TRICKEY and CITY OF SUBIACO

In the matter of Trickey and the City of Subiaco, the dispute revolves around the construction of a single carport within the primary street setback area. The City of Subiaco had denied approval for this construction, indicating that an alternative location was available. Trickey subsequently applied for a review of this decision, challenging the council's stance on the matter. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the city's decision was legally sound and whether it was reasonable to require an alternative location for the carport.

The court examined several legal issues, primarily whether the city's decision was within its statutory powers and whether the decision was made in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies. It was crucial to determine if the council had acted in a manner that was not only procedurally fair but also substantively reasonable. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the council's requirement for an alternative location for the carport was justifiable under the circumstances and whether this requirement was a valid exercise of the council's planning authority.

The court found that the City of Subiaco's decision was both legally sound and reasonable. It was established that the council had the authority to deny the construction permit based on the primary street setback requirements. Furthermore, the availability of an alternative location for the carport was deemed a reasonable condition to impose, given the potential impact on the streetscape. The court concluded that the council had acted within its powers and that its decision was not only procedurally fair but also substantively reasonable. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the original decision of the City of Subiaco was affirmed.