TAFTI and CITY OF SUBIACO

In the matter of Tafti and the City of Subiaco, the primary dispute centred around the City of Subiaco's refusal to grant a development application for a single carport within the front setback area of a property. The applicants, Tafti, argued that the refusal was unjust given the constraints of their property's layout, which precluded the carport from being placed anywhere else on the site. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No 4, specifically clause 28. The applicants contended that the council's refusal to allow the carport was an inappropriate exercise of discretion, particularly in the context of the unique streetscape of their property. The applicants also questioned whether they were required to provide two onsite car bays, a condition they argued was not supported by the planning scheme. The City of Subiaco defended its decision, asserting that the planning scheme did not permit a carport in the front setback area.

The court, in considering the matter, examined the specific circumstances of the property and the broader context of the streetscape. It noted that the planning scheme did not explicitly allow for a carport in the front setback area but considered the applicants' argument that the site layout necessitated such a placement. The court determined that while the planning scheme's intention was to maintain a certain aesthetic and functional standard for front setbacks, the particular circumstances of this property warranted a flexible interpretation. The court found that the applicants' requirement to provide two onsite car bays was not supported by the planning scheme and, therefore, not a valid condition of the application. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to permit the carport in the front setback area, aligning with the applicants' argument.

The final orders of the court mandated that the City of Subiaco grant the development application for the single carport in the front setback area, subject to compliance with other relevant conditions. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering individual property circumstances and the broader streetscape when exercising planning discretion.