The City of Cambridge has refused to remove a 25-year-old legal restriction on a City Beach property that prohibits people under 55 years of age from living in the home.
Council Decision Upholds Age Restriction
Cambridge councillors on Tuesday decided to retain a covenant status for a property on Norbury Crescent in City Beach. The law was implemented in 2001 as a condition to allow for higher-density subdivision. The covenant limits occupation of the dwelling to persons aged 55 years or older or dependent persons.
The owner's daughter, Sandra Ferguson, applied to the council seeking removal of the restriction, claiming it was limiting the property's value as they prepare to sell. However, her plea was unsuccessful, with council unanimously voting in favour of retaining the covenant, arguing that the law preserved lower-density developments.
Quasi-Judicial Decision
Councillor Michael Le Page described the vote as a “quasi-judicial decision,” meaning it had to be based strictly on planning laws and policies rather than personal preference or the owner's desire for a higher sale price. “Retaining the covenant ensures the original planning intention is preserved,” he said. “This maintains consistency across the precinct, protects the character of the R 12.5 area, and avoids setting a precedent that would allow other sites to seek density without appropriate statutory safeguards.”
Ms Ferguson spoke at the council meeting, arguing that the property in its current form does not offer any benefit to aged persons, for whom it was meant to cater. “As a small example of the covenant’s lack of practical benefits, the current homeowner who meets the restrictions of the covenant cannot live there due to the challenges of the size, design, location, security etc,” she said.
Planning Advice Supports Retention
The council's director of planning and community services, Luke Gibson, echoed Ms Ferguson's argument, stating that the two dwellings on the site were not particularly aligned with contemporary requirements for aged independent housing. “There are some elements that were obviously deemed acceptable at the time, but if we were to receive an application now for age-dependent persons dwellings, it would be held to a different standard,” he said during last week's meeting.
Town planners had recommended that council refuse Ms Ferguson's application, stating that removing the covenant would “undermine this established planning principle, risk setting a precedent across the precinct, and reduce the ongoing provision of specialist housing.”
According to Ms Ferguson, the WA Planning Commission has provided written support for removing the covenant after assessing that the dwelling does not meet relevant modern codes.
