The north west metropolitan panel�s three specialist members and two City of Wanneroo councillors unanimously agreed on July 28 to refuse the proposal because it did not have a broad enough mix of uses.
Planning Solutions had submitted plans on behalf of owner BPS Holdings to build a four-storey block with 62 apartments and two commercial tenancies plus 25 two-storey townhouses on the 1.246ha site.
The property on the corner of Ocean Keys Boulevard and Lower Keys Drive is next to the Clarkson Youth Centre and skate park.
Plans showed the development would have 144 parking bays.
At the July 28 meeting, Planning Solutions director Ben Doyle said he had just learnt from presiding member Paul Drechsler that the WA Planning Commission had refused their application to subdivide the site but that did not affect the development.
�That�s a complete red herring and is of no consequence to this application,� he said.
Mr Doyle said they did not have to subdivide the site as the apartments and units could be leased rather than sold, or set up as a strata development.
The report prepared by City of Wanneroo staff recommended conditional approval, with one condition to include reference to noise from the youth centre on the property titles.
�Noise that would be generated from the skate park would potentially have impacts on immediately adjoining residents,� the report said.
�To overcome this issue the development (includes) acoustically appropriate treatments (such as glazing) for the units closest to the boundary with the youth centre.
�The units closest to the skate park have been configured in such a way that the outdoor living areas are protected from the majority of the noise generated.�
Panel member Clayton Higham said the WAPC had refused the subdivision application because it was not consistent with the mixed use zone.
Cr Russell Driver said two commercial tenancies would not be sufficient for a development in the Clarkson secondary centre.
Mr Doyle said planning policies did not require every lot to have mixed uses and the proposal had a sufficient mix to warrant approval.
After the recommendation to approve the plans lapsed for want of a mover, Mr Higham moved an alternative to refuse it, which was supported by the rest of the panel.