WEBB & BROWN-NEAVES and CITY OF NEDLANDS
[2023] WASAT 5
•7 FEBRUARY 2023
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: WEBB & BROWN-NEAVES and CITY OF NEDLANDS [2023] WASAT 5
MEMBER: MR R POVEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 15 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED : 7 FEBRUARY 2023
FILE NO/S: DR 102 of 2022
BETWEEN: WEBB & BROWN-NEAVES
Applicant
AND
CITY OF NEDLANDS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Temporary change of use 'Residential' (single house) to 'Display house' (use not listed) - Car parking - Signage - Amenity - Compatibility in its context - Orderly and proper planning
Legislation:
City of Nedlands Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 9(a), cl 16(2), cl 18, cl 18(4), cl 18(4)(b), cl 32, cl 32(1)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Sch 2, cl 1, cl 64, cl 67(2), cl 74(1), cl 74(2), cl 76(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 18, s 24, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 31(1), s 32(1), s 32(2)(a), s 32(2)(b)
Result:
Application allowed
Decision of respondent set aside and a decision substituted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr J Algeri |
| Respondent | : | Mr S Allerding |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Altus Planning (as agents) |
| Respondent | : | Allerding & Associates (as agents) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Canning Mews Pty Ltd and City of South Perth [2005] WASAT 272
John Cranston and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2019] WASAT 19
Marshall v Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority [2015] WASC 226
Nield and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2021] WASAT 94
Ridgecity Holdings Pty Ltd and City of Albany [2006] WASAT 187
Sunbay Developments Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda [2006] WASAT 74; (2006) 150 LGERA 116
Tempora Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda (1994) 10 SR (WA) 296
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
This decision deals with an application for review made under Sch 2, cl 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (Deemed Provisions) for the review of the City of Nedlands (respondent or City) decision to refuse to grant development approval for a temporary change of use from 'Residential' (Single house) to a 'Display House' (use not listed) and signage (proposed development) at No 20 (Lot 835) Curlew Road, Dalkeith (subject site). Webb Brown-Neaves (applicant) seeks an order that the respondent's decision is set aside and a decision substituted granting development approval to the proposed development, subject to appropriate conditions.
In these reasons, I will firstly describe the Tribunal's review jurisdiction and the conduct of the final hearing (hearing). Then I will describe the proposed development, the subject site, the locality, the planning framework and summarise the procedural history. Finally, I will set out, and then determine, the five issues that arise in this proceeding.
For the reasons given below, I have determined that '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 to approve the proposed development, subject to conditions.
The Tribunal's review jurisdiction
The Tribunal's review jurisdiction in planning matters is usefully set out in Nield and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2021] WASAT 94 at [27]-[30] and, for completeness, is set out below:[1]
27By reason of s 17 of the 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).[2]
28The Tribunal is to review the Shire'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.[3]
29The Tribunal is not bound to apply the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), the rules of evidence, or any practices and procedures of courts of record[4] 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.[5]
30The Tribunal is not limited to the material before the Shire as the original decision-maker but may consider new material.[6] The Tribunal is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities.[7] 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.
The hearing
[1] M Barton, M Povey and SSM Curry.
[2] Section 18, SAT Act.
[3] Section 27, SAT Act.
[4] Section 32(2)(a), SAT Act.
[5] Section 32(1), SAT Act
[6] Section 27(1), SAT Act.
[7] Section 32(2)(b), SAT Act.
Each party filed and gave to the other party a Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions (SIFC). The respondent also filed a bundle of documents under s 24 of the SAT Act.
The hearing was conducted on 15 November 2022. At the hearing I heard evidence from town planning experts, Mr Thomas James Hockley, a town planning consultant, called on behalf of the respondent and Mr Cody Meyer, a town planning consultant, called on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hockley and Mr Meyer also filed witness statements with the Tribunal.
At the commencement of the hearing, together with the representatives of the parties and the town planning experts, I attended a view of the subject site and the surrounds. This included a view from the street of a nearby display house, operated by Atrium Homes, at No 6 Colin Street, Dalkeith.
The proposed development
The proposed development is for a temporary change of use from 'Residential' (Single house) to a 'Display House', which is a use not listed under the City of Nedlands Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3) and installation of signage associated with the display house use. The proposed development, which is supported by an Operational Management Plan (OMP),[8] involves the following:
[8] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 190-197, Exhibit 3.
1)the use of the subject site as a display house for a period of 18 months;
2)four car parking bays on the subject site, being two car bays in the garage and two in the driveway. The two car bays in the garage are for staff use and the two in the driveway are for visitors;[9]
[9] At the hearing the location of the two staff car parking bays in the garage was shown on the Amended Site Plan, Exhibit 9. A further two visitor bays are shown on the Amended Site Plan; however, these car bays are not fully contained within the subject site, see [39].
3)hours of operation being Wednesday, 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm, and Saturday and Sunday, 12.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
4)the number of employees at the subject site will be limited to one;
5)the number of adults permitted to attend the development will be limited to six. Visitation is to be by appointment and walk-in and a visitor log is to be maintained;
6)one black and white hoarding sign, with a height of 0.7 metre and a width of 1.2 metres, and an overall height of 1.05 metres, is to be located at 45 degrees at the corner of the site facing the intersection of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue and setback 2 metres from each street boundary;[10] and
7)during operating hours, a portable A-frame sign is to be located on the side of the driveway to advise visitors to park in the driveway and not in the street.
8)implementation of a complaints procedure, which includes providing relevant contact details to the immediate neighbours and designating the on-site staff member responsible for receiving and handling complaints at the time of the incident.
Subject site and locality
Subject site
[10] At the hearing, the location of the hoarding sign was amended by the applicant, see Amended Site Plan, Exhibit 9. The respondent's representative did not object to the consideration of the amended location in these proceedings, ts 14, 15 November 2022.
The subject site is located on the north-east corner of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue and is more particularly known as Lot 835 on Plan 4158 being the whole of the land contained on Certificate of Title Volume 1081 and Folio 853 and is approximately 1012m2 in area. The subject site is rectangular in shape and has a front boundary of 20.12 metres to Curlew Road and a secondary street frontage (side boundary of 50.29 metres) to Waratah Avenue.
The subject site is zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and zoned 'Residential' with a density coding of 'R10' under LPS 3. The subject site is developed with a new two storey single house which is to be used for the proposed development. From the Curlew Road boundary, the single house is setback a minimum of 9 metres and setback 9.78 metres to the front of the garage.[11]
The locality
[11] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 188, Exhibit 3.
The extent of the locality identified by Mr Hockley in his witness statement includes a large area bounded by Viking Road (to the south), Alexander Road (to the west), Hotchin Street (to the north) and Wavell Road (to the east).[12] Mr Hockley says he identifies this locality because it is a representation of the character of the area, which he says, and I accept, is primarily residential.[13] Mr Hockley however explains the immediate locality is Curlew Road (both sides), which extends between Waratah Avenue and Gallop Road.[14] Mr Hockley accepts the proposed development is a 'fairly small scale activity'.[15] Mr Meyer does not set out a locality in his witness statement but accepts the amenity impact of the proposed development is unlikely to extend beyond the immediate locality identified by Mr Hockley.[16]
[12] Witness Statement of Thomas Hockley, pages 12 and 14, Exhibit 4. This is identified as the broader locality.
[13] ts 42 and 44, 15 November 2022.
[14] ts 43, 15 November 2022.
[15] ts 76, 15 November 2022.
[16] ts 44, 15 November 2022.
Considering the principles established by the Tribunal[17] in Ridgecity Holdings Pty Ltd and City of Albany [2006] WASAT 187 (Ridgecity) at [42], I accept, in this case, considering the likely amenity impacts of the proposed development which involves a small-scale nonresidential activity, the extent of the locality is generally aligned with the immediate locality described by Mr Hockley. However, the immediate locality should, in my view, extend to include the residential lots adjoining the intersection of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue (No 50 and No 52 Waratah Avenue), to enable the impact of the revised location of the hoarding sign to be considered. In this case, I consider this the extent of the relevant locality.
[17] Chaney J, SM Parry, M Connor.
All lots in the locality are zoned 'Residential' under LPS 3. However, the density coding of the lots varies. The majority are coded 'R10', including the subject site and all lots in Curlew Road. However, No 52 and No 59 Waratah Avenue are coded 'R40'.[18]
[18] No 59 Waratah Avenue is located directly opposite the subject site on the west side of Curlew Road. No 52 Waratah Avenue is located diagonally opposite the subject site, on the south-west corner of Waratah Avenue and Curlew Road.
On street parking is available in Curlew Road and there is currently no time restriction on the use of this parking.
Planning framework
The relevant planning framework, which I have considered in determining the application includes:
a)MRS;
b)LPS 3, which incorporates the Deemed Provisions and includes the relevant matters under cl 67(2) of Sch 2;[19]
c)City of Nedlands Local Planning Strategy (LP Strategy);
d)City of Nedlands Local Planning Policy - Parking (LPP-Parking); and
e)City of Nedlands Local Planning Policy - Signs (LPPSigns).
Summary of procedural history
[19] Clause 67(2) matters are identified at [18], [23], [83] and [96].
The following events have occurred with this application for review.
On 14 January 2022, the applicant applied for development approval for a 'display home' (original application).
The original application was advertised and at the close of advertising 17 submissions and one petition with 16 signatures were received.[20] The respondent says the following concerns were raised in the submissions:[21]
[20] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 174-187, Exhibit 3.
[21] Respondent's SIFC, para 10, Exhibit 2. Any submissions received on the application are a matter identified in cl 67(2)(y) of the Deemed Provisions.
a)the display house use will result in parking and traffic issues. More parking should be provided on site and parking should not be permitted on the verge;
b)display house is not listed within the City's Local Planning Scheme and should not be permitted;
c)the display house use is a commercial business in a residential neighbourhood and will set an undesirable precedent;
d)the proposed signage is not inconspicuous and will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality;
e)a cap on visitors to the display house should be imposed and enforced;
f)proposed use duration of 24 months is too long and operating hours on the weekends are too long;
g)the approval of the display house use may result in ongoing works or operation outside of permitted operational hours; and
h)there is no public health management with respect to COVID-19. The display house use will result in excess noise. Visitors to the display house may be inclined to view other neighbouring houses which poses a safety and security risk.
The original application was presented to the respondent's Council meeting on 24 May 2022 with an officer recommendation of approval with conditions, however the Council refused to grant development approval and a determination notice of refusal was issued on 10 June 2022.[22]
[22] Respondent's SIFC, paras 13-14, Exhibit 2.
On 20 June 2022, the applicant lodged an Application for Review with the Tribunal. Following mediation, which resulted in the applicant providing additional information (which now comprises the proposed development), the respondent was invited by the Tribunal, pursuant to s 31(1) of the SAT Act, to reconsider its decision.
On 23 August 2022, the respondent's Council refused the proposed development for two reasons:[23]
1.The proposed land use will result in an increase in vehicle movements to and from the subject site beyond what is reasonable for a residential area. Vehicle movements will result in traffic and parking issues that will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.
2.The development does not meet the City of Nedlands Parking Local Planning Policy objectives as inadequate parking has been provided on site.
[23] Respondent's SIFC, para 18, Exhibit 2.
The proposed development is the subject of consideration and determination in this review.
Issues for determination
Although the parties identify one issue for determination by the Tribunal in this proceeding, in effect, there are five issues.
1)Whether a 'display house' use (a use not listed) may be compatible with the locality.[24]
2)Whether the arrangements for car parking for the proposed development are adequate.[25]
3)Whether the proposed signage is acceptable in the locality.
4)Whether the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality is acceptable.[26]
5)Whether approval of the proposed development would be consistent with an orderly and proper planning outcome.[27]
[24] A matter under cl 67(2)(m) of the Deemed Provisions and a consideration under cl 18(4) of LPS 3.
[25] A matter under cl 67(2)(s) of the Deemed Provisions.
[26] A matter under cl 67(2)(n) of the Deemed Provisions.
[27] A matter under cl 67(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions. The parties identified this as the issue for determination.
I will consider the five issues in turn.
Issue 1 - whether a 'display house' use (a use not listed) may be compatible with the locality
Clause 18 of LPS 3 deals with 'Interpreting the zoning table'. Because a 'Display House' is a use not listed in the zoning table, cl 18(4) applies:[28]
The local government may, in respect of a use that is not specifically referred to in the zoning table and that cannot reasonably be determined as falling within a use class referred to in the zoning table -
(a)determine that the use is consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and is therefore a use that may be permitted in the zone subject to conditions imposed by the local government; or
(b)determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and give notice under clause 64 of the deemed provisions before considering an application for development approval for the use of the land; or
(c)determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and is therefore not permitted in the zone.
[28] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, LPS 3, page 10, Exhibit 3.
Mr Allerding, representative for the respondent, consistent with cl 18(4)(b), says:[29]
… it's acknowledged that display homes themselves, even though they're a use not listed, are a form of use that can potentially be considered within a residential zone.
[29] ts 18, 15 November 2022.
However, the respondent also says, and I accept, the obligation on any unlisted use, in these circumstances, is that it is contingent on meeting the objectives of the zone.[30]
[30] ts 18, 15 November 2022.
The relevant objective of the Residential zone is contained in cl 16(2) Table 2 of LPS 3, which the respondent identifies, and I accept, is:[31]
…
•To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development[.]
[31] ts 18, 15 November 2022.
In this case, the applicant is seeking development approval for the use for a period of 18 months and the proposed development is to operate on three days of the week, Wednesday (2.00 pm to 5.00 pm), Saturdays and Sundays (12.00 pm to 5.00 pm on both days). At other times the proposed development will be closed.
Mr Hockley in his written evidence says the proposed development is to be used by the applicant as part of its ongoing retail strategy to promote and advertise their products for sale. He argues the function of the proposed development is like a retail use in which interested parties will visit the subject site in the process of purchasing a product for sale.[32] Mr Hockley's characterisation of the proposed development as a form of retail use appears to align with the description in the applicant's Transport Impact Statement (TIS) which identifies 'display homes are part of the applicant's ongoing retail strategy and displaying homes allows them to promote and advertise their products for sale'.[33]
[32] Witness statement of Thomas Hockley, para 53, Exhibit 4.
[33] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 204, Exhibit 3.
However, under cross-examination, Mr Hockley concedes the proposed development is not really a retail use, because unlike a shop where you may make many visits, you are likely to visit a display house only once or possibly twice.[34] Mr Meyer's evidence also points to the differences, because he says unlike a retail use, interest in a display house usually wanes over time and while prospective purchasers are coming and going, they are not leaving with a physical product which means there are no deliveries or service vehicles.[35]
[34] ts 91-92, 15 November 2022.
[35] ts 91, 15 November 2022.
In this case, the applicant's OMP proposes a limit of six adults visiting the proposed development at any one time.[36] Visitation is to be managed by the applicant and the staff member who is on site when the proposed development is open.
[36] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 195, Exhibit 3.
It is uncontroversial a display house use is non-residential. To satisfy the relevant objective of the Residential zone, the nonresidential use must be compatible and complementary to residential development. Public advertising of the original application, as required by cl 64 of the Deemed Provisions, was undertaken by the respondent consistent with the requirements of cl 18(4)(b) of LPS 3.[37] However, to determine whether this display house is in fact compatible with and complementary in this residential locality, it is also necessary to consider the remaining issues relating to car parking, signage and the impact on the amenity of the locality. I will consider these next, after providing my findings on issue 1.
Findings - issue 1
[37] See [18] for summary of matters raised in submissions.
In respect to issue 1, I find that the use 'display house' (a use not listed under LPS 3) may be consistent, in this case, with the relevant objective of the Residential zone, and with this locality, and can be considered under cl 18(4)(b) of LPS 3 for two reasons.
First, I do not consider the use 'display house' (a use not listed) to be a retail use in the traditional sense of a shop, or to be in some way inappropriate in the Residential zone, or in this locality.
Second, the proposed development involves a use that is small in scale, has limited hours of operation, the number of adult visitors will be restricted to six, a staff member will be located on site, a complaints procedure will be implemented, the subject site is in close proximity to Waratah Avenue and approval is sought for a temporary 18 month period.
Issue 2 - whether the arrangements for car parking for the proposed development are adequate
Clause 32 of LPS 3 sets out 'Additional site and development requirements'. Relevant to the proposed development, cl 32(1) which applies to all zoned land, says:[38]
Except for development to which the R-Codes apply, every development shall provide on-site car parking spaces in accordance with any applicable local planning policy adopted by the local government.
[38] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, LPS 3, page 20, Exhibit 3.
The applicable local planning policy in this case is LPP-Parking. The objective of the LPP-Parking is to 'facilitate the development of sufficient parking facilities for cars and other wheeled vehicles'.[39] Understandably, LPP-Parking does not provide a parking ratio for a 'display house' use, as it is a use not listed in LPS 3. However, cl 4.2 applies in this instance:[40]
4.2.1Where a land use is not listed within Table 1 of this Policy, the parking ratio will be determined having regard to the objectives of this policy, similar uses and surrounding uses. This is the same as 'Uses not Listed' within LPS 3.
Car parking provision on the subject site
[39] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 141, Exhibit 3.
[40] Respondent's SIFC, para 35, Exhibit 2.
The proposed development provides four car parking bays on site. Two are located within the garage for staff,[41] and two in the driveway, for visitors. The applicant's Amended Site Plan shows two further car bays in the driveway, in a tandem arrangement behind the two visitor bays, however these bays cannot be fully accommodated within the boundary of the subject site. Because these two car bays are not fully contained within the boundaries of the subject site and, on the evidence before me, there is no agreement with the City to use the verge, I do not consider these bays can form part of the proposed development.
The TIS and expected visitation
[41] As only one staff member is to be on site when the display home is open, one car bay in the garage will be unused and inaccessible to visitors because of the closed garage door, see Amended Site Plan, Exhibit 9.
The applicant prepared a TIS based on the operation of the proposed development.[42] The applicant submits that parking in the driveway for up to four vehicles[43] will generally be sufficient for the opening hours proposed and the contemplated numbers of visitor groups.[44] The TIS also identifies public parking 300 metres from the subject site, on Waratah Avenue and Adelma Road associated with the Waratah Village Shopping Centre and the car parking area adjoining Genesta Park, to its north.
[42] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 198-212, Exhibit 3. A TIS is a non-technical statement of transport aspects of the proposed development in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines.
[43] As identified at [39], two parking bays will be available on the subject site for visitors.
[44] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 209, Exhibit 3.
The TIS is based on the applicant's experience with other display houses which indicates that:[45]
1)visitor groups tend to be between one to three persons;
2)visitor groups arrive in a single vehicle;
3)visitor groups generally stay for a period of 20 to 30 minutes; and
4)no more than a total of five to six visitor groups will be received in any one day.
[45] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 207-209, Exhibit 3.
The TIS provides that visitation to the proposed development will be by 'walk-ins' (visitors who arrive, likely by car, without an appointment) and by appointment[46] and that the maximum number of adult visitors allowed on site at one time will be limited to six. Appointments are encouraged[47] and each viewing session is a one-hour slot and visitor groups will be allocated 45 minutes,[48] presumably so that arrivals and departures do not overlap. A visitor who makes an appointment will be sent instructions to park in the driveway and not in the street (Curlew Road) or on the verge.[49]
[46] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 206, Exhibit 3.
[47] The applicant will provide for bookings to be made via their website or by telephone.
[48] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 210, Exhibit 3.
[49] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 206, Exhibit 3.
The TIS provides a comparative analysis of visitation at three other display houses operated by the applicant.[50] The data shows the average number of visitor groups per hour ranging from 0.9 to 1.2. The applicant also provides details of visitation at the nearby display house at No 6 Colin Street, Dalkeith.[51] This home has operated for the past 18 months and is open between 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. The average number of visitor groups per hour at this display house is 0.975 on Saturdays and 1.25 on Sundays.[52] The respondent says, 'the data that was provided provided an average across the entirety of the week and didn't provide any peak data material'.[53] While I accept no peak data is provided, there is no other evidence before me which raises doubt about the visitation data. The respondent did not identify concerns with the display house that has been operating for 18 months in a similar residential setting nearby at No 6 Colin Street, Dalkeith and, on the evidence before me, the visitation data at this site is similar to the three examples of display houses operated in other locations by the applicant.
The TIS and a hypothetical worst-case scenario
[50] Data collected during 2022, year to date. The display houses are in Jolimont, Mt Claremont (now closed) and Melville. Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 206, Exhibit 3.
[51] This display house is operated by Atrium Homes and was observed at the view.
[52] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 213, Exhibit 3.
[53] ts 114, 15 November 2022.
The TIS identifies that in a hypothetical worst-case scenario, there can be no more than two visitor groups at the subject site at any one time. The TIS says this means there will be no more than two visitor cars on site at any one time and approximately six vehicle movements per hour.[54] The TIS acknowledges some visitors will be walk-ins and where this occurs the TIS outlines a process to manage instances where the number of adult visitors exceeds six people on site. This process involves the staff member asking the walk-in visitors to leave the site and booking them to attend at another time.[55] The respondent submits these arrangements to manage visitation are not satisfactory, because it is difficult for the staff member on site to police,[56] and identifies this is where the greatest conflict is likely to arise.[57]
[54] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 210, Exhibit 3.
[55] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 210, Exhibit 3.
[56] ts 117, 15 November 2022.
[57] ts 16, 15 November 2022.
Mr Hockley says that where walk-in visitors are asked to wait, they may wait in their car, parked on the street in Curlew Road. Under cross-examination, he was asked about the impact of two visitor cars being parked on the street in Curlew Road, in the event visitor parking is not available on the subject site, even on a frequent basis. Mr Hockley says if this occurs frequently it would change, but not destroy, the amenity of Curlew Road.[58]
The appropriate car parking ratio
[58] ts 77-78,15 November 2022.
When considering the appropriate car parking ratio in this case, cl 4.2 of LPP-Parking says regard is be had to the objectives of the policy, similar uses and surrounding uses. The surrounding uses in the locality are residential, and it is not appropriate, in my view, to draw a comparison with the car parking provided for a residential use. However, the nearby display house at No 6 Colin Street, Dalkeith which, on the evidence before me, has similar arrangements for car parking in a residential street (visitor parking is provided in the driveway) and has operated for the past 18 months, apparently without concerns, is relevant, in my view.[59] The evidence before me also shows that for similar display houses the number of visitor groups that can be expected per hour ranges from 0.9 to 1.25. With two visitor car parking bays on the subject site, the scenario where consistently there is insufficient car parking is, in my view, on the evidence before me, unlikely.
Concerns of increased parking and traffic in the street
[59] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 213, Exhibit 3.
Mr Hockley's evidence also raises concerns, which he says are reflected in submissions received when the original application was advertised, about the potential for increased parking, traffic and activity occurring within the public realm along Curlew Road and adjoining streets associated with the proposed development.[60] However, under cross-examination Mr Hockley accepts the proposed development is a 'fairly small scale activity'.[61] Under further cross-examination, Mr Hockley was asked directly whether he considers the impact of the proposed development to be unacceptable. Mr Hockley, in reply, did not indicate it was unacceptable but says that when considering the vehicle movements and visitors walking in and out of the proposed development, it would create a different type of activity from a normal residential dwelling. He also acknowledges there will be periods of usage and periods when the proposed development will be closed.[62]
[60] Witness Statement of Thomas Hockley, para 72, Exhibit 4.
[61] ts 76, 15 November 2022.
[62] ts 79-80, 15 November 2022.
The applicant submits, and I accept, on the evidence before me, the proposed development provides a reasonable and practical regime to control the numbers of visitors and the car parking is adequate, safe and vehicle movements will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality.[63]
Findings - issue 2
[63] ts 106, 15 November 2022.
In respect to issue 2, I find the provision and arrangements for car parking for the proposed development are adequate and satisfy the objective of cl 3.1 of LPP-Parking because of the following seven reasons.
First, the comparative analysis of four other similar display houses shows the number of visitor groups that can be expected to attend each hour when the display house is open ranges from 0.9 to 1.25. Because of this, the two visitor car parking bays provided on the subject site are likely to be sufficient to accommodate the number of visitor groups expected to attend the proposed development.
Second, there is to be a restriction on visitor numbers at the proposed development at any time to six adults.
Third, visitors are to be encouraged to attend by appointment and when the appointment is made visitors will be provided instructions in writing to park in the driveway.
Fourth, the proposed development will operate for limited days and hours, outside of which no parking is required or traffic is generated.
Fifth, unrestricted public parking is available on Curlew Road in the immediate vicinity of the subject site and can be used if, on occasion, additional car parking is needed. Considering the evidence before me, the intermittent use of this on street parking associated with the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of this locality.
Sixth, additional traffic in Curlew Road is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of this locality because of the low number of visitor groups expected each hour (and only when the display house is open) and because the proposed development is located at the corner of Waratah Avenue (a local distributor road), meaning visitor's vehicles do not need to traverse through local streets to access the subject site.
Seventh, the complaints procedure in the OMP enables complaints from neighbours, should they occur, to be reported to the staff member (located on site) and handled at the time of the incident.
Issue 3 - whether the proposed signage is acceptable in this locality
Two signs are proposed, a hoarding sign and an A-frame sign. The Aframe sign is to be displayed when the display home is open and is uncontentious[64] and, in my view, acceptable, should the temporary use 'display house' be approved. The respondent's key concern about signage is with the proposed hoarding sign, as it is located at the street corner (of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue) and, the respondent contends, is likely to encourage walk-in visitors.[65] The respondent also contends the introduction of this sign into an area otherwise exclusively low density residential is an incompatible development in the locality.[66]
[64] Respondent's SIFC, paras 47-49, Exhibit 2.
[65] ts 19, 15 November 2022.
[66] Respondent's SIFC, para 48, Exhibit 2.
LPP-Signs provides the requirements which apply to signs and provides guidance when determining development applications for signs.[67] LPPSigns is applicable in this case. Clause 4.3.3 provides:[68]
In accordance with cl. 61(h), Part 7, Schedule 2 of the Regulations the following signs are exempt from the requirement for development approval provided:
(c)the sign satisfies the specific requirements for each sign type; and
(d) the sign is wholly located within the boundaries of the property to which it relates and not within the road reserve.
[67] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 144, Exhibit 3.
[68] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 145, Exhibit 3.
Hoarding signs are permitted by LPP-Signs on all zoned land except the Residential zone. As the subject site is in the Residential zone, cl 5 of LPP-Signs which deals with variations to policy applies. Clause 5.1 provides:[69]
Variations to this policy shall be assessed against the objectives of this policy.
[69] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 155, Exhibit 3.
The objectives of LPP-Signs are at cl 3:[70]
3.1To ensure that signs do not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.
3.2 To avoid the proliferation of signs nor signage which are not relevant to the business.
3.3To ensure that commercial signs are generally located in nonresidential areas.
3.4 To ensure that signs do not detract from the level of safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
3.5To ensure that signage directs pedestrian and vehicular traffic appropriately and is proportionate to the scale of the building.
[70] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 144, Exhibit 3.
The hoarding sign is a type of sign identified in cl 4.4.2 of LPPSigns and because the hoarding sign is in the Residential zone and because it does not satisfy all the specific requirements for the hoarding sign type it is not exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval.
Mr Meyer says the hoarding sign meets or is able to meet all the requirements under LPP-Signs.[71] I accept this sign meets the development provisions of LPP-Signs in respect to:[72]
i)the number of signs, being one;
ii)the maximum height of the sign up to 6 metres; with this sign being 1.05 metres high;
iii)the minimum setback of 2 metres from adjoining properties, because the amended location of this sign[73] is on the corner of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue and away from adjoining properties; and
v)is setback greater than 1.5 metres from where the driveway meets the crossover.
[71] Witness Statement of Cody Meyer, para 120, Exhibit 7.
[72] Note: The numbering corresponds to the development provisions in cl 4.4.2 of LPP-Signs.
[73] See [8] and footnote 10.
However, on the evidence before me, this sign does not meet the following development provisions of LPP-Signs:
i)it is not aligned at right angles to the street. The amended location proposes the sign to be angled at 45 degrees to address the corner of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue; and
ii)it does not have a minimum clearance of 2.75 metres above natural ground level and the applicant has not addressed if the sign complies with the relevant building codes. A clearance of 0.35 metres is proposed above natural ground level.
Impact of the hoarding sign on amenity
LPP-Signs also requires, at cl 5.3, that 'where a development application seeks to vary a policy measure, and in the opinion of the City the variation may have an adverse impact on the amenity of an adjoining property or the streetscape, the City will undertake consultation and notification of neighbouring landowners and occupiers …'.[74] Consultation was conducted by the City on the original application which included a taller (2.5 metres high by 0.8 metre wide) monolith sign that was predominantly red in colour. Like hoarding signs, under LPP-Signs, monolith signs are permitted on all zoned land except the Residential zone.[75] Submissions received during advertising of the original application raise concerns about this signage identifying that it is not inconspicuous and will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality.[76]
[74] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 155, Exhibit 3.
[75] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 150, Exhibit 3.
[76] See [18].
In response to those concerns, the proposed development now incorporates a smaller hoarding sign which is black and white in colour (with a signage panel of 1.2 metres wide by 0.7 metre high, mounted 0.35 metre above the ground, providing an overall height of 1.05 metres). The applicant says[77], and I accept, this is of similar size to the hoarding sign at the nearby display house at No 6 Colin Street, Dalkeith, which is also in the Residential zone.[78] Mr Hockley, under cross-examination, was asked about the hoarding sign at No 6 Colin Street and he says that while this sign is visible in the streetscape, it is not highly distracting because it is set in a landscaped backdrop and is well presented.[79]
[77] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 135, Exhibit 3.
[78] Observed at the view, see [7].
[79] ts 95, 15 November 2022.
In this case, the hoarding sign is also set in the landscaped front setback but is oriented at a 45 degree angle at the corner of Curlew Road and Waratah Avenue, facing away from Curlew Road, and not directly adjoining other residential properties. While I accept it is more visible being at the corner (being visible when approaching from an easterly direction along Waratah Avenue or from Curlew Road when approaching the intersection from south of the subject site), I consider this location minimises its visual impact in the Curlew Road residential streetscape.
The location of the hoarding sign and visitation
The applicant's representative, Mr Algeri, submits the signage should be provided for no other reason than to assist visitors with wayfinding, consistent with objective 3.5.[80] The applicant also accepts that under LPP-Signs, hoarding signs are generally not permitted in the Residential zone (relevant to objective 3.3), however, submits the size of the proposed hoarding sign is well under the maximum permitted in the development provisions of LPP-Signs. However, Mr Allerding submits that, with the amended location of the hoarding sign, its purpose is to encourage and promote walk-in visits from people who are going past.[81]
[80] ts 30, 15 November 2022.
[81] ts 19, 15 November 2022.
Mr Meyer, under cross-examination, accepts the location of the sign is less discreet than the original location, but says this location was chosen because it meets development provisions for LPP-Signs.[82] While I do not agree it meets all the development provisions of LPPSigns,[83] I accept, the location meets the provision requiring a 2 metre setback from adjoining sites. Under further cross-examination, Mr Meyer concedes one of the purposes of the sign is to encourage people to come to the premises[84] but he says he does not know if the location of the sign will result in a substantial difference in the number of visitors to the proposed development.[85]
[82] ts 66, 15 November 2022.
[83] As identified at [66].
[84] ts 66, 15 November 2022.
[85] ts 67, 15 November 2022.
Mr Hockley agrees the proposed location of the sign is more visible, particularly to vehicles moving along Waratah Avenue. He says this may bring more vehicles into Curlew Road[86] and more visitors to the proposed development.[87] Mr Hockley's evidence is that, considering the locality, if the proposed development was to be approved, the Aframe sign should be the only sign.[88] Further, Mr Hockley, when considering the hoarding sign in the context of wayfinding (relevant to objective 3.5), argues this sign is not necessary, because he thinks if people are coming to the proposed development, they will probably put the address into their car or phone navigation system.[89]
[86] ts 67-68, 15 November 2022.
[87] ts 93, 15 November 2022.
[88] ts 93, 15 November 2022.
[89] ts 93, 15 November 2022.
While I accept the hoarding sign is more visible, on the evidence before me I am unable to make a finding as to whether its location (and considering its relatively small size and black and white colour scheme), being at the corner of Waratah Avenue and Curlew Road, will or will not significantly increase the number of walk-in visitors to the proposed development and increase the demand for car parking beyond the capacity of the two visitor car parking bays provided on the subject site. However, as the OMP restricts the overall number of adult visitors to six at any one time (which is to be managed by the staff member on site) and this, in addition to the requirement to encourage visitation by appointment and a complaints management procedure, I consider sufficiently ameliorates the concerns about the more visible location of the hoarding sign in this case.
Finally, considering objective 3.4 of LPP-Signs, there is no evidence before me that the proposed signs (or their location) distract from the level of safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Findings - issue 3
In respect to issue 3, I find the proposed signage is acceptable in this locality, in this case, for four reasons.
First, the A-frame sign and the hoarding sign do not, in this case, constitute a proliferation of signage and these signs are relevant to the proposed temporary display house use, consistent with objective 3.2 of LPP-Signs.
Second, the A-frame sign is acceptable because it will be displayed only when the proposed development is open and be used to direct visitors to park in the driveway, consistent with objective 3.5 of LPPSigns.
Third, the hoarding sign is acceptable when considering objective 3.5 of LPP-Signs, because it will assist directing pedestrian and vehicle traffic appropriately and its small scale is proportionate to the residential scale of the existing single house on the subject site.
Fourth, the hoarding sign is acceptable, in this case, when considering objective 3.1 and objective 3.3 of LPP-Signs, because of its small size, black and white colour scheme and its location and orientation, which faces away from the Curlew Road streetscape which mitigates amenity impacts.
Issue 4 - whether the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality is acceptable
Consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality is a consideration under cl 67(n) of the Deemed Provisions and relevant in this proceeding. Amenity is defined in cl 1 of the Deemed Provisions and:
… means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity.
As the Tribunal[90] has previously observed, the case authorities on evaluating amenity are well-known and settled. For many years the leading authority was Tempora Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda (1994) 10 SR (WA) 296 (Tempora) where the former Town Planning Appeal Tribunal (at 304) set out a three-step test in terms of evaluating amenity. The relevant steps are:
1)establish the existing amenity in an objective sense;
2)evaluate the manner in which the proposed development will affect the existing amenity; and
3)assess the degree of impact on the locality.
[90] M Willey (as he then was) in John Cranston and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2019] WASAT 19 at [76].
In Sunbay Developments Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda [2006] WASAT 74; (2006) 150 LGERA 116 at [21] (Sunbay) Barker J generally endorsed the approach to amenity set out in Tempora with one exception as to the assessment of existing amenity which his Honour found can be informed by lay residents in addition to expert witnesses.[91] He also observed that an evaluation of amenity should take account of future amenity.[92] The need to consider future amenity is expressly recognised in the definition of amenity.
Amenity of the locality
[91] See Canning Mews Pty Ltd and City of South Perth [2005] WASAT 272 at [48].
[92] Sunbay at [22].
It is uncontroversial the character of the locality[93] is low density single residential. The two sites in the locality (No 52 and No 59 Waratah Avenue) with an R40 coding under LPS 3 are currently developed with single houses. The respondent submits, and I accept, that nonresidential activities were not observed in the locality during the view.[94]
[93] The extent of the locality is identified earlier at [11]-[12].
[94] ts 10, 15 November 2022.
Mr Hockley identifies all the houses in Curlew Road have car parking provided on site, sufficient to accommodate their use as single residential dwellings.[95] Notwithstanding this, two cars were observed parked on Curlew Road on the morning of the view[96] and public parking on this street is not restricted.[97]
[95] Witness Statement of Thomas Hockley, para 15 and Annexure TJH3, Exhibit 4.
[96] ts 11, 15 November 2022. These cars were not associated with the participants at the view.
[97] ts 9, 15 November 2022.
Mr Hockley says, and I accept, Curlew Road (between Gallop Road and Waratah Avenue) is classified a local access road and services 13 dwellings.[98] Waratah Avenue is classified a local distributor road and carries an average of 3,223 vehicles per weekday.[99] It is uncontroversial this is the main east-west distributor road running through Dalkeith.[100]
Future amenity
[98] Witness Statement of Thomas Hockley, para 15, Exhibit 4.
[99] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, page 113-114, Exhibit 3. Road classification by Main Roads Western Australia.
[100] ts 11, 15 November 2022.
In terms of the future amenity of the locality, Mr Allerding identifies the LP-Strategy and submits, and I accept, there is no proposal in the LP-Strategy for nonresidential activities to be located in Curlew Road.[101] Mr Algeri identifies the three strategies relevant to Dalkeith in the LP-Strategy,[102] of which he submits, and I accept, two are relevant in this case:
•Retain and enhance the character and streetscape of existing residential areas in order to protect the established character of this precinct.
…
•Facilitate increased dwelling diversity by providing for increased residential density in the immediate vicinity of the Dalkeith Neighbourhood Centre, in line with the scale of the centre.
[101] ts 14, 15 November 2022.
[102] At page 25, Tab 8, Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Exhibit 3. The LP Strategy is a relevant matter under cl 67(2)(fa) of the Deemed Provisions.
It is uncontroversial the two R40 coded lots in the locality (at No 52 and No 59 Waratah Avenue) are part of the strategy to allow increased residential density in the immediate vicinity of the Dalkeith Neighbourhood Centre (located approximately 300 metres west of the subject site). To this extent, the future amenity of the locality is likely to change with redevelopment of these lots at an increased R40 density. However, the planning experts agree this is unlikely to occur during the 18 month timeframe of a temporary approval.[103]
The impact of the proposed development on amenity
[103] ts 45-46, 15 November 2022.
The key consideration, in my view, is whether the proposed development will retain and enhance the character and streetscape of the locality in order to protect the established character of the precinct. In respect to amenity, the respondent's key concerns relate to the management of visitors to the proposed development (and the associated adequacy of car parking) and the impact of the proposed signage.[104]
[104] Respondent's SIFC, paras 44-45 and 48-49, Exhibit 2.
The concern with the management of visitors relates to the fact that visitation is to be by walk-in and by appointment and the applicant contends that management measures in the OMP are not adequate to ensure problems relating to car parking will not arise.[105] However, considering the evidence before me in relation to anticipated number of visitor groups, the restriction in visitor numbers to six adults at any one time and the management measures in the OMP (including limitations on the operating hours), I consider that visitors to the display house will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of this locality. The use of on street parking in Curlew Road, in the immediate vicinity of the subject site if this is required on occasion, will not, on the evidence before me, have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality.[106]
[105] ts 16, 15 November 2022.
[106] See also issue 2 at [37]-[56].
The other amenity concern is the impact of the proposed signage, and this is considered earlier in issue 3.[107]
Findings - issue 4
[107] See [57]-[76].
In respect to issue 4, I find the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality is acceptable because of the following five reasons.
First, the proposed development will operate on a small-scale, with restrictions on the number of visitors to six adults at any one time and with limited operating hours.
Second, the car parking for staff and visitors provided on the subject site is likely to be sufficient to meet operational requirements and the anticipated number of visitor groups attending the proposed development.
Third, if on occasion, additional car parking is required, on-street car parking is available on Curlew Road in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, and the intermittent use of this public car parking by visitors will not have detrimental impact on the amenity of this locality.
Fourth, considering my findings in issue 3, the proposed signage (hoarding sign and A-frame sign) will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality in this case. This is because of the small size, orientation and colours of the hoarding sign and the fact the Aframe sign is displayed only when the display house is open.
Fifth, the proposed development will not have an impact on the desired future character or likely future amenity of the locality because the approval sought for the change of use and the signage is for a temporary period of 18 months, after which the display house use will cease, and the signage will be removed.
Issue 5 - whether approval the proposed development would be consistent with an orderly and proper planning outcome
When considering orderly and proper planning in Marshall v Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority [2015] WASC 226 (Marshall), at [180], her Honour Pritchard J explains:
… The State Administrative Tribunal has observed that at 'the heart of orderly and proper planning' is a public planning process which permits the assessment of individual applications against existing planning policies 'so that the legitimate aspirations found in the planning framework may be translated into reality'.
Further, Pritchard J observes in Marshall, at [181], that there is no reason why planning legislation and instruments will be the only matters warranting consideration in determining what is a 'proper' planning decision.
In this case, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied the orderly and proper planning considerations that arise are, as the parties have identified, the land use (display house), car parking and traffic impacts, the signage and amenity considerations. These aspects are considered in issues 1 to 4[108] and against the local planning framework, which includes LPS 3 and relevant local planning policies, LPP-Parking (relevant to issue 2) and LPP-Signs (relevant to issue 3).[109]
Findings - issue 5
[108] Findings on issue 1 are at [34]-[36], on issue 2 at [49]-[56], on issue 3 at [72]-[76] and on issue 4 at [88][93].
[109] Local planning policies are a relevant matter under cl 67(2)(g) of the Deemed Provisions.
In respect to issue 5, I find that approval of the proposed development would be consistent with an orderly and proper planning outcome for the following three reasons.
First, having considered the proposed development against the relevant provisions of LPS 3, on the evidence before me, I consider the proposed development meets the requirements of the local planning scheme (and the associated local planning policies LPP-Parking and LPP-Signs) and its approval for a temporary period of 18 months is consistent with the relevant objective of the Residential zone, contained in cl 16(2) Table 2 of LPS 3, which is 'to provide for a range of nonresidential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development'.
Second, having considered the proposed development against the provisions of LPP-Parking, on the evidence before me, I consider the proposed development meets the objective of that policy because it provides sufficient car parking onsite for staff and the anticipated number of visitors and is supported by an OMP which restricts the number of adult visitors to six.
Third, having considered the proposed development against the provisions of LPP-Signs, on the evidence before me, I consider the proposed signage (the A-frame sign and the hoarding sign) meets the relevant objectives of this policy, in particular objectives 3.1 and 3.5. Given the temporary nature of the signage (and considering the size, location and colours), the signage is, in this case, acceptable in this residential location.
Conclusion
The proposed development involves a temporary change of use from 'Residential' (Single house) to 'Display House', a use not listed under LPS 3. The proposed development also involves the installation of two signs, a hoarding sign and an A-frame sign, with the A-frame sign erected only when the display house is open. The temporary period of approval sought by the applicant is 18 months.
I consider the proposed development meets the relevant objective of the Residential zone because it is a small-scale non-residential activity and its amenity impacts on the locality (for the 18 month period of approval sought) and are, in this case, capable of being acceptably managed through the measures in the OMP. The OMP includes designated operating hours and a restriction to six adults visiting the proposed development and the requirement to encourage visitation by appointment. As to the proposed signage, I consider the impact of the signs to be acceptable in the context of the locality, particularly considering the limited size, the location, orientation, and colours of the hoarding sign and the fact the Aframe sign is only displayed when the proposed development operates.
I conclude that having due regard to the relevant matters in cl 67(2) of the Deemed Provisions and weighing up my findings in respect to the five issues for determination, the correct and preferrable decision is to set aside the respondent's decision and approve of the proposed development, subject to conditions, including that the approval is for a temporary period of 18 months, because it is consistent with an orderly and proper planning outcome.
Conditions
In the event the Tribunal determined that the development should be approved, the respondent provided six draft without prejudice conditions[110] and five of the conditions are agreed by the parties.
[110] Respondent's Draft Without Prejudice Conditions, Exhibit 5.
However, draft condition 3 requires an updated OMP to be submitted to the respondent, prior to the commencement of the operations. The applicant initially objected to this condition in its entirety, however at the hearing accepts part a of the condition which requires that the updated OMP address the management of possible tandem visitor parking in the driveway and adjoining verge.[111] The applicant objects to part b of this condition which requires the management of on-street parking in Curlew Road adjacent to the subject site. At the hearing the respondent conceded part b can be deleted.
[111] ts 99 and 122, 15 November 2022.
I do not accept that condition 3 is required because, as I observe at [39], the tandem car parking arrangement for visitors cannot be accommodated within the boundary of the subject site. The draft condition is therefore, in my view, inappropriate and will be deleted and consequential minor amendments made to other conditions to reflect the implementation of the version the OMP that is approved by the decision in this review.
Conditions (e) and (f) in the Orders requires the later approval by the City of specified things and this can occur in accordance with cl 74(1) and cl 74(2) of the Deemed Provisions.
Orders
For these reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision of the respondent on 23 August 2022 to refuse development application for a Display House (Temporary) at No 20 Curlew Road, Dalkeith is set aside, and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted for the proposed development under the City of Nedlands Local Planning Scheme No 3 subject to the following conditions:
(a)This approval is valid for 18 months from 7 February 2023. The sign is to be removed, and the use of the site as a display house will revert to a single house at the end of the approval period.
(b)This approval relates only to a temporary change of use from a single house to a display house, one fixed sign and one portable A-frame sign. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.
(c)The Operational Management Plan is to be fully implemented at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Nedlands, including the following:
(i)Hours of operation to be strictly Wednesdays 2.00 pm - 5.00 pm and Saturdays and Sundays 12.00 pm - 5.00 pm.
(ii)Maximum of one (1) employee on the premises at any one time.
(iii)Maximum of six (6) adult visitors on the premises at any one time.
(iv)Visitation by appointment to be encouraged at all times, including provision on the operator's website for bookings.
(v)Employee parking to be located within the garage or the property.
(vi)Visitor parking to be located on the driveway of the property.
(vii)Signage is to be limited to one fixed sign 1200 millimetres wide by 700 millimetres high and maximum overall height of 1050 millimetres with posts, to be displayed only for the life of this approval and one portable A-frame sign to be displayed during hours of operation only.
(viii)A visitor log to be maintained at all times with details of name, contact and vehicle registration. This log to be made available for inspection by the City of Nedlands upon request.
(ix)The complaints procedure outlined in the Operational Management Plan to be documented and displayed within the display home at all times so that employees, visitors and neighbours are made aware of the procedure.
(d)Prior to the commencement of operations, a scaled dimensioned Site Layout Plan is to be prepared and then submitted to and approved by the City of Nedlands, outlining:
(i)The location of proposed employee and visitor car parking bays.
(ii)The location of the fixed sign.
(iii)The location of the portable A-frame sign.
(e)Prior to the commencement of operations, a scaled dimensioned signage plan is to be prepared and then submitted to, and approved by, the City of Nedlands, outlining:
(i)The height, width and depth of the portable A-frame sign.
(ii)The colours and materials to be used.
(iii)The height of the portable A-frame sign above ground level.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MR R Povey, MEMBER
7 FEBRUARY 2023
0
4
4