Wellard Capital Pty Ltd and Town Of Cottesloe - [2009] WASAT 160

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: WELLARD CAPITAL PTY LTD and TOWN OF COTTESLOE [2009] WASAT 160

MEMBER: JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)
MR A EDNIE-BROWN (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 30 APRIL 2009 AND 1 MAY 2009

DELIVERED : 21 AUGUST 2009

FILE NO/S: DR 450 of 2008

BETWEEN: WELLARD CAPITAL PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
TOWN OF COTTESLOE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town Planning - Mixed use development - Land unzoned under local planning scheme - Approval required under Metropolitan Region Scheme - Relevance of development standards under local scheme - Whether proposed amendment to scheme a seriously entertained planning proposal - Weight to be accorded to proposed new local planning scheme

Legislation:

Land Administration Act 1997 (WA)
Metropolitan Region Scheme, cl 10, cl 30, cl 30(1)
Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA), s 35(a)
Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 5.5.1, cl 5.5.4, Sch 13, Table 2
Town of Cottesloe Town Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.2, cl 1.8, cl 3.4.2, cl 5.1.1, cl 5.3(a), cl 7.1.1, Appendix 1

Result:

Application for approval dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr PG McGowan
Respondent: Mr J Skinner

Solicitors:

Applicant: Paiker & Overmeire
Respondent: Jackson McDonald

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Wellard Capital Pty Ltd sought approval from the Town of Cottesloe to develop a three to four storey mixed use building on its land at 573 - 575 Stirling Highway, Cottesloe. When the Town failed to determine the application within the time required under its town planning scheme, Wellard Capital sought a review of its application by the Tribunal.
Unusually, the subject site was not zoned under the local planning scheme, probably as a result of an oversight by the Town after a regional road reservation, to which the land was subject, was removed in 1995. As a result, no approval was necessary under the local planning scheme, but approval was required under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.
A principle issue for the Tribunal was what, if any, weight should be accorded to the development standards in the existing local planning scheme and under a proposed new local planning scheme which was in the process of preparation. The Tribunal concluded that substantial weight should be accorded to both. The proposed development would not have been capable of approval under either because of its height and plot ratio, and the Tribunal concluded that it would be inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area to approve the proposal. The application was therefore dismissed.

Introduction

The applicant (Wellard Capital) seeks a review of a deemed refusal of an application to develop land in Stirling Highway, Cottesloe for a mixed use development comprising a single building of three storeys fronting to Stirling Highway, increasing to four storeys at the rear of the land. The subject site comprises three separate land parcels, being Lot 16, Lot 17 and Lot 18, with a combined area of approximately 1,122 square metres. The site presently contains a single storey commercial building and car parking bays accessed via two existing crossovers from Stirling Highway.
The site is situated within a triangular shaped street block generally bounded by Stirling Highway to the east, Jarrad Street to the north and Brixton Street and the Perth-Fremantle Railway line to the west. The locality is characterised by a mix of commercial land uses and buildings, such as offices, shops and showrooms.

The proposed development

The building is proposed to be used for office purposes, with the exception of one ground floor tenancy which, according to the plans of the proposed development, is to be used for retail purposes.
At ground level, pedestrian access to the building is obtained via a plaza on the north side of the building, incorporating paved areas, landscaping and a pond. The plaza leads to a central atrium lobby and lift lobby, providing access to the various tenancies in the building. The effect of the design of the building is that the height steps up from a height of three storeys on its eastern side, fronting Stirling Highway, to four storeys on its western side.
The three storey office and retail portion of the building is 11.3 metres high. The atrium and the four storey portion of the building are each 15 metres high. The proposed development has setbacks of nil to the southern boundary, 1.5 metres to the western boundary, 2.5 metres to the northern boundary and nil to the eastern boundary abutting Stirling Highway.
The parties did not agree as to the plot ratio calculation for the proposed building. The applicant's expert planner calculated the plot ratio at 1.64:1, whereas the respondent assessed it as 1.95:1.
The elevations of the proposed development indicate that the building's east, north and west facades will be finished with aluminium framed windows and walls clad in stone or zinc cladding.
The two level basement contains 50 car parking bays and parking for approximately 11 bicycles. Vehicle access to the car park is obtained from the existing southern crossover from Stirling Highway via a two-way entry and exit ramp. That is the only means of vehicle access to the car park as the site does not enjoy the benefit of frontage to any other street or laneways.

Planning framework

The land is currently zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). It was previously reserved for regional road purposes under the MRS. It had been so reserved since the inception of the MRS in 1963, but in 1995, there was an amendment to the MRS which removed the reservation, and zoned the land urban instead.
Clause 10 of the MRS requires that approval of the responsible authority be obtained prior to the commencement of development of land in the metropolitan region. The respondent is the responsible authority by reason of a delegation by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The delegation requires that an application for development of land abutting reserved land be referred to Main Roads Western Australia.
Under cl 30(1) of the MRS, the respondent (and therefore the Tribunal on the application for review) is required to 'have regard to the purpose for which the land is zoned or reserved under the (MRS), the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality'.
The currently operative local planning scheme is the Town of Cottesloe Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS 2). The subject site is unzoned under TPS 2, and it is common ground between the parties that, for that reason, planning approval is not required under TPS 2 for any development on the land. That is because cl 7.1.1 of TPS 2 only requires planning approval 'for any development on or partly on any lot zoned or reserved under (TPS 2)'.
The reason that the land is not zoned under TPS 2 is because the MRS regional road reservation was shown on the scheme map of TPS 2 when TPS 2 was gazetted in 1988. When the MRS was amended in 1995 for the purpose of reducing the extent of the Stirling Highway regional road reserve, the regional road reservation was removed from the scheme map of TPS 2. No amendment to TPS 2 was then undertaken for the purpose of introducing a new zone over the land.
On 23 July 2007, Amendment No 44 to TPS 2 was advertised for public comment, and was adopted by the respondent on 17 December 2007.
The proposed Amendment No 44 deals with the pocket of land within which the subject site is located. The proposed amendment sought to include the unzoned land as 'Town Centre' under TPS 2.
After adoption by the respondent, Amendment No 44 was referred to the WAPC for final approval by the Minister for Planning. The amendment remained with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and WAPC for over a year, despite a number of letters from the Town following up its progress towards its final approval. The respondent was informed at various times that Amendment No 44 was delayed due to consideration in relation to the Stirling Highway Activity Corridor Study (SHACS) and the moratorium on decisions brought about by the State election.
By letter dated 22 January 2009, the WAPC advised the Town that the Minister for Planning required modifications and re-advertising of Amendment No 44 to reflect possible road widening and other requirements in relation to the land the subject of Amendment No 44. The suggested modification was as follows:
Amending clause 3.4.2 Town Centre Zone by adding (d) as follows:
(i)For land bounded by Jarrad Street, Stirling Highway and Brixton Street, notwithstanding anything else in the Scheme, the following development requirements shall apply:
•Maximum site cover - 100%.
•Minimum boundary setbacks - in accordance with Design Guidelines.
•Maximum height - 3 storey and 11.5m, subject to no undue adverse impact on amenity and to design guidelines.
[Note: existing clause 3.4.2(b), regarding a plot ratio of 1:1.15 [sic 1.15.1] remains the same.]
(ii)No development, subdivision or strata subdivision shall be approved within the subject area prior to the adoption by the Council of a Detailed Area Plan for the overall street block.
(iii)All development within the subject area shall be setback a minimum of 5m from the boundary to Stirling Highway and all land contained within the setback area (or such lesser area as may be determined by the Stirling Highway Activity Corridor Study) shall be ceded for road widening to the Crown free of cost, and prior to ceding such land shall be made level with the existing verge at the expense of the owner to the satisfaction of the Council.
(iv)The Detailed Area Plan shall provide for ultimately no permitted vehicular ingress or egress via Stirling Highway and for provision of overall coordinated vehicular access for the street block via other perimeter roads and internal routes. Where at present land has vehicular access solely via Stirling Highway, existing crossovers may be used or rationalised, and new crossovers may be approved, but only as a temporary arrangement until alternative vehicular access is provided; and any new development shall be designed and constructed to use the alternative vehicular access once provided, whereupon all existing access via Stirling Highway shall cease and all crossovers shall be closed and the verge shall be made good to the satisfaction of the Council at the expense of the landowner.
Mr Andrew Jackson, the Manager of Development Services at the Town prepared a report to Council at its meeting of 23 March 2009 which contained the following observations concerning the requirements of the Minister:
•The situation that the amendment be modified by the Minister at the last minute seems problematic for a number of reasons.
•The proper means to impose a regional road requirement is via a MRS regional road reservation or Planning Control Area based on prior study and in accordance with statutory processes.
•The MRS was previously amended to reduce and accurately define the regional road reservation, with no widening requirement.
•A road widening setback is unrelated to the purpose of the amendment, which is to zone land and set a density code for local land use and development control.
•Council, the landowners and the local community or general public have no knowledge of any contemplated road widening setback and it has not been advertised as part of the amendment.
•An absence of consultation about the notion of road widening and of due planning process - no right of reply for affected landowners.
•No rationale has been provided for road widening, no detail quantified or qualified, and there is uncertainty as to how much and when.
•The question of compensation.
•It pre-empts the SHACS.
In our view, Mr Jackson's comments carry considerable force. In particular, the requirement to cede land for road widening free of cost, apparently independently of any development of the land concerned, is of very doubtful validity, and would appear to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) dealing with the taking of land for public purposes.
Following receipt of the Minister's letter, the modified proposed Amendment No 44 was re-advertised 'in order to gauge land owner and community comments for further consideration by Council towards finalisation of the amendment'. Submissions in response to the advertising closed on 28 April 2009, two days before this matter was heard. At the time of the hearing, no analysis of the submissions made as a result of advertising of Amendment No 44 had been made. The Tribunal was subsequently advised that, on 27 July 2009, the Council of the respondent resolved to support the finalisation of Amendment No 44 but sought changes to the modifications suggested by the Minister, in particular in relation to the detailed area plan and future road widening/development setback requirements.
A process of review of TPS 2 commenced in 1997, and eventually led to the preparation of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3). The draft of LPS 3 was finalised and submitted to the Minister in February 2006. A Local Planning Strategy (LPS) was submitted at the same time as LPS 3. A number of modifications were made to the scheme following consideration and consultation by the WAPC, and the Minister gave consent to advertise the draft LPS 3 from April 2008 to July 2008. Over 550 submissions were received on various aspects of LPS 3. At the time of the hearing of this matter, those submissions were being analysed and considered by the officers of the Council.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that on 27 May 2009, the Council resolved to adopt LPS 3 with some minor modifications. The Tribunal was advised that the provisions of LPS 3 relating to the subject site were not altered by any of the modifications made by Council. LPS 3 proposes to introduce development standards for site coverage, boundary setbacks, building height, plot ratio and car parking being:
•Maximum site cover 100%;
•Boundary setbacks - as per design guidelines;
•Building height - three storeys and 11.5 metres subject to no undue adverse impact on amenity and design guidelines;
•Plot ratio - 1.15:1 with discretion for a 20% increase to 1.38:1;
•Car parking;
•Office - 1 bay per 40 square metres;
•Showroom - 1 bay per 40 square metres; and
•Shop - 1 bay per 20 square metres.

Orderly and proper planning

The fundamental issue between the parties is the extent to which the development standards prescribed for the town centre zone in TPS 2, and proposed in LPS 3, should be taken into account in the consideration of the application for the purposes of cl 30 of the MRS.
The applicant contends that the development standards contained in TPS 2 are irrelevant since the land is not zoned under TPS 2 and that no weight should be attached to LPS 3 and Amendment 44 because they have not reached the stage of being seriously entertained planning proposals.
The respondent contends that, because the land is within the area designated as the Town Centre Zone Development Policy Plan area in Appendix 1 to TPS 2, and because cl 1.2 of TPS 2 applies the scheme to the whole of the land within the district of the Town of Cottesloe, the provisions of TPS 2 apply directly to the land. The respondent also relies on cl 1.8 of TPS 2 which provides that:
Subject to the provisions of the Act and all Regulations made thereunder and to Part IV of this Scheme, no person shall depart or permit or suffer any departure from the requirements and provisions of the Scheme, nor shall any person use or permit the use of any land or building or undertake to permit any new work if the use, new work, reconstruction alteration or modification, does not conform with the Scheme or would tend to delay the effective operation of the Scheme.
In the alternative, the respondent contends that the provisions of TPS 2 are relevant considerations for the purposes of application for approval under the MRS, insofar as they are matters pertaining to the orderly and proper planning of the locality and/or the preservation of the amenities of the locality
The approach to the design of the building by the applicant, unfettered by the development standard constraints of TPS 2, was described by Mr Steven Woodland, whose firm prepared and designed the architectural plans and specifications for the proposed development, as a high quality, environmentally responsive building targeting a six green star rating. He described the architectural expression of the development as one which provides transparency and animation of internal activity to the surrounding public realm, both pedestrian and vehicular. Counsel for the applicant described the proposal as a catalyst for the regeneration of this somewhat blighted urban street block.
Four planners gave evidence in relation to this matter. Mr Allan Stewart, of Greg Rowe and Associates, was called by the applicant. Mr Jackson, Mr Brian Curtis, a consultant in town planning and urban design, and Mr Kenneth Adam, an architect and consultant in planning and urban design, were called by the respondent. All of the planners agreed that, were the subject site to be zoned under TPS 2, it would be appropriate for it to be zoned 'town centre'.
It would appear that upon the removal of the reservation over the land, the respondent contemplated that the land would be zoned town centre under TPS 2. Section 35A of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA) as it stood in 1995 when the MRS was amended to remove the reservation over the land, required that TPS 2 be amended to reflect the amendment of the MRS within 6 months of the MRS amendment occurring. Section 35(a)(iii) enabled the Minister to effect an amendment to make the respondent's town planning scheme consistent with the MRS if the local government failed to do so. It is unclear why that statutory obligation was not fulfilled. The Town's apparent intention can, however, be gleaned from cl 3.4.2 of TPS 2, which was amended in June 1995. Clause 3.4.2 is headed 'Town Centre Zone' and deals with various development requirements within that zone. On 23 June 1995, cl 3.4.2(b) was amended to read:
b)The maximum plot ratio within the Town Centre Zone shall be 1.0; except for those lots contained within the street block bounded by Jarrad Street, Stirling Highway and Brixton Street, where the maximum plot ratio permitted shall be 1.15:1.
The 'street block bounded by Jarrad Street, Stirling Highway and Brixton Street' comprises almost entirely the unzoned area which previously comprised regional road reservation under the MRS. The reference in cl 3.4.2 of TPS 2 to that area of land is meaningless unless the land is part of the town centre zone. The only sensible explanation for the amendment to TPS 2 on 23 June 1995 was that it was intended to include the previously reserved land as part of the town centre zone, but for some reason that was overlooked until the adoption of the proposed Amendment No 44.
The terms of cl 30(1) of the MRS are set out above. That clause requires the Tribunal to have regard to the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality (emphasis added). We accept, and there was no dispute between the parties, that the relevant locality for the purposes of the present application is the area of the town centre under TPS 2 together with the unzoned area of which the subject site forms part. The provisions of TPS 2 relating to the town centre zone establish the basis for planning regulation within that zone. In our view, the orderly and proper planning of the locality, in the context of the present application, requires regard to be had, and considerable weight to be given, to the development controls applicable within the town centre zone. The fact that the subject site is not yet zoned town centre appears to be the result of oversight. In our view, it would be contrary to orderly and proper planning to simply ignore the development standards applicable within the town centre zone simply because of that oversight, particularly in circumstances where all of the expert planners agree that the appropriate zoning for the subject site is town centre.

The proposed development exceeds development standards applicable to the town centre zone, or to development generally within the scheme area.
The maximum plot ratio prescribed by TPS 2 for the relevant area is 1.15:1. Even on Mr Stewart's calculation of 1.64:1, that development standard is significantly exceeded.
Clause 5.1.1 of TPS 2 expresses a general policy for development within the district favouring low rise development of no more than two storeys. The clause provides, however, that Council may consider the circumstances and merits of each case in terms of the amenity and development control provisions of the scheme. It was accepted by the applicant, correctly, that a discretion to exceed two storeys in height is available to the Council of the respondent.
The applicant contended, however, that the provisions relating to the measurement of building height were not capable of variation. Clause 5.1.1(c) provides:
(c)Measurement of Building Height
For the purpose of measuring 'storey' and hence 'building height', Council shall generally follow the following formula, except in particular cases where natural ground forms indicate that a variation is warranted provided that the amenity of neighbouring areas is not unreasonably diminished.
The maximum building height shall be measured from the natural ground level at the centre of the site as determined by Council to the crown of the roof and shall be -

Single Storey - Roof Height: 6.0 metres

Two Storey - Wall Height: 6.0 metres

- Roof Height: 8.5 metres

Subsequent Storeys - Wall Height: 6.0 Metres plus; 3.0 metres per storey

- Roof Height: 8.5 metres plus; 3.0 metres per storey
Variations may be permitted in the case of extension to existing buildings.

The respondent contended that, while buildings of greater than two storeys might be permitted within the scheme area, the overall height of a building could not exceed the heights specified in cl 5.1.1(c), except in the specific circumstances referred to in the first and last paragraphs of the clause, neither of which is applicable in the present case.
The applicant contended that cl 5.1.1(c) does no more than provide a method of measurement and was not itself a prescriptive development standard. The drafting of cl 5.1.1(c) leaves something to be desired, but in our view, it is properly construed as imposing a maximum height permissible in relation to buildings of different storeys. The effect of the clause is that the wall height of a three story building is not permitted to exceed 9 metres. For a four storey building, the maximum permissible height is 12 metres.
The proposed building exceeds the permissible maximum height by 2.3 metres in relation to the three storey component, and 3 metres in relation to the four storey component. Subject to the specific exceptions in cl 5.1.1(c), there is no discretion under the scheme to permit any increase in the height per storey, and thus the overall height of a building of a particular number of storeys. It follows that if, as it should have been, the subject site had been zoned town centre under TPS, the proposed development would not have been permissible.
The proposed development does not comply with the setback provisions of cl 5.3(a) of TPS 2 in respect of the southern, western and northern boundaries of the land. There is no discretion under the scheme to vary the setback requirements. For that reason as well, the development would not have been capable of approval if zoned town centre under TPS 2.
In our view, it is also appropriate to have regard to LPS 3, as a seriously entertained planning proposal. In Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40, the Tribunal identified four criteria to be utilised to determine the weight to be given to a draft planning instrument or policy. Those criteria are:
(1)The degree to which the draft addresses the specific application.
(2)The degree to which the draft is based on sound town planning principles.
(3)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as 'certain'.
(4)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as 'imminent.
LPS 3 deals specifically with the land in question which it zones as town centre, and specifies development requirements. LPS 3 has been through the process of adoption for advertising, advertising, consideration in the light of submissions made, an inquiry by design process comprising public workshops in November and December 2008, and now adoption by the respondent and submission to the WAPC for final review and recommendation to the Minister for Planning. The recommendation in relation to the zoning of the subject site as town centre is consistent with the views of all planning experts who gave evidence before the Tribunal as to the appropriate zoning. There is no suggestion that LPS 3 is not based on sound town planning principles.
There is no controversy as to the zoning of the subject site proposed under LPS 3, nor does the evidence disclose any significant controversy as to the development standards applicable to that zone. There is a high degree of likelihood that LPS 3 will be given final approval, and little doubt that the development requirements applicable to the town centre will be as contained in the draft of LPS 3. LPS 3 is reaching the final stages of the adoption process, and final approval might be expected in the relatively near future.
In all the circumstances, we are of the view that LPS 3 should be given significant weight in the context of the present application.
Table 2 of LPS 3 sets out certain development requirements in relation to the town centre zone. It provides that the maximum height of buildings within the land bounded by Jarrad Street, Stirling Highway and Brixton Street, is 'three storey and 11.5 m, subject to no undue adverse impact on amenity and to design guidelines'. A discretion to vary non-residential development standards is provided by cl 5.5.1 of LPS 3, but by cl 5.5.4, that discretion is limited to, amongst other things, the limitations expressed in Sch 13. Schedule 13 specifically excludes any discretion in relation to maximum height provisions set out in Table 2.
The applicant argued that the maximum height specification in Table 2 of LPS 3 was capable of increase if there was no undue adverse impact on amenity. We do not accept that is a correct construction of Table 2. Rather, Table 2 provides that the maximum height of three storeys and 11.5 metres is only permissible where there is no undue adverse impact on amenity. That is, the maximum height may be less than three storeys and 11.5 metres, but not more.
It follows, in our view, the proposed development would not be permissible under LPS 3, and thus would be inconsistent with the planning objective or planning approach embodied or reflected in the draft. The clear objective of LPS 3 is to limit the height of buildings within the town centre zone to three storeys, no doubt in order to maintain the existing scale of development within the town centre and preservation of what was described by Mr Jackson as its 'urban village' character.
Similarly, the proposed development would exceed the plot ratio prescribed by LPS 3, even allowing for the discretion permissible under cl 5.5.1 and Sch 13 to increase the plot ratio by 20%. A 20% increase in plot ratio would provide for a maximum permissible plot ratio of 1.38:1, still significantly below Mr Stewart's assessed plot ratio of 1.64:1. The excess of plot ratio would also render the proposed development incapable of approval under LPS 3, and would be inconsistent with the planning objectives embodied in the development standards applicable to the town centre zone.
The respondent also relied upon Amendment No 44 as a seriously entertained planning proposal. Having regard to the force of Mr Jackson's comments concerning the modifications to the scheme text suggested by the Minister, and given that the respondent's support for finalisation of Amendment No 44 was qualified by a request to changes to the modification suggested, we would be reluctant to give weight to the modifications, especially the provision relating to setback from Stirling Highway and the requirement to cede land for road widening. The fact that the modifications suggested by the Minister include stipulations of development standards consistent with Table 2 of LPS 3 does suggest that those provisions of LPS 3 are likely to be supported by the Minister, and thus tend to support the proposition that weight should be given to the relevant provision of LPS 3.
The treatment of the subject site as, effectively, unfettered by the requirements of either TPS 2 or LPS 3 would, in our view, be entirely inconsistent with the planning objectives of both TPS 2 and LPS 3 in relation to the town centre. For that reason, we consider that approval of the proposed development would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, and accordingly should be refused under cl 30 of the MRS.

Vehicle access and road widening issues

In view of our conclusion in connection with orderly and proper planning, it is not necessary to consider whether the application should be refused by reason of traffic issues. Given that the only road access to the land is from Stirling Highway, and given that the traffic experts agreed that a left-in, left-out arrangement for the crossover would be acceptable 'as an interim solution', our view is that a condition to that effect would have been appropriate had we concluded that the application for development should be approved having regard to the other planning issues. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to canvas in detail our reasons for that conclusion.

Conclusion

In our view, it would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning to the locality to approve the proposed development, and the application for development should be refused.
The respondent sought certain declarations as to the application of the provision of TPS 2 to the subject site. It did so, so its Counsel informed the Tribunal, for the purpose of clarifying the position should the Tribunal conclude that the proposed development should be approved notwithstanding its inconsistency with the development standards of TPS 2. In light of the Tribunal's conclusion, the application for declarations falls away.

Orders

1.The deemed refusal of the application for development of 573 - 575 Stirling Highway, Cottesloe, 26 June 2008 is affirmed.
2.The application for review is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [55] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE J A CHANEY, PRESIDENT

Single Storey	- Roof Height:	6.0 metres
Two Storey	- Wall Height:	6.0 metres
- Roof Height:	8.5 metres
Subsequent Storeys	- Wall Height:	6.0 Metres plus; 3.0 metres per storey
- Roof Height:	8.5 metres plus; 3.0 metres per storey