State Administrative Tribunal slams Town of Cambridge for ‘cold-heartedly indifferent’ deferral of roof

A damning State Administrative Tribunal ruling has slammed the “cold-heartedly indifferent” way the Town of Cambridge handled a ratepayers’ application to repair his storm-damaged roof. The SAT decision — which will cost the town thousands of dollars — is highly critical of the council’s decision to put the application on hold over fears the new roof would cause glare for neighbours. City Beach homeowner Kevin Danni appealed to the SAT after the council deferred a decision on his development application to replace his 70-year-old storm-damaged terracotta roof in February. Mr Danni made an application in November 2022 to replace his roof with light grey Colorbond sheeting in the colour Surfmist as the existing roof was filled with holes and had been held together by plastic for months. At the time, Mr Danni and his builder weren’t aware the colour was not allowed under the town rules that prevent the use of certain light coloured roofing that has a high reflectivity in City Beach, Floreat and Mt Claremont. The town’s staff had no issue with granting an approval as Mr Danni planned to install solar panels to mitigate glare, no objections had been received from the 16 neighbouring properties and other homes in City Beach were already using the same colour. But the council, under the leadership of then-mayor Keri Shannon, decided to delay a ruling for an unspecified amount of time until it had completed a review of the town local law to control glare from reflective roofs. In scathing findings delivered on Monday, SAT senior member Dr Stephen Willey said the tribunal found this decision to be “staggering”, “unsatisfactory” and “almost certainly somewhat capricious”. “The town failed to genuinely attempt to make a decision on the merits,” he said. Dr Willey said although the council could exercise discretion as it saw fit and defer matters on occasion, Mr Danni had shown a legitimate need to secure his roof before winter hit and his circumstances made for a “somewhat compelling case”. “I find that the approach taken by the Town was cold-heartedly indifferent to the applicant’s circumstances,” he said. “A decision to indefinitely defer consideration of the proposed development to allow the town to, in effect, consider and revise its policy framework, should, I find, properly attract sanction. “As for the town, and particularly its residents, all I can say is that one only hopes that these events were an unfortunate anomaly and not indicative of the general manner in which those who seek development approval are treated.” Dr Willey also highlighted Ms Shannon lived about 100m from the house and did not initially declare a proximity interest. The tribunal ordered the town to pay Mr Danni $9220 to cover the costs of the proceedings and threw out the town’s bid for Mr Danni to cover its costs of $12,848. But Mr Danni’s bid for compensation totalling $79,874 to cover things such as building costs, damage caused to his home while the roof was left open and the “inconvenience” of living in stressful conditions was not supported. Dr Willey noted most of those costs could not be awarded under the SAT Act. “It is apparent that this matter has become something of a saga to both parties, particularly the applicant,” Mr Willey said. “The applicant’s frustration, even outrage, at what has occurred is hardly surprising. “His outrage and frustration is certainly justified.”