Nedlands councillors asked to reconsider refusal of clear glass for homes opposite former 6PR host

City of Nedlands councillors have been urged to reverse a decision to not allow neighbours of prominent media identity Liam Bartlett have clear glass on their balcony balustrades, with a warning that tens of thousands of dollars of ratepayers’ money is at stake.

The four grouped homes in Nedlands were approved last year and are opposite the side wall of the former 6PR host, who quit his radio role last month.

One of the conditions of the grouped homes’ approval was for the owners to have frosted glass on their balconies.

Since then the homes have been sold and the four separate owners have claimed they were unaware of the condition — with advertising material showing clear glass — and applied to the city to have the condition removed.

Bartlett told the council in August he was opposed to this because “I’m not fond of looking out on to people’s balconies and their bikes and their washing or whatever else they want to stick up on their balcony”.

The firebrand presenter later hit back at media reports, claiming he had wrongly been depicted as a cross between “Genghis Khan and Thurston Howell III” from Gilligan’s Island.

After Nedlands council rejected the grouped home owners’ application, they appealed the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal.

The SAT directed the city and owners to confidential mediation, which occurred last month.

The application is now back before the council, with staff urging councillors to set aside their earlier refusal and avoid going forward to a full SAT hearing.

Staff have warned councillors — who will vote on the item next week — a second refusal would see up to $50,000 squandered.

“The city will be responsible for legal fees to defend its decision,” they said.

“Based on recent State Administrative Tribunal cases, costs of $30,000 to $50,000 can be anticipated.”

The grouped home owners have also agreed to a compromise solution to have frosted glass on the upper floor and clear glass on the lower floor.

A refusal could also see the compromise set aside and the original application approved.

“The tribunal is able to review the proposal in the original form first considered and refused by council rather than be fettered to the current proposal,” staff said.

City officers have also advised that the application to remove the condition does not violate any of the relevant residential design codes.