minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
b. Ensure new commercial development consistent with ‘main street’, mixed-use design
principles, and consistent with the heritage character of the locality; and
c. Ensure refurbishment of more recent development in a manner in keeping with
traditional heritage-character commercial buildings.”
Background
A development application for the demolition of the existing commercial building at Lot 25,
House Number 760, Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley was submitted to the City on
29 December 2011 (DA11/3271). The subject property is located in the Mount Lawley
Heritage Protection Area, and more specifically the Mount Lawley (East) area. The subject
property comprises a single storey commercial building, which was formerly four (4)
individual shops built between c.1905 - 1914. The shops have been altered over the years.
The development application (DA11/3271) to demolish the building was refused by the
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 15 May 2012 (Council Resolution 0512/054) for
the following reason:-
“the demolition would be contrary to the requirements of the Heritage Protection Area
Special Control Area and the City’s Character Guidelines (Mt Lawley, Menora and
Inglewood) of Local Planning Scheme No.3.”
Following this decision, the development proponent appointed Greg Rowe and Associates to
submit an application for review of the City’s decision to the SAT. An initial Directions
Hearing was held on 6 July 2012, where the matter was referred to meditation. The City
appointed TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) to act on its behalf at the
review in relation to both town planning and heritage issues.
An onsite mediation was held on 25 July 2012, which was attended by the City’s engaged
planning and heritage consultants. This mediation provided scope to discuss both the
applicant and respondent’s views, to refine key concerns and to assist in developing a
negotiated/revised proposal.
As a consequence of discussions and negotiations that took place at this mediation, the
applicant advised that they were prepared to consider the partial retention of the building.
Orders were subsequently made by the SAT, requesting that the Respondent’s consultant
provide the Applicant a ‘marked up plan which identifies the original fabric which the
respondent believes should be retained and notes which sets out the parameters for
conservation.’
Orders were then set to enable the Applicant to respond to the marked up plan and
conservation parameters, and for the matter to be reconsidered by the Council under a
Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
Consultation/Communication Implications
The proposal was not required to be advertised as part of the assessment.
55