Owners ‘heartbroken’ over development rejection from council

The View Rd development.
The View Rd development.

THE owners behind a contentious four-storey development on the edge of the Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan (CBACP) area say they are heartbroken by Melville council’s decision to reject their plan for the site.

The three-dwelling development at 4A View Road, Mt Pleasant on the edge of the H4 zone was voted down at the November 19 council meeting.

Among the reasons the council gave for the rejection were overshadowing onto the neighbour’s property, its bulk and size and the rooftop height being excessive.

Guy and Susie Ware, who have lived in Mt Pleasant but outside the CBACP area for 10 years, bought the property in mid-2018.

“We have worked very hard with our architect and the City of Melville’s planning department for 12 months to get to this point,” Mr Ware said.

“This included numerous rounds of review with the council with many elements of our preferred design compromised to reduce the size of our combined family home and mini-development.

“To now receive a rejection for a design that was ultimately compliant with the planning rules of the property is very disappointing.”

Harden Jones Architects, which acted for the owners during the application process, told the Melville Gazette that Mr and Mrs Ware were considering their options.

City officers said the development complied with CBACP regulations but it was controversial because the activity centre plan boundary cut right between their property and their southern neighbour at number 6, land that is zoned R20.

Neighbour Rosemary Waldron-Hartfield made several deputations to the council through the process, citing the development would cause her to lose light to her outdoor living area, living room and dining area.

She said she was relieved by the council’s decision.

“It was the work of the senior planning lawyer Margie Tannock and councillors Nicholas Pazolli and Steve Kepert that helped it to be called up to council,” she said.

“There’s still the big issue of the boundary being between properties, that doesn’t help residents or developers.”