❓ Hon Ray Halligan questions the legality of the Western Australian Planning Commission's approval of a strata subdivision in North Perth, citing concerns about density, compliance with planning laws, and impact on neighboring properties.
AnsweredQoN 3362Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to objections by the owners of 79 Auckland Street, North Perth to a proposed strata subdivision at No. 81 (Lot 246) Auckland Street, North Perth and ask -
(1) Has the Minister satisfied herself as to the legality of actions of the Western Australian Planning Commission in -
(a) overturning its original decision to refuse the subdivision;
(b) giving conditional approval to a site that does not comply with density coding requirements;
(c) ignoring the long-standing acceptance in Western Australia that the planning law that applies to a subdivision or development application is that which is in place at the time the decision on the application is made, and not that which is in place at the time the application is received;
(d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site;
(e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres;
(f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision;
(g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area;
(h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii);
(i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and
(j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(2) If not, why not?
(1) Has the Minister satisfied herself as to the legality of actions of the Western Australian Planning Commission in -
(a) overturning its original decision to refuse the subdivision;
(b) giving conditional approval to a site that does not comply with density coding requirements;
(c) ignoring the long-standing acceptance in Western Australia that the planning law that applies to a subdivision or development application is that which is in place at the time the decision on the application is made, and not that which is in place at the time the application is received;
(d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site;
(e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres;
(f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision;
(g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area;
(h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii);
(i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and
(j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(2) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 April 2006
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
19 days
(b) giving conditional approval to a site that does not comply with density coding requirements; (c) ignoring the long-standing acceptance in Western Australia that the planning law that applies to a subdivision or development application is that which is in place at the time the decision on the application is made, and not that which is in place at the time the application is received; (d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site; (e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(c) ignoring the long-standing acceptance in Western Australia that the planning law that applies to a subdivision or development application is that which is in place at the time the decision on the application is made, and not that which is in place at the time the application is received; (d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site; (e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site; (e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(b) The application was lodged on 1 July 2003 when the area was zoned R30/40 and a town planning scheme amendment (No. 11), to rezone the area to R20, was underway but was not yet finalised. For subdivision applications lodged for this area prior to finalisation of Amendment 11, the WAPC's position was that the higher code (R40) should only apply where the proponent had demonstrated, as part of a development application, that the proposal would comply with the relevant criteria contained in Council's Schemes and Policies. (c) The WAPC has discretion to determine whether an application is assessed under the provisions applicable at the time the application is received by the WAPC. This has been the practice for many years and is considered to be fair as applicants have no control over the time-frames for WAPC deliberations. (d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(c) The WAPC has discretion to determine whether an application is assessed under the provisions applicable at the time the application is received by the WAPC. This has been the practice for many years and is considered to be fair as applicants have no control over the time-frames for WAPC deliberations. (d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable.
(c) ignoring the long-standing acceptance in Western Australia that the planning law that applies to a subdivision or development application is that which is in place at the time the decision on the application is made, and not that which is in place at the time the application is received; (d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site; (e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(d) treating the proposal as a battle-axe configuration despite the fact that, for the purposes of the R Codes, Lot 246 is not a battle-axe site; (e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(e) ignoring usual practice regarding the proposed driveway width in allowing a reduction to three metres; (f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(f) ignoring the common property requirement for vehicular access to be available to all lots within the proposed subdivision; (g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(g) failing to enforce the requirement for the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area; (h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(h) applying the R Codes correctly, specifically cl.3.1.2 A2 (ii); (i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(i) allowing a dual access way and crossover that would, effectively enable the developer to achieve two single houses without having to comply with any of the applicable development controls for that form of development; and (j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(j) granting condition approval despite a significant overshadowing and loss of amenity issues affecting the adjoining property?
(b) The application was lodged on 1 July 2003 when the area was zoned R30/40 and a town planning scheme amendment (No. 11), to rezone the area to R20, was underway but was not yet finalised. For subdivision applications lodged for this area prior to finalisation of Amendment 11, the WAPC's position was that the higher code (R40) should only apply where the proponent had demonstrated, as part of a development application, that the proposal would comply with the relevant criteria contained in Council's Schemes and Policies. (c) The WAPC has discretion to determine whether an application is assessed under the provisions applicable at the time the application is received by the WAPC. This has been the practice for many years and is considered to be fair as applicants have no control over the time-frames for WAPC deliberations. (d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(c) The WAPC has discretion to determine whether an application is assessed under the provisions applicable at the time the application is received by the WAPC. This has been the practice for many years and is considered to be fair as applicants have no control over the time-frames for WAPC deliberations. (d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(d) The application was assessed as a survey strata subdivision in a battle-axe configuration and not as two single green title house lots incorporating a battle-axe leg. As a group dwelling site, with common property (the battle-axe leg), the application satisfies the Residential Design Codes minimum site area of 270m2. The minimum site area requirement of 420m2 for a rear battle-axe lot as specified in Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes is applicable only to green title subdivisions and not to Group Dwellings. (e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(e) The reduction in the driveway width from 4 metres to 3 metres is in accordance with the WAPC's Development Control Policy No. 2.2 Residential Subdivision (Clause 3.7.2) that allows for 3 metre driveways in situations where an existing house is to be retained. (f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(f) The subdivision provides a common property driveway that gives vehicular access to both lots. As a general guide, the common property needs to be a necessary and functional component of the subsequent development. In this instance, the common property satisfies both criteria in that it will permit access to both lots, including maintenance and repair of the existing dwelling, which is to be retained on proposed lot 1. (g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(g) The WAPC has placed a condition [condition 7 (b)] on the approval that requires the existing residence comply with the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent, with respect to, inter alia, the provision of a permanent enclosed storage area. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(h) Clause 3.1.2 A2 (ii) of the Residential Design Codes applies to a 'rear battle-axe site'. The proposal is not a 'rear battle-axe site' that is subject to the provisions of Column 4 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes, but is a group dwelling in a battle-axe configuration subject to the provisions of Column 3 of Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes. (i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(i) Condition 7 (b) of the WAPC approval requires that the existing residence comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Town of Vincent with respect to, inter alia, the provision and construction of two on-site car-parking bays and associated driveway and crossover. This is a matter for the local government to enforce. (j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(j) Assessment and approval of development applications for dwellings is undertaken by the local government in most cases. In this instance the Town of Vincent is the determining authority and not the WAPC. (2) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.