Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallAlan Bond’s former Dalkeith mansion became the focus of a neighbourhood planning dispute over proposed pool and outdoor entertaining works. In May 2024, Nedlands Council staff reportedly recommended approval of modified plans; later reporting said the council rejected the proposed outdoor entertaining area. The available reporting does not establish that every part of the wider renovation proposal was refused.
What was proposed for the Dalkeith property?
Danny and Suzie Pavlovich bought the riverfront property in 2020 for a reported $27.5 million, according to PerthNow. The mansion had previously belonged to businessman Alan Bond. PerthNow reported that it was listed for $50 million in 2017 and described the home and site as covering 3,000 square metres.
The reported application covered more than the pool. Proposed work included a replacement swimming pool and pool lounge, an outdoor pavilion, a garage, a porte cochere, a parcel drop-off building, landscaping and changes to boundary walls. Plans had reportedly been modified, including changes to pool, deck and screen setbacks. These were proposals, not evidence that the work was built.
Why did neighbours object?
The dispute centred on privacy and amenity: how the pool and outdoor entertaining area might affect adjoining residents’ use and enjoyment of their property.
The applicants’ position
Planning Solutions director Ben Doyle, representing the Pavlovichs, said the plans had been redrawn to address neighbours’ concerns. He also said an adjoining balcony and lounge window looked into the Pavlovichs’ backyard and were 1.5 to 2.4 metres from the common boundary. That setback figure and the overlooking claim were Doyle’s account, as reported by PerthNow on 16 May 2024, not an independently established finding.
The neighbours’ position
Lawyer Phillip Dobson and urban planner David Read, speaking for the neighbours, argued that the pool area would overlook their clients’ property and harm its amenity. Read said a six-metre setback was required and that design principles needed to be addressed for any smaller setback. This was the neighbours’ position in the dispute, not a verified legal determination about the applicable requirement.
At the council meeting, Suzie Pavlovich was quoted as saying: “We’re very conscious that we will be living next to each other; we were hoping there would be no awkwardness, but frankly we’re embarrassed to have taken so much of everyone’s time at this stage.” Doyle said the applicants could make no further compromises and would proceed to a SAT final hearing if council did not approve the plans. Dobson argued the plans adversely affected his clients’ amenity and enjoyment of their home. These remarks were reported by PerthNow; they describe the parties’ competing views, not findings by council or a tribunal.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened at council and the State Administrative Tribunal?
PerthNow reported on 16 May 2024 that Nedlands Council staff recommended approval of the then-modified plans, with a council decision expected at the 28 May meeting. A later report by The West Australian said Nedlands Council rejected the proposed outdoor entertaining area after the neighbours’ dispute could not be resolved. The later report concerns that area; it does not establish that the council rejected every component of the broader renovation proposal.
The State Administrative Tribunal register search result identifies a related proceeding, SAT DR 21/2024, involving Planning Solutions, Danny Allen Pavlovich and the City of Nedlands. It records the matter as completed on 5 June 2024 with “Judgment pursuant to Order.” The register entry available for this account does not disclose the precise order or its reasoning, so it cannot establish how the tribunal resolved each issue or what happened to every proposed element.
Quick Recap
What the dispute does—and does not—establish
- The controversy concerned proposed pool and outdoor entertaining works within a larger package of property alterations.
- The owners and neighbours advanced opposing claims about overlooking, setbacks and residential amenity; those claims should not be mistaken for a formal finding that a privacy rule was breached.
- Later reporting says the proposed outdoor entertaining area was rejected by Nedlands Council, despite an earlier staff recommendation to approve modified plans.
- The available tribunal register information confirms a completed proceeding but does not support a more specific account of the order or the fate of every renovation component.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
