minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
21 AUGUST 2012
‘Offices shall only be incidental to the predominant use of each tenancy (i.e. no
greater than 30% of the gross floor area of each tenancy). This will enable industrial
premises to provide on site and ‘in house’ services such as reception / customer
service, payroll, drafting and a venue for meeting business customers, while
safeguarding the predominant industrial character of these areas’.
In relation to fencing within the street setback area the Industrial Design Guidelines state
that it (fencing) “shall not be permitted”.
The site is located within the ‘Balcatta Precinct’ area identified in the Industrial Design
Guidelines. The guidelines provide specific development requirements for the subject site. In
respect of the ‘Balcatta Precinct’, the guidelines contain the following statement of intent:-
“The Balcatta precinct is designed to allow for larger lots set in landscaped surroundings with
greater building setbacks to soften the traditional unsightly appearance of industrial area."
Background
A development application was submitted to the City on the 13 March 2012 (DA12/0542
refers) for a change of use from warehouse to office. The applicant proposed to increase the
amount of on site office space by converting warehouse space into office space. The
submitted plans also showed a front fence on the site plan. After extensive deliberation
between the City and the applicant the City refused the subject application on 5 June 2012
under delegated authority for the following reasons:-
1. The application proposes 49.9% of the gross floor area as office space in lieu of the
maximum permitted 30% under the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines.
2. The proposed office use is not incidental to the predominant use of the development.
3. The application proposes fencing within the front setback area which is not permitted
under the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines.
The applicant has consequently sought a review of the City’s decision by the State
Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The applicant accepts reasons one (1) and two (2) of the
refusal however, seeks a review of reason three (3) above in relation to the fencing. The City
attended an initial directions hearing at the SAT on the 6 July 2012 where the SAT ordered
the City to reconsider its original decision for refusal in relation to the fence only. The order
issued by the SAT is as follows:-
"Pursuant to Section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 the respondent is
invited to reconsider its decision being the modified proposal effectively raising only the
fence issue (but with new information) at its meeting on 21 August 2012."
The City, however considers it inappropriate to reconsider the fencing reason for refusal in
isolation – rather the reconsideration ought to apply to the development application as
determined by the City.
On 23 March 2010, an application for a warehouse extension was lodged with the City
(DA10/0766). This application also indicated a front fence on the site plan, and the applicant
was advised that this was not permitted. The application was subsequently approved on 23
April 2010 subject to the following condition:
26