This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Friday, November 14, 2008

Tilting at the State Administrative Tribunal?

My previous post talked about the value of challenging conventional wisdom ('Tilting at Windmills'). This post revisits that theme in relation to planning and development approvals.

Sometimes, Council is urged not to refuse a development 'because you won't have a chance with any appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal' (SAT). This argument can be superficially persuasive, especially where the Town's planning staff have recommended approval.

However, Vincent has developed a good track record in the SAT in such cases, largely because we take the trouble to present the case properly, rather than imposing on our staff to defend a decision that went against their professional advice and recommendation. Council's practice, which I helped instigate, is to be represented by an independent town planner, an elected member of Council and,if possible, a representative of the affected local community in such cases.

The most recent such case related to 13 Melrose Street and is notable because the SAT upheld every ground on which Council refused the development application. In doing so, it has reinforced and clarified an earlier upholding of a Town of Vincent decision on what constitutes a multiple dwelling. This is important because at certain density zonings, multiple dwellings are allowed a higher dwelling density than would be allowed for grouped dwellings.

The SAT also placed a clear onus on the applicant to justify variations from the requirements of the planning codes and Town of Vincent Policies.

In its decision dated 7 November 2008, the SAT determined:

a) that the proposed development was incorrectly classified as multiple dwellings and should properly be classified as grouped dwellings. Grouped dwellings are not benefited with tge density advantage associated with multiple dwellings in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008). The Tribunal therefore found that the proposed development exceeded the density of development allowable on the site.

b) that car parking provision was inadequate on site and that a thorough case had not been made to demonstrate the capacity of off-site car parking to augment parking requirements.

c) that although overlooking and privacy issues could be addressed by comprehensive balcony screening, such a measure would be at the expense of the quality and amenity of the development.

d) the Tribunal accepted the Town of Vincent's argument that the development did not display high quality design standards that would allow discretion under the relevant planning policy to grant a reduction of site area per dwelling. Accordingly, additional units should not be accommodated in the development as sought by the applicant.

This last point means that the proposed density could not be supported even if the development were to be classified as multiple dwellings. As the Tribunal accepted the argument that the proposed dwellings should be classified as grouped, not multiples, the proposal for 7 units was almost twice the number of units allowable.

The SAT support of Council's refusal also highlights the importance of having clear and logical policies, consistently applied, for the management of development in the Town. The own's Policy on Single-Bedroom Dweelings was only adopted in April this year (2008). This is probably its most significant test to-date - and it has come through with flying colours. It will continue to do so as long as we use it sensibly and consistently to ensure that such developments are consistent with both the amenity of the locality and the amenity of prospective residents.