WILLIAMS and Anor and City of Fremantle - [2005] WASAT 236

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA)

CITATION: WILLIAMS & ANOR and CITY OF FREMANTLE [2005] WASAT 236

MEMBER: MS B MOHARICH (MEMBER)
MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)
MR P McALLISTER (SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 31 MAY 2005
2 JUNE 2005

DELIVERED : 31 AUGUST 2005

FILE NO/S: DR 374 of 2005

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS
THERESA WILLIAMS
Applicants
AND
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Demolition of house – Two new dwellings – Refusal – Heritage listing – Streetscape – Architectural character – DBH 13: Impact of developments on heritage places policy – DBH 1: Urban design and streetscape guidelines – Municipal Heritage Inventory

Legislation:

City of Fremantle Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 16, cl 55, cl 56, cl 67, cl 77

DBH 13: Impact of Developments on Heritage Places Policy, Principle 2, cl 2
DBH 1: Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines
Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA)
Municipal Heritage Inventory
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)

Result:

The application is approved and planning consent is granted for the demolition of the existing house and the development of the rear house, but not for the development of the front house

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Selfrepresented
Respondent: Mr D Nicholson

Solicitors:

Applicants: Self-represented
Respondent: McLeods

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

Fetherstone Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle (Town Planning Appeal Tribunal Appeal No 32 of 1996; 7 October 1996)
R v Port of London Authority; Ex parte Kynoch Ltd [1919] 1 KB 176

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of the Tribunal's decision

Mr and Mrs Williams (the applicants) applied to the City of Fremantle (the respondent) for planning consent to demolish the house at No 65 Tuckfield Street and to build two new houses, one behind the other.
The respondent Council refused the application because it considered the development would result in the loss of a heritage listed property, and would also be detrimental to the traditional streetscape of Tuckfield Street. It also considered that the design of the front replacement dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the streetscape.
The respondent commissioned a consultant heritage architect to report on the proposal. It then instructed its own heritage architect to also report. The first report found support for the demolition of the house, the second report supported its retention.
From its examination of the matter, the majority of the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has formed a conclusion consistent with that of the consultant heritage architect. That is, that the building has been "subjected to a series of ad‑hoc alterations which have diminished its originality without contributing positively to either the heritage value of the dwelling itself or the streetscape". While there is some heritage value in the existing house in its association with an early Fremantle architect, without work to the interior and exterior, its main contributing factor is to the streetscape as a single storey house at the street front of similar scale to the immediate neighbours. An appropriately designed house of current accommodation standards could make the same contribution.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the majority found there is not enough for the retention of the house under the test for demolition to be found in the Council's policy DBH 13: Impact of Developments on Heritage Places Policy (DBH 13).
It is to be noted that in the matter of inherent heritage value and streetscape, Tribunal Sessional Member McAllister formed a view consistent with that of the respondent.
The proposed new rear house is not controversial. The proposed front house, however, is of a design that the Tribunal does not consider would make a positive contribution to the immediate streetscape.
The majority of the Tribunal has found that there is a case for the demolition of the existing house and the development of the rear house, but that it cannot support the development of the proposed front house.

Application

This is an application for review of the refusal by the respondent of an application for planning consent for development at 65 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (subject land).

Decision subject to review

In April 2004, the applicants applied for development approval for:
(a)the demolition of an existing dwelling, pool and sheds; and
(b)the construction of two, two‑storey dwellings, one behind the other on the site.
On 15 January 2005, between lodgement of the application for planning consent and a decision being made by the respondent, the applicants lodged amended designs for the two, two‑storey dwellings. It is these plans that were refused and are now before the Tribunal.
The application for planning consent was refused by the respondent's Development Assessments Committee under delegated authority for the following reasons:
"1.The demolition of the existing house would result in the loss of a heritage listed property and would be detrimental to the traditional streetscape within the building's setting in Tuckfield Street as it is contrary to Council's Policy D.B.H1 'Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines' and Council's Policy D.B.H.13 'Impact of Developments on Heritage Places Policy'.
2.The proposed replacement dwelling (front) would have a detrimental effect on the streetscape within its immediate setting in Tuckfield Street."

Subject land

The subject land is held in two separate Certificates of Title. The whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 1326 Folio 233 (the front lot), comprises Lot 1 and Part Lot 2 on Plan 1200. The front lot has an area of 517 square metres.
Located mostly behind the front lot is land in Certificate of Title Volume 1539 Folio 498 (the rear lot), being Lot 10 on Plan 1200 and Lot 124 on Diagram 519. Lot 124 is 200 millimetres wide extending along the north‑eastern side boundary from the rear boundary of the property to Tuckfield Street and gives the rear lot legal (although not practical) access to Tuckfield Street. The rear lot is 223 square metres in area.
On 22 February 2005, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved the subdivision of the land into two survey strata lots, one at the front and the other to the rear (WAPC ref: 870 ‑ 03). The approval letter included Condition 6, which required the demolition of the existing buildings and an advice that approval of the subdivision was not to be construed as approval for any development on the lots.
An application to subdivide the subject land into two "green title" lots, a front lot of 397 square metres and a rear battleaxe lot of 352 square metres with a 3 metre wide access leg, was refused on 1 March 2005 (WAPC ref: 121665). This decision is the subject of a separate application for review to the Tribunal not yet determined.

Statutory framework

The subject land is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Residence, with a density coding of R25, under City of Fremantle Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3).
Clause 16 of TPS 3 sets out the matters to which the Council (and therefore the Tribunal) is to have regard in determining an application:
"In determining any application the Council shall have regard to the purpose for which land is zoned or reserved under the Scheme, to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, to the preservation of the amenities of the locality and to the matters in Clause 77 and shall have due regard to any planning policy statement adopted by the Council relating to specific areas, use classes or building types and may refuse its consent, or may grant its consent subject to such conditions, if any, it may deem fit."
In respect of residential development, cl 55 provides:
"Unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the residential planning codes shall conform to the provisions of these codes."
Clause 56 provides, that any proposed residential development also comply with other provisions of TPS 3 and relevantly:
"The development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the residential planning codes shall:
(b)be subject to the provisions of Clauses 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 and 77, and to the provisions of any Development Plan applicable to that land."
Clause 77 sets out the matters to which a decision maker must have regard including, relevantly:
"(g)the form, layout, appearance and materials of buildings;
…
(i)the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional street-scape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings;
…
(s)the heritage significance of the place and its context;
(t)any other matters …"
Clause 56 also requires any application to be assessed against the requirements of cl 67, which requires the Council (and therefore the Tribunal) to take into account urban design issues:
"Where in the opinion of the Council the amenity of a place, street or locality relates significantly to the architectural or physical character of existing buildings and landscape, the Council shall ensure that the appearance of any proposed development will not impair the amenity of the place, street or locality in question and will maintain the harmony in the exterior designs of buildings. In making a determination the Council shall seek expert advice and shall have regard to such advice."

Planning policies

Unlike many town planning schemes, TPS 3 does not provide a specific policy making power. It is settled law that notwithstanding the absence of a specific head of power, a decision making authority has power to make policies to guide the exercise of discretionary power: R v Port of London Authority; Ex parte Kynoch Ltd [1919] 1 KB 176.
The policies specifically referred to by the respondent to guide and assist in making a qualitative assessment of the development proposal are DBH 13: Impact of Developments on Heritage Places Policy, and DBH 1: Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines (DBH 1). The policies provide objectives and then set out the considerations which should be taken into account in determining applications for development in situations such as this matter.

Approval separately or together

The applicants in their submission, asked the Tribunal to approve individual components of the proposed development if it were happy that certain components could be allowed and not others.
The respondent submitted that this was not what had been before the original decision maker, and therefore the Tribunal had no power to split the development into components and deal with them separately.
It is the Tribunal's view that it does have power to approve some components of the proposal and not others. There will obviously be cases where this is not practically achieved, particularly where one component of the development is contingent, or relies upon another part of the development in some way. For instance, if the existing house were to remain the potential conflict between the overhang of the eaves, and the front door being at the side, and vehicle access to the rear would have to be a consideration in whether different components were approved.
If, on the other hand the front house did not remain, the two new dwelling units might be approved as grouped dwellings or individually on separate lots. The Tribunal is of the view that determining whether or not components of a development can be approved, follows from the assessment of the development proposed.

Assessment of the development proposal

In order to assess the matter in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework, it is necessary to ascertain:
(a) whether approval should be given for the demolition of the existing house, outbuildings and swimming pool;
(b) whether the proposed new houses should be approved.
Dealing first with the demolition, the sheds and pool are of modern construction and the removal of them is not contested. In respect of the demolition of the existing house, cl 77 requires, amongst other things, regard be had to the heritage significance of the house and its contribution to the wider streetscape. Principle 3 of DBH 13 refers also to the need for protection, conservation and heritage interpretation of an existing place and the likely impact of the proposed development on a place's heritage values.

Heritage value of existing residence

In addition to the requirements of cl 77, the respondent also made reference to the finding in Fetherstone Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle (Town Planning Appeal Tribunal Appeal No 32 of 1996; 7 October 1996) of need to have due regard to the heritage value of a place in the making of planning decisions in a locality.
From the descriptions in the respondent's Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), and the reports of the heritage architects who appeared as witnesses, the existing house can be described as having been built in 1903/1904, single storey with a tiled roof and walls of render on lathe/mesh on a timber frame. The roof is described as a large, low‑pitch A‑frame creating a wide half‑timbered front gable across the width of the front of the house. A verandah across the front of the house has a skillion roof below the gable. The eaves overhang at the sides is wide and propped to the side of the house. There is a tall brick chimney with corbelling. The original section of the house is on stumps and has wooden floorboards. The front door is at the southern side of the house. At the rear is a later extension with an iron skillion roof.
The parties provided copies of comments made on the origins of the house by the National Trust, Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA), the respondent in its Municipal Inventory, and by the applicants from their search of available records.
At the risk of being too succinct, it can be said that the house is associated with Frederick W Burwell, an architect who began practice in Scotland and worked in New Zealand before arriving in Fremantle. He is known to have designed buildings in the west end of Fremantle. Mr Burwell owned the land, applied to have the house built and is shown as the occupier until 1909, although the records also indicate he only lived in the house until 1905. He also owned other lots in Tuckfield Street and the assumption made by the respondent's witnesses, without specific documentary proof, is that Burwell designed No 65 and the houses built on the other lots. The house design and construction are not common for the period and it is speculated that it was perhaps influenced by Indian "bungalow" dwellings. It is of a similar scale to its neighbours but different in appearance.
From a view of the house conducted in the presence of representatives of the parties two days after the hearing, the original building was apparent, but with the numerous later additions and changes identified by the applicants. The floor sloped to the front corner because of subsidence of the stumps, which could be remedied. The house appeared to be in fair condition and it is habitable.
The existing house was referred to the HCWA by a third party, twice in 2004 and once in 2005. The HCWA determined the house to be "Category 4", which signifies that on the information provided it is unlikely to cross the threshold for entry into the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA) and did not warrant full assessment. The HCWA did note that the house is on the respondent's MHI.
In DBH 13 it states relevantly as objectives:
"To recognise Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as the database of essential information regarding cultural heritage values, the recommended degree of protection and conservation management of individual places, precincts and Fremantle as a whole.
To ensure that Council has regard, among other things, to heritage issues when determining applications, particularly with respect of impacts of proposed developments on heritage places and their site and streetscape contexts.
To facilitate harmonious development of the city by ensuring that every act of new construction improves the extant environment by, in equal measures: conservation of the identified heritage/character/amenity/sense of place and by addition of a new ''quality'' as measured by the criteria of compatibility and enhancement.
To ensure that evolution of Fremantle as a city provides means for sustainable development and creative process of integrating the old and the new."
The MHI places the house in "Management Category Level 3", one of six different levels of significance assigned to places in the MHI as explained in DBH 13.
Principle 2 of DBH 13 states:
"Levels three and four may indicate heritage value of a place in its own right (moderate) but commonly these levels signify that a place has a contributory heritage value i.e. it is part of a group of places or a streetscape, which collectively define the character/amenity/sense of place or general cultural heritage significance of the locality (category three of conservation management)."
As provided for in cl 2 of DBH 13, the respondent commissioned a heritage assessment of the proposed development by Mr Ian Scott, an architect experienced in heritage assessment and the assessment of developments in localities of heritage significance such as Fremantle, including others for the respondent. Mr Scott was called as a witness by the applicants.
Mr Scott's report, commissioned by the respondent, stated that the house was largely intact and in fair condition but subsequent alterations and additions had removed some original features and added others. Remodelling included decorative internal features, removal of a wall, removal of chimneys and addition of a front bay window. When examined, Mr Scott said the house required considerable work inside and out. Mr Scott's report included the following:
"… the bulk and scale of the original dwelling appears awkward in comparison to its heritage listed neighbours, the type of construction is insubstantial and the detailing thereof is stylistically unremarkable. The dwelling has also been subjected to a series of ad-hoc alterations which have seriously diminished its originality without contributing positively to either the heritage value of the dwelling or the streetscape itself."
Following receipt of Mr Scott's report, the respondent instructed its own heritage architect, Ms Agnieshka Kiera, to provide a second assessment for the respondent's consideration.
Ms Kiera formed the opinion that the building is of heritage value in itself. She commented on what she understood to be the association of the house with architect F W Burwell and other Fremantle families, and was of the opinion that community opposition to the demolition is evidence of social and cultural value. Ms Kiera who said she had not been on the site, reported:
"In my opinion the heritage value of the Building has been retained to a large extent as it seems to be fair to good condition and survives in its original state (there are no obvious signs of alterations), which means it has a moderate to high authenticity value. It is clearly in a restorable state which demonstrates a high measure of integrity."
A neighbour objecting to the proposed development also commissioned an assessment by a heritage architect. This architect did not appear as witness at the hearing and so was not examined. Each party called a neighbour to support their case. Mr Patrick Howard, a brother‑in‑law, who owns houses and lives in Tuckfield Street, appeared for the applicants. Mr Stephen Anstey appeared for the respondent. Each gave their views on the value of the house.

From the evidence presented, it is clear the house has some heritage value. There is an association with Frederick Burwell through ownership and occupation. Other attributes appear to be simply that the house is of the same period as its immediate neighbours and that it can be distinguished from those neighbours because it is of a design not common at that time.
Of the expert witnesses to appear before the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter, the majority of the Tribunal members are inclined to prefer the submissions of Mr Scott. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the view formed is that there is not enough for the retention of the house under the test for demolition to be found in s 2(b) of DBH 13. Any remnant heritage value as one of the houses associated with Mr Burwell and as a structure the house might still have, is not of itself sufficient to warrant retention of the house and dismissal of the application on this basis.

The existing streetscape

Tuckfield Street as a place, was included in one of the references to the HCWA made by the third party. The HCWA resolved that the full length of Tuckfield Street was "Category 4", as with the existing house.
Assessment of the streetscape and the position of the existing house in it, is still required, however, under cl 67 and cl 77 of TPS 3. Assisting in this regard are DBH 13, and to a lesser extent DBH 1, which is directed mainly at providing guidance on the assessment of the impact of new developments on the streetscape.
In the MHI it states of No 65:
"The place contributes to a substantially intact late nineteenth and early twentieth century streetscape close to the centre of Fremantle."
Both parties provided descriptions and photographs of Tuckfield Street. From Stirling Highway to Dorothy Street, the east side has original houses with contemporary houses interspersed, particularly at the Euphrasie Court junction. The west side is open ground. Between Dorothy and Malcolm Streets, the east side comprises six houses of the same period, including No 65. The west side has two heritage listed houses in the former barracks site, although these two houses are set well back behind vegetation. From Malcolm Street to the south west to Burt Street, the streetscape is of modern houses of no particular merit on one side and the former army barracks on the other. From Burt Street to James Street, the streetscape is of houses over a hundred years old in the vicinity of the old asylum.
What this brief description attempts to show is that the Tuckfield Street streetscape is not uniform over its whole length. This was confirmed at the visit to the street.
In reporting further on the streetscape in the vicinity of the subject land Mr Scott said:
"It can be considered the existing dwelling contributes little to the heritage value the streetscape other than the fact that it is a single storey building. The 'intact' nature of the streetscape, given the alterations which have been made over the past century, to the majority of neighbouring houses, is not of such high value as to justify the retention of such an insubstantial and largely unsympathetic structure" (emphasis added).
Ms Kiera formed the opinion that the demolition of the house would significantly detract from the Tuckfield Street streetscape. She said that the house:
"… aesthetically contributes to the streetscape character being well harmonised with the row of historic houses on the east side of the Street by reason of their similar height, scale, degree of refinement, open presentation (frontage) to the street, corresponding consistency of front gardens, refined nature of the front fence and the dwelling's complementary relationship to the neighbouring houses."
The applicants relied heavily on Mr Scott's opinion of the streetscape and the diversity of housing types and character over the full length of Tuckfield Street.
The respondent and Ms Kiera make reference to the specific section of Tuckfield Street between Dorothy Street and Malcolm Street as the particular streetscape to be preserved.
Mr Scott's comments reinforce the submission of the applicants that while the six existing buildings are of similar age, heritage value has been diminished by work on the house at No 65 and the neighbouring houses. Key elements in the streetscape appear to be bulk, scale, setback and use of materials. While Tribunal Member McAllister is of the same view as Ms Kiera, the other Tribunal Members considered that in the circumstances there is some weight to be given to the argument that a contemporary house replacing the existing house, if of sympathetic elements, could make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

Should proposed dwellings be approved?

The plans show the front house as what might be described as double fronted. At the front setback the house is two‑storeys, each with a balcony, above an undercroft garage. Adjacent on the front elevation but set further back is a two‑storey section of lesser width, with a deck at ground level and a balcony above. These two adjacent sections of the front of the house each have a skillion roof. The skillion roof of the forward section pitching from the front down to the rear, with the adjacent section of roof pitching from the rear to the front. From the road, these roofs would not be visible because of the way they are pitched and the building height.
DBH 1 provides as guidance:
"The criterion applied in considering new proposals are as follows:
…
2(i)the effect of the proposal in terms of the architectural or historic character and appearance of:
•the area as a whole;
•the streetscape;
•adjoining houses or works;
•the subject house and its setting.
(ii)The need to provide accommodation consistent with present day standards.
3(d)Scale
The great majority of traditional residential areas of Fremantle consist of single or two storey houses. Therefore a limit of two stories will be generally applied to the design of new infill houses.
In a predominantly single storey narrow inner urban street, the new development should be single storey at the street frontage, with any two storey extension (if required) constructed to the rear. Alternatively on larger lots in wider streets a traditional two‑storey built form may be appropriately located in line with other residences in the street.
(e)Mass
Building mass or bulk is the apparent massiveness of a building in relation to its surroundings. To compliment the scale of the existing streetscape, new houses should be designed to blend with, rather than dominate that space. 'Oversize' buildings which overwhelm existing houses and dominate the streetscape will be discouraged.
5Architectural Design
(b)Building style
In older areas mock 'historic' style housing is discouraged while recognisable local forms, scale and proportions are encouraged.
(c)Roofs
Roofs play a significant role in the urban character of the traditional domestic streetscape in Fremantle. The Council will, therefore, encourage traditional forms of roofs in infill houses in the older residential areas.
Flat roofs would not generally be supported particularly where traditionally pitched roofs form a coherent streetscape."
Mr Dominic Mitchell, a town planner at the City of Fremantle who appeared as a witness, noted that the assessment made by the respondent's planning officers was that in most respects the house proposed complies with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002 (the Design Codes).
Mr Mitchell pointed out that the one significant area in which the proposed front did not comply, was eaves height where the standard was exceeded by 1.2 metres. This, he said, is a consequence of the proposed design and contributes to concerns about the "cuboid" appearance of the house as it presents to the street. Discussions on site with the parties, created the impression with the Tribunal, that the house at the building line would be higher to some degree than its neighbours and the absence of an elevation that showed the proposed front house relative to the neighbours did not assist in dispelling this point.
The applicants' submission in support of the design, is based on the competency of the architect in producing a high standard contemporary design. The standard of the specific design is, however, only one of the factors that determine the matter.
That the proposed front house is two storey is not of itself a reason for refusal. The Tribunal has noted that Tuckfield Street over its length is a mix of older and contemporary houses, but is of the view that any house proposed for the front lot must be considered in the context of its immediate neighbours. The concern with the proposed house is its mass, bulk and impact relative to its neighbours which have their outline broken by roof shape and chimneys and features.
Mr Scott, though he was commenting on the original design, was of the view that the introduction of a two‑storey building with undercroft car parking at the front of the building line was not compatible with the general massing of neighbouring residences.
The Tribunal is of the view that the design of the new front house with its appearance from the front of a series of vertically aligned rectangles with a flat roof is not complementary to the streetscape.
As to the proposed rear dwelling, the respondent has not raised specific concerns that are sufficient to refuse the proposal. That house could be approved as it has minimal impact on streetscape and is consistent with the orderly and proper development of an R25 coded locality as provided for in TPS 3.

Demolition of the existing house

If the proposed house on the front lot is not to be approved, this then leaves the question of whether demolition of the existing house can proceed.
From its examination of the matter, the majority of Tribunal Members has formed a view consistent with that of Mr Scott, who reported that the building has been "subjected to a series of ad‑hoc alterations which have seriously diminished its originality without contributing positively to either the heritage value of the dwelling itself or the streetscape". This leads to a conclusion that the contribution of the house as it now exists is not sufficient to demand its retention, either in its own right, or as part of the streetscape.
The main contributing factor of the house, is to the streetscape as a single storey house at the building line of similar scale to the immediate neighbours. One view is that the house should therefore remain. Another is that an appropriately designed house of contemporary accommodation could make the same contribution. The majority of the Members of the Tribunal has concluded that the house itself, and in the streetscape, is not of sufficient merit to pass the test for retention in s 2(b) of DBH 13.
Clause 68 of TPS 3 provides:
"… In considering an application for approval to demolish a building, the Council may:
(a)defer consideration of the application until it has received and granted consent to an application for subsequent development of the site."
In this instance, demolition of the existing house would facilitate the development of the house at the rear of the site and provide for creation of the approved survey strata lots.

Conclusion

The Tribunal has looked at the matter in the light of the tests required by the provisions of TPS 3 and policies DBH 13 and DBH 1 and the expert opinions of Mr Scott and Ms Kiera. After weighing the matter, the majority of the Tribunal has concluded that, on balance, there is a case for the replacement of the existing house at No 65 Tuckfield Street with a contemporary dwelling. The majority of the Tribunal concluded that there is a case for the demolition of the existing house and the development of an appropriately designed contemporary house on the front lot, which would make a positive contribution to the streetscape.
An appropriately designed house on the front lot and the proposed house behind would be consistent with the R25 coding and the residential amenity of the locality and the need to provide accommodation consistent with present day standards. Tribunal Member McAllister has support for the view that the existing house could remain and contemporary dwelling be developed behind.
The design of the house proposed for the front lot before the Tribunal is not, however, supported and this remains a matter to be resolved between the applicant and the respondent.
The majority view of the Tribunal is that the application be approved to the extent set out in the orders.

Orders

1.Planning consent is granted for the house at the rear of the subject land, subject to screening of windows to comply with privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia 2002.
2.Planning consent is not granted for the development of the house at the front of the subject land.
3.Planning approval is granted for the demolition of the existing house on the land subject to the following conditions:
1.Prior to the issue of a demolition licence, a Demolition Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director Urban management addressing the following:
(a)staging;
(b)demolition times;
(c)dust mitigation;
(d)noise control;
(e)complaint resolution;
(f)demolition materials storage and removal;
(g)site rehabilitation during demolition phase of the development;
(h)verge protection and vegetation retention;
(i)workers parking; and
(j)heavy vehicle and machinery access and parking.

2.Prior to the disturbance of the existing house, a full and complete drawn and photographed record of the building shall be prepared comprising:
(a)measured site plan including existing outbuildings at a scale no less than 1:200;
(b)measured plans of the building with suitable notations as to the features and fittings. Scales at no less than 1:100;
(c)Photographs of the exterior of the building in context with Tuckfield Street; and
(d)Interior photographs showing the general aspects of the internal spaces and including specific photography to show the original features of the building.

4.All stormwater shall be contained and disposed of on‑site.
5.The verge trees shall be protected and retained at all times to the satisfaction of the Director Urban management.
6.The approvals set out in Order 1 and Order 3 above, granted by this decision, shall lapse where the development has not commenced within six months and been completed within two years, unless extended by the Council.

I certify that this and the preceding [76] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS B MOHARICH, MEMBER