Former IMP Automation Group managing director Boyne Hohenstein has had a win in the State Administrative Tribunal after a planning decision was overturned.
Former IMP Automation Group managing director Boyne Hohenstein has had a win in the State Administrative Tribunal after a planning decision over a roof terrace on his $2.6 million City Beach site was overturned.
Mr Hohenstein's company HHB Investments sought approval from the Town of Cambridge to amend an already approved application to build a house on Branksome Gardens by changing a roof garden to a roof terrace.
Danish company FLSmidth acquired IMP Automation Group in 2019 for DKK372 million, which is equivalent to about $A76 million.
The acquisition included more than 130 IMP Automation Group employees, including Mr Hohenstein, according to a FLSmidth statement.
In September, town councillors refused the application due to concerns the roof terrace would add additional height, loss of visual privacy and be incompatible with the local surroundings.
In a judgment delivered by SAT member Rochelle Lavery this month, the tribunal ordered the town’s decision be set aside and for HHB Investments’ application be conditionally approved.
Research from RP data shows the Branksome Gardens site was purchased for about $2.6 million in November 2020.
A development application to build a two-storey house with a roof garden area on the site had previously been approved by the town.
HHB Investments, with help from Urbanista Town Planning, then proposed to change a portion of the roof garden into a roof terrace, with an external spiral staircase and landing.
The proposal included increasing the wall height from the already approved application to accommodate clear glass balustrading of one-metre tall.
The town refused the application at a September meeting, claiming the proposed roof terrace did not provide adequate screening to surrounding neighbours and that the increased wall height would make the house be closer to a three-storey development.
In her judgment, Ms Lavery said the height of the proposal was acceptable and the roof terrace was compatible with the surroundings.
“I find that the built form of the proposed development is within what can be reasonably expected in the locality and not dissimilar to what has already been constructed,” she said.
“I find that in this case it is preferrable for the glass to remain clear as indicated in the plans for this application as the clear glass will minimise the visibility of the balustrade and additional height proposed such that, in my view, it will have no adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area or locality.”
The town council’s refusal in September was against its own administration staff’s recommendation to approve the roof terrace proposal.
