give rise to a reasonable and definite inference of a breach, not just to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is mere matter of conjecture. Documents The Documents considered by the Panel (Documents) are set out in Attachment “A”. On the evidence available to the Panel it is satisfied to the Required Standard as follows: in February 2012, the City received a Development Application (DA) from the owners of 34 Bagot Road Subiaco (Property) to extend an existing non-conforming use to encompass a proposed boardroom addition above an existing garage to the rear of the existing two storey building on the Property; the City’s lawyers advised that City that was no express power in the Scheme to an existing non-conforming use “extend” and further that the owners of the Property appeared to be unlawfully using the first floor of the Property as an office in contravention of the Scheme; by letter the 19 December 2012 the City advised the owners’ representative that: it would refuse the DA to build the boardroom above the garage; and the unlawful office use on the first floor should cease; the Owners were invited to withdraw that DA and did so; various meetings then took place between the owners’ representative and the City (including Ms Bonus) in an attempt to resolve the matter of the office use on the first floor; on 19 July 2014, the owners lodged a fresh DA seeking to extend the non-conforming use of the ground floor as office use to include the first floor; this DA was refused by the City on the 9 September 2014; on 9 September 2014 the City’s Development Services Committee voted unanimously to instruct the City's CEO to prosecute the owners for an offence against s.218 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 for undertaking a development in contravention of the Scheme (Alleged Offence); thereafter, the owners instituted proceeding in the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking a review of the City's decision to refuse the 19 July 2014 DA; on 30 March 2015, the Tribunal determined that the City did have power under its Scheme to consider the owner’s 19 July 2014 DA; prior to 30 March 2015 the City prosecuted the owners for the Alleged Offence;
give rise to a reasonable and definite inference of a breach, not just to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is mere matter of conjecture. Documents The Documents considered by the Panel (Documents) are set out in Attachment “A”. On the evidence available to the Panel it is satisfied to the Required Standard as follows: in February 2012, the City received a Development Application (DA) from the owners of 34 Bagot Road Subiaco (Property) to extend an existing non-conforming use to encompass a proposed boardroom addition above an existing garage to the rear of the existing two storey building on the Property; the City’s lawyers advised that City that was no express power in the Scheme to “extend” an existing non-conforming use and further that the owners of the Property appeared to be unlawfully using the first floor of the Property as an office in contravention of the Scheme; by letter the 19 December 2012 the City advised the owners’ representative that: it would refuse the DA to build the boardroom above the garage; and the unlawful office use on the first floor should cease; the Owners were invited to withdraw that DA and did so; various meetings then took place between the owners’ representative and the City (including Ms Bonus) in an attempt to resolve the matter of the office use on the first floor; on 19 July 2014, the owners lodged a fresh DA seeking to extend the non-conforming use of the ground floor as office use to include the first floor; this DA was refused by the City on the 9 September 2014; on 9 September 2014 the City’s Development Services Committee voted unanimously to instruct the City's CEO to prosecute the owners for an offence against s.218 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 for undertaking a development in contravention of the Scheme (Alleged Offence); thereafter, the owners instituted proceeding in the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking a review of the City's decision to refuse the 19 July 2014 DA; on 30 March 2015, the Tribunal determined that the City did have power under its Scheme to consider the owner’s 19 July 2014 DA; prior to 30 March 2015 the City prosecuted the owners for the Alleged Offence;
Standards_Panel_42_of_2015_LGSP_Reasons_for_Findings_Report_Cr_Burns_City_of_Subiaco.docx