the relevant matters in cl 67(2) of the Deemed Provisions, the visual impact of the proposed development, is acceptable when considered against the applicable framework.

Conclusion

1. The proposed development is 'telecommunications infrastructure' and is a discretionary use and capable of approval under DPS 2.  I consider the proposed development has been located, sited and designed to minimise its visual amenity impact in the context of its locality.  I accept that the benefit of improved telecommunications services is to be balanced with the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area. 

2. Having due regard to the relevant matters set out in cl 67(2) of the Deemed Provisions, including to SPP 5.2 (as required by s 241(1)(a) of the PD Act) and weighing up my findings in respect to the issues for determination, I conclude the correct and preferrable decision is to approve the proposed development because it is consistent with:

   1)SPP 5.2 and specifically the policy measures in cl 5.1.1 ii).

   2)LPP 2.5 and specifically policy objective 2, with respect to location and design considerations.

3. Accordingly, I will set aside the City's decision to refuse development application (DA2021/351) for 'Telecommunications Infrastructure' at the subject site and substitute a new decision approving the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions.

Conditions

1. In the event the Tribunal determined that the application should be approved, the respondent provided draft without prejudice conditions.  Condition (a), which identifies the development to be approved, and condition (b), dealing with the nature of the land use, are agreed.[135]

   [135] ts 35, 13 May 2022.

2. The final condition relates to landscaping.  The wording of condition (c) is broadly agreed.  However, the applicant seeks to reference a photomontage image, which unfortunately is not identified by a title.[136]   For the purposes of identification in the condition, and for the avoidance of doubt, I include this image as Annexure B to these reasons.  Also, the applicant seeks to add the word 'reasonable' to describe the landscaping plan so that it is to be to the 'reasonable satisfaction' of the City.  While this amendment is not essential, the respondent does not object to its inclusion.[137] Also, although implied, it is necessary to include that the landscaping plan to be submitted by the applicant is to be approved by the City which can occur pursuant to cl 74(1) and (2) of the Deemed Provisions, however this is required to occur prior to commencement of the development.

   [136] Exhibit 12, Witness Statement of Mark Baade, Attachment MWB-3, page 68.

   [137] ts 71, 13 May 2022.

3. Additionally, the wording of the condition does not provide for maintenance of the landscaping after it is implemented.  The respondent submits, and I accept, this is necessary.  

4. The wording of condition (c) will be modified to read:

   Prior to the commencement of the development a landscaping plan that is generally in accordance with the attached photomontage (Annexure B) and the approved Site Layout Plan, shall be prepared to the reasonable satisfaction of the City and approved by the City, and prior to the operation of the development implemented and thereafter the landscaping maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the City.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:

1.The application for review is allowed.

2.The decision of the respondent on 16 November 2021 to refuse a development application (DA2021/351) for Telecommunications Infrastructure at No 9 Pacific Promenade, Alkimos, is set aside and a decision substituted that development approval is granted for the proposed development under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2, subject to the following conditions:

(a)This approval only relates to the approved use stated in condition (b) and as depicted in plans:

(i)Draft Site Plan - AW6038-001-P1, Revision E, dated 23 September 2021;

(ii)Draft Site Layout - AW6038-001-P2, Revision E, dated 23 September 2021; and

(iii)Draft Site Elevation AW6038-002-P3, Revision E, dated 23 September 2021.

This approval does not relate to any other development on the site nor replace any other approval for the site.

(b)The use of the premises is to be Telecommunications Infrastructure as defined in the City of Wanneroo's District Planning Scheme No 2 as follows:

'Telecommunications Infrastructure: means any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network and includes any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit or other structure used, in or in connection with a telecommunications network'.

(c)Prior to the commencement of the development a landscaping plan that is generally in accordance with the attached photomontage (Annexure B) and the approved Site Layout Plan, shall be prepared to the reasonable satisfaction of the City and approved by the City, and prior to the operation of the development implemented and thereafter the landscaping maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the City.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

MR R Povey, MEMBER

13 JULY 2022

ANNEXURE A

The Planning Framework

State Planning Framework

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)

The subject site is zoned 'Urban' under the MRS.

State Planning Policy 5.2 - Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2)

Clause 2 of SPP 5.2 describes the policy intent as follows:

Installation of telecommunications network infrastructure usually involves the development of land and/or alteration to the appearance of buildings or structures, which may have visual impacts.  This planning policy aims to balance the need for effective telecommunications services and effective roll-out of networks, with the community interest in protecting the visual character of local areas.  Using a set of land use planning policy measures, the policy intends to provide clear guidance pertaining to the siting, location and design of telecommunications infrastructure.

Clause 3.6 of SPP 5.2 requires that '[d]ue regard should be given to this policy by State and local government planning decision-makers for':

…

c)Development proposals for telecommunications infrastructure'.

The policy objective of SPP 5.2 are specified in cl 4:

a)facilitate the provision of telecommunications infrastructure in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner to meet community needs;

b)manage the environmental, cultural heritage, visual and social impacts of telecommunications infrastructure;

c)ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is included in relevant planning processes as essential infrastructure for business, personal and emergency reasons; and

d)promote a consistent approach in the preparation, assessment and determination of planning decisions for telecommunications infrastructure.

Clause 5 of SPP 5.2 sets out policy measures in respect to visual impacts and specifies that visual impacts of an infrastructure development proposal should be assessed by applying the following set of policy measures to guide location, siting and design of the structure. 

The policy measures in cl 5.1.1 ii) are:

ii)Telecommunications infrastructure should be sited and designed to minimise visual impact and whenever possible:

a)be located where it will not be prominently visible from significant viewing locations such as scenic routes, lookouts and recreation sites;

b)be located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land;

c)not be located on sites where environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values maybe compromised and

d)display design features, including scale, materials, external colours and finishes that are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape;

Clause 6.3 of SPP 5.2 provides that when considering a development application, a local government should give consideration to:

a)The extent to which the proposal adheres to the policy measures outlined in Section 5 of this policy

b)       The need for services to be located to optimise coverage; and

c)       Documentation to be submitted under Section 6.3.1 of this Policy

Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia (VLP Manual)

VLP Manual, published by the Western Australian Planning Commission in November 2007, is of relevance as it is a manual for evaluation, assessment, siting and design.  This manual is intended to be used in conjunction with SPP 5.2 in the assessment of the visual impact of telecommunications facilities such as the proposed development.

Local

City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2)

The subject is zoned 'Urban Development' under DPS 2. DPS 2 incorporates the Deemed Provisions by virtue of reg 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (Deemed Provisions). 

Clause 1.6 outlines the relevant aims of DPS 2 are:

…

(g)To encourage urban design which is compatible with and appropriate to the natural, built and social environment of the City.

…

(o)To ensure that proper regard is given to the needs of the community in the determination of land use and development proposals[.]

Clause 3.14.2 outlines the objectives of the Urban Development Zone are:

(a)      designate land for urban development;

(b)provide for the orderly planning of large areas of land for residential and associated purposes through a comprehensive structure planning process;

(c)enable planning to be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances throughout the developmental stages of the area.

Clause 3.14.3 contains the provisions in which development is to be undertaken in the Urban Development Zone:

Subject to Clause 27 of the deemed provisions, no subdivision (including strata or survey strata subdivision) or other development should be commenced or carried out in an Urban Development Zone until a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted under the provisions of Part 4 of the deemed provisions. No subdivision (including strata or survey strata subdivision) should be commenced or carried out and no other development shall be commenced or carried out otherwise than in conformity with a Structure Plan which is in existence at the time the application for approval of the subdivision or other development is received by the responsible authority.

Schedule 1 of DPS 2 (Land Use Definitions) defines telecommunications infrastructure:

means any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network and includes any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit or other structure used, or for use, in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

Clause 1 of the Deemed Provisions defines amenity as:

… all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity[.]

Clause 1 of the Deemed Provisions defines a class D use, in relation to a zone -

(a)means a use identified in the zoning table for this Scheme (regardless of the symbol used) as a use that is not permitted in the zone unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval; but

(b)      does not include a class A use[.]

Clause 67(2) of the Deemed Provisions sets out matters that the local government is to have due regard, to the extent they are relevant to the proposed development. The matters that are pertinent in this case are:

…

(c)      any approved State planning policy;

…

(g)      any local planning policy for the Scheme area;

(h)any structure plan or local development plan that relates to the development;

…

(m)     the compatibility of the development with its setting, including –

(i)the compatibility of the development with the desired future character of its setting; and

(ii)the relationship of the development 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 development;

(n)      the amenity of the locality including the following –

(i)       environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)      the character of the locality;

(iii)     social impacts of the development;

…

(u)      the availability and adequacy for the development of the following-

…

(ii)      public utility services[.]

(v)the potential loss of any community service or benefit resulting from the development other than potential loss that may result from economic competition between new and existing businesses;

…

(x)the impact of the development on the community as a whole notwithstanding the impact of the development on particular individuals;

(y)      any submissions received on the application[.]

Local Planning Policy 2.5 - Telecommunications Instructure (LPP 2.5)

The objectives of LPP 2.5 are to:

a)facilitate the provision of telecommunications infrastructure in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner to meet community needs;

b)manage the environmental, cultural heritage, visual and social impacts of telecommunications infrastructure;

c)promote co-location of telecommunications infrastructure wherever possible; and

d)promote a consistent approach in the preparation, assessment and determination of proposals for telecommunications infrastructure.

LPP 2.5 sets out, at cl 2, assessment criteria.  Relevantly, cl 2.2 states:

Applications for development approval of telecommunications infrastructure that do not satisfy provisions prescribed in Column B, but can satisfy the requirements specified in Column C of the Policy Table may be approved or supported by the City following consultation being undertaken as specified in General Policy Provision 3.1.

The Policy Table provides 'Location' and 'Design' elements and specifies Deemed-to-Comply (at Column B), Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions that may be considered subject to consultation (at Column C) and Unacceptable Standards (at Column D).  No unacceptable standards are specified in respect to location elements L2 and L3 or D1 which are relevant to the proposed development.

North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No 73 (NALSP 73)

Under the NALSP 73, the subject site is designated 'Commercial' and is located in the central precinct.  The land surrounding the subject site (also within the central precinct) is designated 'Residential' with a density code ranging from R20 to R40.

The central precinct is described as follows:

Predominantly low-medium density residential development capitalising on open space, a primary school and proximity to the Coastal Village.  This precinct will accommodate mixed use neighbourhood and local centres.

Part 9.2.2 of the NALSP 73 outlines the objectives of the central precinct:

Offer affordable housing choice within a range of low-medium residential densities.

Promote a high level of access to open space and amenity.

Facilitate a high level of connectivity with the nearby Coastal Village.

Create a precinct with a distinct sense of place, which capitalises on its key amenity (such as POS) attributes.

Promote high levels of walking and cycling in replacement of private motor vehicle journeys.

Offer a high level of access to local shops and services.

High-quality yet affordable built form outcomes that encourage potential visitors and residents to turn off Marmion Avenue and enter the North Alkimos development.

Local Development Plan No 15 - North Alkimos (LDP 15-NA)

LDP 15-NA applies to the subject site and the adjoining commercial lot (Lot 1451) and to the residential lots located south of the subject site.  For the residential lots, it establishes primary frontages of the adjoining residential lots is towards Shorehaven park (and the drainage reserve), with car parking accessed from Waypoint Mews, identified as a laneway.  LDP 15-NA provides for a 6 metre setback from the subject site to the adjoining residential lot to the south.

Annexure B

Photomontage Landscaping Image