Twyman and City Of Canning
Case
•
[2009] WASAT 146
•29 JULY 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Twyman and City Of Canning [2009] WASAT 146
[2009] WASAT 146
29 JULY 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Twyman and City Of Canning involved a dispute between the respondent, Twyman, and the appellant, the City Of Canning, regarding the conditions attached to a retrospective approval for the development of an outbuilding using a sea container. The matter was heard in the Western Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (WACA). The central issue was whether the retrospective development approval granted by the City of Canning should be reviewed and amended in light of the developments that have occurred since the approval was given.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the retrospective approval should be reviewed to remove certain conditions that were no longer relevant due to changes in the site. Specifically, the court had to determine if Condition 7, which required the sea container to be set back 18 metres from the front boundary, should be deleted because the container had already been set back 3 metres and aligned with the building line of the house, fulfilling other conditions requiring landscaping and painting. The court also considered the objectives of the zoning, which aimed to maintain the rural character and amenity of the site.
In reviewing the application, the tribunal found that the condition requiring the sea container to be set back 18 metres from the front boundary was no longer relevant, given the current state of the site. The tribunal noted that the sea container had already been set back 3 metres and painted, and effective screen planting had been carried out. The tribunal concluded that these developments had already satisfied the conditions of the approval and aligned with the objectives of the zoning. Therefore, the application for review was allowed, and Condition 7 was deleted from the retrospective conditional development approval.
The final orders of the tribunal were that the application for review was allowed, and Condition 7 of the retrospective conditional development approval granted by the City of Canning on 28 April 2009 for the outbuilding sea container at 23 Livingstone Drive, Canning Vale, Western Australia, was hereby deleted.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the retrospective approval should be reviewed to remove certain conditions that were no longer relevant due to changes in the site. Specifically, the court had to determine if Condition 7, which required the sea container to be set back 18 metres from the front boundary, should be deleted because the container had already been set back 3 metres and aligned with the building line of the house, fulfilling other conditions requiring landscaping and painting. The court also considered the objectives of the zoning, which aimed to maintain the rural character and amenity of the site.
In reviewing the application, the tribunal found that the condition requiring the sea container to be set back 18 metres from the front boundary was no longer relevant, given the current state of the site. The tribunal noted that the sea container had already been set back 3 metres and painted, and effective screen planting had been carried out. The tribunal concluded that these developments had already satisfied the conditions of the approval and aligned with the objectives of the zoning. Therefore, the application for review was allowed, and Condition 7 was deleted from the retrospective conditional development approval.
The final orders of the tribunal were that the application for review was allowed, and Condition 7 of the retrospective conditional development approval granted by the City of Canning on 28 April 2009 for the outbuilding sea container at 23 Livingstone Drive, Canning Vale, Western Australia, was hereby deleted.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Planning & Development Law
Legal Concepts
-
Development Approval
-
Retrospective Approval
-
Conditions of Approval
-
Screening
-
Amenity
-
Rural Character
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
City of Armadale v Chapman [2012] WASC 423
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Chapman and City Of Armadale
[2011] WASAT 205
City of Armadale v Chapman
[2012] WASC 423
Chapman and City Of Armadale
[2011] WASAT 205
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
3