AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

6 February 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the City of Vincent (City) for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  The City disclaims any liability for any loss however caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council Briefing or Council Meeting does so at their own risk.

In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning or development application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by an Elected Member or Employee of the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the City.  The City advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the City must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Council in respect of the application.

Copyright

Any plans or documents contained within this Agenda may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction.  It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright.  A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME

The City of Vincent Local Law Relating to Standing Orders prescribes the procedure for persons to ask questions or make public statements relating to a matter affecting the City, either verbally or in writing, at a Council meeting.

Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council meeting can relate to matters that affect the City.  Questions or statements made at a Special Meeting of the Council must only relate to the purpose for which the meeting has been called.

1.    Shortly after the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member will ask members of the public to come forward to address the Council and to give their name, address and Agenda Item number (if known).

2.    Public speaking time will be strictly limited to three (3) minutes per member of the public.

3.    Members of the public are encouraged to keep their questions/statements brief to enable everyone who desires to ask a question or make a statement to have the opportunity to do so.

4.    Public speaking time is declared closed when there are no further members of the public who wish to speak.

5.    Questions/statements are to be directed to the Presiding Member and are to be made politely in good faith and are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely or be defamatory on a Council Member or City Employee.

6.    Where the Presiding Member is of the opinion that a member of the public is making a statement at a Council meeting, that does not affect the City, he may ask the person speaking to promptly cease.

7.    Questions/statements and any responses will be summarised and included in the Minutes of the Council meeting.

8.    Where practicable, responses to questions will be provided at the meeting.  Where the information is not available or the question cannot be answered, it will be “taken on notice” and a written response will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the person asking the question.  A copy of the reply will be included in the Agenda of the next Ordinary meeting of the Council.

9.    It is not intended that public speaking time should be used as a means to obtain information that would not be made available if it was sought from the City’s records under Section 5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1992. The CEO will advise the member of the public that the information may be sought in accordance with the FOI Act 1992.

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

·         All Ordinary and Special Council Meetings are electronically recorded except when the Council resolves to go behind closed doors;

·         All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records produced by the Public Records Office;

·         A copy of the recorded proceedings and/or a transcript of a particular section or all of a Council meeting is available in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.4 – Council Meetings – Recording and Web Streaming.

·         Ordinary Meetings of Council and Council Briefings are streamed live on the internet in accordance with the City’s Policy – 4.2.4 - Council Meetings Recording and Web Streaming. It is another way the City is striving for transparency and accountability in what we do.

·         The live stream can be accessed from http://webcast.vincent.wa.gov.au/video.php

·         Images of the public gallery are not included in the webcast, however the voices of people in attendance may be captured and streamed.

·         If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Manager Governance and Risk on 08 9273 6538.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice. 7

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 7

8          Declarations of Interest 7

9          Development Services. 8

9.1             Adoption of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 8

9.2             No. 2/17 (Lot: 7; D/P: 11538) Green Street, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Massage Premises) [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 49

9.3             No. 22/60 (Lot: 22; S/P 16992) Smith Street, Highgate - Change of Use from Grouped Dwelling to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 62

9.4             No. 14 (Lot: 7; D/P: 2360) Florence Street, West Perth - Change of Use Single House to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 81

9.5             No. 384 (Lot: 85; D/P: 1197) Lord Street, Highgate - Proposed Change of Use from Single House to Consulting Rooms. 97

9.6             No. 51 (Lot: 801; D/P: 44852) Mary Street, Highgate - Proposed Three Storey Addition to Single House. 113

9.7             Nos. 77 and 79 (Lots: 3 and 4; D/P: 7680) Anzac Road, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Six Grouped Dwellings. 135

9.8             No. 78B (Lot: 1; STR: 66198) Carr Street, West Perth - Proposed Grouped Dwelling. 178

9.9             No. 137 (Lot: 141; D/P: 1197) West Parade, Mount Lawley - Proposed Two Multiple Dwellings and Change of Use of Existing Single House to Grouped Dwelling. 208

9.10           No. 7/565-567 (Lot: 7; STR: 21608) Beaufort Street Mount Lawley - Proposed Amendment to Conditions of Approval - Change of Use from Office to Recreational Facility and Office. 238

10        Engineering. 283

10.1           Safe Active Streets - Bike Boulevard Progress Report 4. 283

11        Corporate Services. 302

11.1           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 23 November 2017 to  5 January 2018. 302

11.2           Investment Report as at 31 December 2017. 328

11.3           Adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017. 338

11.4           Drainage Easement to benefit of Water Corporation - Robertson Park, 176 Fitzgerald Street, Perth. 400

11.5           Variation of lease to include additional artists as joint lessees - Halvorsen Hall, Robertson Park, 176 Fitzgerald Street, Perth. 407

11.6           Amendment to Terms of Reference - Audit Committee and Safer Vincent Crime Prevention Partnership [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 413

11.7           Financial Statements as at 31 December 2017. 416

12        Community Engagement 508

12.1           Proposed Licence Agreement - Banks Reserve Pavilion. 508

13        Chief Executive Officer 514

13.1           Information Bulletin. 514

13.2           Appointments to CEO Performance Review Panel 687

13.3           LATE ITEM: Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 30 January 2018. 690

14        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 700

14.1           Notice of Motion - Higher Order Waste Management 700

15        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 701

Nil

16        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 701

17        Urgent Business. 701

Nil

18        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 701

Nil

19        Closure. 701

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

“The City of Vincent would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging”.

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            (A)         Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

(B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

3.1         Response to a question from Mr Dudley Maier taken on notice at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 December 2017.

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 12 December 2017

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9            Development Services

9.1          Adoption of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017

TRIM Ref:                  D17/171721

Authors:                    Rob Sklarski, Special Project Officer

Paola Di Perna, Manager Approval Services

Tim Evans, Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        Not Applicable

Precinct:                   Not Applicable

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 - version for government gazette

2.       Attachment 2 - Summary of Submission

3.       Attachment 3 - Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 - with tracked changes

4.       Attachment 4 - Consolidated Fencing Local Law 2008 - with tracked changes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.       MAKES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the City of Vincent Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 included as Attachment 1;

2.       NOTES the purpose and effect of the local law as:

Purpose

The purpose of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 is to amend the Fencing Local Law 2008 in order to remove the need for dividing fences between 1.8 and 2.4 metres in height to be approved by the City where certain minimum standards are met, remove the front setback and truncations standards and requirements, modify the specifications for a ‘sufficient fence’, apply the residential ‘sufficient fence’ specification to all lots which contain residential development, increase the modified penalties for prescribed offences and introduce other minor amendments;

Effect

The effect of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 is to set the minimum standards for fencing in the City of Vincent and set out where the City’s approval is required; and

3.       NOTES:

3.1.    the minor amendments to the version of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 that was advertised for public submission;

3.2.    that Administration will publish the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 in the Government Gazette in accordance with s3.12(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 noting that a copy will be sent to the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts;

3.3.    that Administration will give local public notice, in accordance with s3.12(6) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

 

 

3.4.    that following Gazettal, in accordance with the Local Laws Explanatory Memoranda Directions as issued by the Minister on 12 November 2010, a copy of the local law and a duly completed explanatory memorandum signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will be sent to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the submissions received as a result of the public comment period on the proposed Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 and the adoption of the proposed local law.

Background:

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 7 March 2017 (Item 9.3.5), Council resolved in part:

 

“That Council:

 

1.         Pursuant to section 3.16(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, DETERMINES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY that it considers that the following local laws should be amended for the reasons set out below and REQUIRES Administration, for each local law, to present a report back to Council by September 2017 to consider making amendments to those local laws, pursuant to section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995:

 

Local Law

Reason

Fencing Local Law 2008

To make minor amendments to ensure alignment with the City’s Built Form Policy and Town Planning Scheme 2.

 

The City’s Fencing Local Law 2008 primarily deals with two types of fences:

 

·       Dividing fences, which are fences that separate two private properties; and

·       Boundary fences, which are fences between a private property and a thoroughfare.

 

Fencing is also regulated through the State’s Planning and Development Act 2005, Planning and Development (Local Schemes) Regulation 2015 and the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). Dividing fences do not require development approval where they meet the requirements of the Fencing Local Law 2008. TPS2 also exempts boundary fences associated with a single house or grouped dwelling from the need for development approval where they meet all of the standards and requirements set by the City’s local planning policies.

 

The City has recently amended its local planning policies as they relate to boundary fences, with the adoption of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) by Council on 13 December 2016. Any single house or grouped dwelling boundary fence that complies with the standards set out in the Built Form Policy are exempt from the need for development approval. All other boundary fences, such as for a multiple dwelling, mixed used or commercial development, still require a development approval from the City.

 

It is stated in both the TPS1 and the Fencing Local Law 2008 that in the case of any inconsistency between the TPS1 and Local Law, that TPS1 shall prevail. The Built Form Policy has been developed through the City’s TPS1 and given this, the new policy provisions set by the Built Form Policy now prevail over the local law. It is therefore timely to review the City’s Fencing Local Law 2008 to ensure consistency with the City’s new Built Form Policy and to streamline the regulatory process so that only one application is required for a fence that does not meet the standards rather than the two currently required (i.e. a development application under TPS1 and an application under the Fencing Local Law 2008).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 19 September 2017, Council considered amendments to the Fencing Local Law 2008 that:

 

·      removed the need for dividing fences between 1.8 and 2.4 metres in height to be approved by the City where certain minimum standards are met;

·      removed the front setback and truncations standards and requirements;

·      modified the specifications for a ‘sufficient fence’;

·      applied the residential ‘sufficient fence’ specification to all lots which contain residential development;

·      increased the modified penalties for prescribed offences; and

·      made other minor amendments.

 

Council resolved to advertise the City of Vincent Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 for this purpose and advertise it for public comment.

Details:

The Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 amends the principal local law which is the Fencing Local Law 2008. The following is a summary of the effects of the changes that will result by means of adoption of the proposed Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017.

 

Boundary Fences and Truncations

 

Given that in the case of any inconsistency between TPS1 and the Fencing Local Law 2008, that TPS1 prevails, it is proposed to remove those standards covered by TPS1 from the Fencing Local Law 2008. This includes standards for boundary fences and visual truncations that are more thoroughly covered and regulated by the City’s local planning policies through TPS1. The relevant standards set under the local law and TPS1 are inconsistent and create confusion for owners and applicants seeking to construct boundary fences. It is considered that the City’s Built Form Policy and Local Planning Policy No. 2.2.6 – Truncations (Truncations Policy) adequately and more appropriately cover the boundary fences and sightline requirements and that it is not necessary for the local law to also set standards for these matters.

 

Approval for Dividing Fences

 

The Fencing Local Law 2008 specifically states under subclause 2.1(6) that a dividing fence over 1.8 metres in height requires the approval of the City. A large proportion of dividing fences currently being constructed include lattice above the solid portion of fence and are slightly above 1.8 metres in height. It is not considered necessary or reasonable for the City to require two consenting property owners to gain the approval of the City to construct a dividing fence that is above 1.8 metres, provided it is constructed in a structurally sound manner and the height is not excessive.

 

Administration considers that a 2.4 metre high fence would be completely appropriate in these circumstances and so it is proposed to amend the local law to only require approval for a dividing fence where it exceeds 2.4 metres in height. It is also proposed to amend the local law to allow different materials, including pre‑used materials, to be used in construction of a dividing fence where two neighbours agree. This amendment is not proposed to apply to boundary fences, where it is recommended that the City’s approval still be required for any front fence proposed to be constructed out of pre-used materials.

 

Specifications for Sufficient Fence

 

The review also found that the specifications for a sufficient fence require updating to align with the Built Form Policy. Currently commercial and industrial fencing, which is set at a lower standard than that of residential fencing in the local law, can be installed on lots with mixed use development, including residential apartments. It is proposed to amend the local law so that the lower commercial and industrial fencing do not apply to lots which contain any residential development whatsoever.

 

It is also proposed to clarify that a suitable fence must be 1.8 metres in height rather than a maximum of 1.8 metres in height. This will ensure that a neighbour cannot build a lower dividing fence and claim that it is suitable. Two neighbours will still be able to agree to a lower or higher fence without the need for the City’s approval.

 

Minor changes are also proposed to the construction requirements for walls to cover double leaf walls and align pier height with brick courses.

 

Minor Amendments

 

It is also noted that the penalties for prescribed offences under the local law were last set in 2008 and also require updating to ensure the local law acts as a sufficient deterrent to constructing unauthorised fences.

Minor changes are also proposed to the objective of the local law to reflect the minimum standards for fencing set by the local law, rather than the overall regulation of fencing, which partly occurs under the local planning scheme. Further minor changes to the terminology, such as ‘town planning scheme’ becoming ‘local planning scheme’, are also proposed through the amendment.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public notice of the proposed City of Vincent Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 was given in accordance with sections 3.12(3)(a) and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995. Accordingly, advertisements were placed on the City's website, in The West Australian on 11 October 2017, The Guardian Express on 17 October 2017, and The Perth Voice on 14 October 2017 as well as posted on the City's notice boards and publicised on social media. In addition, letters were also sent to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries ("the Department"), the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts, and the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Commerce and Industrial Relations; Electoral Affairs; Asian Engagement requesting feedback.

 

The submission period closed on 9 December 2017 with one submission being received from the Department.

 

The Department provided feedback with respect to the form of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 which has resulted in Administration proposing minor amendments to the version of the local law that was advertised. The changes are administrative in nature and do not change the meaning or operation of the local law. A summary of the Department’s submission is included in Attachment 2.

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the procedure for making a local law as follows:

 

“3.12.    Procedure for making local laws

 

(1)        In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

 

(2A)      Despite subsection (1), a failure to follow the procedure described in this section does not invalidate a local law if there has been substantial compliance with the procedure.

 

(2)        At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.

 

(3)        The local government is to —

 

(a)        give Statewide public notice stating that —

 

(i)         the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and effect of which is summarized in the notice; and

 

(ii)        a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any place specified in the notice; and

 

(iii)        submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; and

 

(b)        as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

 

(c)        provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to any person requesting it.

 

(3a)      A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

 

(4)        After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

* Absolute majority required.

 

(5)        After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

 

(6)        After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to give local public notice.

 

(a)        stating the title of the local law; and

 

(b)        summarizing the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

 

(c)        advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the local government’s office.

 

(7)        The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

 

(8)        In this section — making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law.”

 

One of the key functions of the local law is to define a "sufficient fence" for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act 1961. The City's definition of a "sufficient fence" also affects the application of the Building Act 2011.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council in amending the City’s Fencing Local Law.

Strategic Implications:

Plan for the Future – Strategic Plan 2013 – 2023 – Strategic Objectives:

 

“Objective 4.1:       Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management.

 

4.1.5  Focus on stakeholder needs, values, engagement and involvement.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are nominal costs associated with making the local law, including advertising and Gazettal which can be expended from the City's operating budget.

Comments:

The structural changes recommended by the Department are minor in nature and largely relate to numbering and terminology changes in the local law to ensure consistency. These minor modifications have been made to the advertised local law consistent with the submission received. As a consequence of the various changes, a tracked changes version of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 has been included as Attachment 3 showing the changes made following advertising. A tracked changed version of the consolidated Fencing Local Law 2008 is also included as Attachment 4, which shows the changes that will result from the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 and includes the numbering and terminology modifications that have been recommended following advertising.

Since advertising, Administration has been made aware of an inconsistency between the advertised Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017, the Consolidated (as amended) Fencing Local Law, and the Purpose of the Amendment Local Law, presented to Council at its September 2017 meeting. This discrepancy is the result of a drafting error which resulted in the words "does not exceed 2400 millimetres in height and" appearing in clause 2.1 of the Consolidated Fencing Local Law but being omitted from clause 7 of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017. Administration has now corrected this error by inserting those words in to clause 7 of the Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017.

 

The insertion of the above-mentioned words has the effect of not allowing a dividing fence to be greater than 2400 millimetres unless given approval by a magistrate or the City. This is consistent with the stated and advertised purpose of the local law adopted and given public notice, which is (in part): "to remove the need for dividing fences between 1.8 and 2.4 metres in height to be approved by the City where minimum standards are met". While this is a change from the advertised amendment local law, a local government is able to make a local law that "is not significantly different" to what was advertised, pursuant to s3.12(4) of the Act. Administration considers that this change does not render the local law "significantly different", particularly as this requirement was specifically stated in the advertised purpose of the amendment local law, and it is therefore recommending that the local law can be made without the need for readvertising.

 

The proposed Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 aligns with the City’s broader built form and development framework and will streamline the approval process for dividing and boundary fences in the City. A number of minor changes are recommended following advertising that will not make the local law significantly different from what was advertised. This accords with the requirements of Section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995 and therefore it is recommended that the modified Fencing Amendment Local Law 2017 included as Attachment 1 be adopted, noting that if this occurs the Amendment Local Law will then be published in the Government Gazette and sent to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.2          No. 2/17 (Lot: 7; D/P: 11538) Green Street, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Massage Premises)

TRIM Ref:                  D17/162797

Author:                      Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   1 – Mount Hawthorn

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the development application for a Change of use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Massage Premises) at Unit 2, 17 (Lot: 7; D/P: 11538) Green Street, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 3:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1.    The development shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Massage Premises’ as set out under the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms;

1.2.    A maximum of two consultants shall operate from the tenancy at any one time;

1.3.    This approval for Unlisted Use (Massage Premises) is for a period of 12 months only and should the applicant wish to continue the use after that period, it shall be necessary to re-apply to and obtain approval from the City prior to the continuation of the use; and

1.4.    The hours of operation for the ‘Massage Premises’ shall be limited to 9:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday and Closed Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day; and

2.       Interactive Front

The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the ‘Office’ and ‘Reception’ areas of the development and Green Street and London Street during the hours of the development’s operation to the satisfaction of the City. Darkened, obscured, mirror or tinted glass or the like is prohibited. Curtains, blinds and other internal or external treatments that obscure the view of the internal area from Green Street and London Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the developments operation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Massage Premises) at No. 2/17 Green Street, Mount Hawthorn.

Background:

Landowner:

S&S Prime Properties

Applicant:

Zhi Lan Lia

Date of Application:

24 August 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Local Centre

TPS2:    Zone: Local Centre

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use Area

Existing Land Use:

Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Massage Therapy)

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Massage Premises)

Lot Area:

647m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Green Street and London Street, Mount Hawthorn. The subject site and the lots to the west are zoned Local Centre whilst the lots to the south are zoned Residential with a density code of R30. To the north of the subject site is the City of Stirling local government boundary. The subject site abuts London Street to the east with the adjacent properties being zoned Residential with a density code of R30/R40.  A variety of commercial uses front Green Street including a small bar and various shop tenancies. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

An initial application for a change of use from shop to Consulting Rooms (Non-Medical – Massage Therapy) was approved under delegated authority on 30 July 2015 for a 12 month period in accordance with Clause 5.4.2 in the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms. The approval also limited the number of consulting rooms to two, required a cash-in-lieu contribution of $12,063.60, and conditioned the following operating hours:

 

·           8:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday;

·           8:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

·           11:00am to 5:00pm Sundays and public holidays; and

·           Closed on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day and other official WA public holidays.

 

A subsequent development application was lodged with and approved by the City under delegated authority on 15 September 2016, which amended the approval to remove the cash-in-lieu contribution condition however, did not remove the condition relating to the term of approval. The condition relating to a cash-in-lieu contribution was removed from the development approval as the applicant had paid the required amount of cash-in-lieu in full and has therefore, satisfied the condition.

 

Due to the 12 month time limit imposed on the initial approval an application was lodged on 24 August 2017 to enable the use to continue to operate. Since the development application was lodged the use has continued to operate with no complaints. The development plans are included as Attachment 2. As part of the assessment undertaken by Administration it was determined that the application has been operating in compliance with all of the conditions previously imposed by the City. The application is also seeking to amend the aforementioned operating hours to allow the business to operate from 9:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday.

 

The original application was assessed as a consulting room under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) which is considered as an “AA” use within the ‘Local Centre’ zone. On assessment of the current proposal it was identified that the use cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ in TPS 1 which is defined as:

 

“any building or part thereof used in the practice of a profession by a legally qualified medical practitioner or dentist, or by a physiotherapist, a masseur, a chiropractor, a chiropodist, or a person ordinarily associated with a medical practitioner in the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments but does not include a hospital”.

 

The business offers therapeutical massage services and as this does not relate to the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments, it is not considered to meet the definition of a ‘Consulting Room’ under TPS1. The City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms defines ‘Massage Premises’ as:

 

“premises that provide therapeutic massage services and do not allow sexual activity to take place, be arranged, or be a public venue for sexual encounters”.

 

The use is considered to fall within this definition, which is an ‘Unlisted Use’ in TPS1.

 

The application proposes no physical changes to the building.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access (Parking and Access Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Hours of Operation

 

ü

Parking and Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

Permitted Use

 

 

Unlisted Use (Massage Premises)

Hours of Operation

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

The hours of operation for a Consulting Room shall be

limited to the following:

8:00am 9:00pm, Monday Friday

8:00am 5:00pm, Saturday

11:00am 5:00pm, Sunday and Public Holidays

CLOSED Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day.

 

 

The hours of operation being 9:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday.

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified standards of the City’s Policies and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 15 September to 28 September 2016. The method of advertising included 17 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site, as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. The applicant was unable to have a newspaper advertisement published as they are currently oversees until late February. In order to progress the application, the requirement for a newspaper advertisement was waived in this instance and the radius of written correspondence was extended in order to compensate for the newspaper advertisement. At the end of the consultation period, no submissions were received.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·           Planning and Development Act 2005;

·           Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·           City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·           Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·           Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access; and

·           Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

 

Generally the modified version of LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. The proposal does not reasonably fall into any other definition under LPS 2 and will therefore, also be an Unlisted Use under LPS 2. In addition LPS2 includes new objectives for the Local Centre zone as follows:

 

Local Centre –

 

(i)         To provide services for the immediate neighbourhoods which do not expand into or adversely impact on adjoining residential areas.

 

(ii)        To encourage high quality, pedestrian-friendly, street-orientated development.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This application is being referred to Council for determination as the application proposes an Unlisted Use which requires an Absolute Majority Decision of Council under TPS1.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.


 

Comments:

Land Use

 

The subject site is zoned Local Centre which is the same for the properties in the immediate vicinity, and is not contemplated to change in Draft LPS2. The use cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ in TPS1 and is therefore considered an Unlisted Use. The use meets the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms with respect to accredited qualifications of employees. The use on the subject site has been in operation for approximately two years and during this time the City has not received any complaints regarding the use of the subject site.

 

The proposed use was previously granted approval for a period of 12 months in accordance with Clause 5.4.2 of Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms. However, given that the proposal is now considered a Massage Premises it is recommended that a 12 month approval be granted in order to ensure that the business is operating in accordance with the definition of Massage Premises included in the City Policy No. 7.5.22.

 

The proposal incorporates a maximum of two consulting rooms and is considered to be of a relatively small scale. The operations of the business are considered to provide services for the immediate neighbourhoods and the applicant has highlighted that the majority of customers are from the immediate locality. The proposal is considered to be compatible and complementary with other commercial uses in the locality.

 

The subject site is part of a mixed use development which incorporates commercial tenancies on the ground floor and residential units above. Furthermore, the subject site is adjacent to Residential zoned land which has been developed with predominantly single dwellings. Given that the subject site is on the corner of London Street and Green Street and adjoins a right of way to the south and commercial tenancies to the west, it is considered that there is adequate separation between the subject site and the surrounding Residential zoned properties. This is considered to reduce the potential impact of the proposal on the surrounding residents. It is also noted that since operating, the City has not received any complaints regarding the operations of the subject site nor were there any submissions received when the proposal was advertised for public comment. In light of this, it is considered that the land use is appropriate in this locality.

 

Hours of Operation

 

As part of this application the applicant is seeking an amendment to the currently approved operating hours to enable the business to operate from 9:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday. The justification provided by the applicant for the proposed operating hours can be summarised as follows:

 

·       The surrounding locality will not be greatly impacted by the proposed hours as the business is a significant distance from residential properties;

·       The intersection of Green Street And London Street is surrounded with other Business's which act as a buffer to the subject site;

·       There has been strong demand from customers to be able to come after work hours and on weekends;

·       The extended hours of trade can be considered a service to the community as it allows more accessible hours for those in pain to get medical service where they may not otherwise be able to receive due to work commitments; and

·       Customers are trying hard to maintain their jobs and are unwilling to ask for time off to attend an appointment.

 

The lots adjacent to the subject property incorporate a number of commercial uses including shops and a small bar. The small bar on the corner of Green Street and Dunedin Street operates until 10:00pm on Wednesday and Thursday, 12:00am on Friday and Saturday and 9:00pm on Sunday (closed on Monday and Tuesday). On the opposite side of Dunedin Street is a liquor store which operates until 8:00pm on Monday to Thursday, 9:00pm on Friday and Saturday and 7:00pm on Sunday. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed operating hours are generally in-keeping with the other businesses in the locality. Furthermore, the proposal is restricted to two consultants at any one time which is considered to ensure that the impact of the business is negligible in terms of scale and intensity.

 


 

The subject tenancy is on the corner of London Street and Green Street and is therefore considered to be adequately separated from the surrounding Residential zoned land. The proposal incorporates a maximum of two consultants at any one time which is considered to be of a low scale and intensity. The operating hours are considered to be generally in keeping with the surrounding businesses. Given the number of consultants proposed, it is considered that the extended operating hours will not adversely impact on the locality and the nearby residential dwellings. Notwithstanding, it has been recommended that the approval be granted for a period of 12 months only. This allow the City to monitor the activities of the business and ensure that these extended trading hours are not adversely impacting on the surrounding landowners.

 

Car Parking

 

The initial application determined the car parking requirements in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access based on the use being a Consulting Room which requires three car parking bays per consulting room or consultant whichever is lesser. Given that the use is now being considered as a Massage premises, the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 does not include any specific car parking requirements. However, it is considered that the previous standard applied for the car parking is appropriate in this instance. The applicant has satisfied the requirements for car parking for the subject site as a cash-in-lieu contribution has been paid to the City.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate use in the locality given the existing commercial uses currently operating adjacent to the subject site such as a small bar and shop. Furthermore, the proposed operating hours align with some of the uses currently operating in the locality. The City did not receive any objections in the community consultation period nor has it received any complaints since the proposal has been in operation. It is recommended that to the application be approves subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.3          No. 22/60 (Lot: 22; S/P 16992) Smith Street, Highgate - Change of Use from Grouped Dwelling to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling)

TRIM Ref:                  D17/163341

Authors:                    Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   14 – Forrest

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Management Plan and Code of Conduct

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY  the development application for a Change of Use from Grouped Dwelling to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) at No. 22/60 (Lot: 22; S/P: 16992) Smith Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1.    The Short Term Dwelling shall accommodate a maximum of 4 guests at any one time;

1.2.    The Short Term Dwelling shall operate in accordance with the Management Plan dated 25 July 2017 and the terms and conditions outlined in the Management Plan shall be provided to guests of the Short Term Dwelling at the time of check-in and displayed in a prominent location within the entrance area of the short term accommodation; and

1.3.    The Short Term Dwelling shall operate with a mandatory minimum night stay period of 3 consecutive nights;

2.       Car Parking

A minimum of one on-site parking bays shall be made available to guests at all time and be maintained to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Management Plan

3.1.    The Management Plan and Code of Conduct shall be modified to include further information regarding parking management as outlined in City of Vincent Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation, within 28 days of the date of this approval. The Use of the premises shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management Plan and all requirements of the Management Plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City;

3.2.    ‘The Handbook’ contained in the approved Management Plan shall be provided to guests of the Short Term Dwelling at the time of check-in and displayed in a prominent location within the entrance area of the Short Term Dwelling; and

4.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Grouped Dwelling to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) at Unit 22, 60 Smith Street, Highgate (the subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

George Michael Jones

Applicant:

George Michael Jones

Date of Application:

25 July 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R80

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted (Short Term Dwelling)

Lot Area:

2,280m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Smith Street and Broome Street, Highgate. The site comprises of 24 grouped dwellings (townhouses) set across two buildings, as shown in Attachment 1. The area surrounding the subject site is predominantly residential and is characterised by a mix of single houses, grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings.

 

Located adjacent to the subject site on the west side of Smith Street is a 12 storey multiple dwelling, a single house and a small office building. Single two storey houses are located opposite the subject site on the north side of Broome Street. The subject site is bound to the south-west by group dwellings and Brigatti Gardens to the south-east. The subject site and surrounding area are zoned Residential with a density coding of R80, with the exception of Brigatti Gardens which is reserved Parks and Recreation.

 

The subject site has been operating as a Short Term Dwelling without development approval from the City since circa 2014. The City received a complaint about the suspected unauthorised use of the subject site as temporary accommodation on the 25 May 2017. The complaint formed part of a broader submission on numerous suspected temporary accommodation venues throughout Highgate. The landowner proceeded to lodge an application for a change of use from Grouped Dwelling to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling).

 

The subject site comprises of a two storey grouped dwelling with two bedrooms and one car bay. The application proposes for both of the bedrooms to be used for temporary accommodation. The proposal is compliant with the car parking requirements outlined in the City Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation requires a Management Plan and Code of Conduct to be submitted as part of all applications for Short Term Accommodation. A Management Plan and Code of Conduct were submitted as part of the development application and are included in Attachment 3. The Management Plan provided with the application outlines that a maximum of four guests can be accommodated at the subject site at any one time. The guests are required to provide the landowner with details of the nature of their intended stay before a booking is accepted. The landowner meets all guests on site at the time of arrival and reviews the Code of Conduct. The occupants of Unit 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 have been provided the landowner’s telephone number should there be any complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour. The Management Plan and Code of Conduct are considered to generally meet the requirement set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation.

 

The proposed Short Term Dwelling does not align with any Use Class Categories provided in the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). As such, the proposal has been assessed an ‘Unlisted Use’ under the TPS1. The City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation does provide a list of potential unlisted uses including Short Term Dwelling, which is defined as follows:

 

‘Short Term Dwelling means the provision of temporary accommodation, lodging or boarding within a residential dwelling for a maximum of six (6) persons, inclusive of the keeper if they reside at the dwelling, for a continuous period of less than six (6) months within any twelve month period.’

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the definition of ‘Short Term Dwelling’ set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation and has been assessed against the associated requirements.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City’s TPS1, the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation and Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Management Plan

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

“P” Use

 

 

Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling)

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

 

1 car bay required

 

 

1 car bay provided

Management Plan

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Management Plan

 

The Management Plan should detail any relevant parking restrictions and include a commitment to advising occupiers of the premise, verbally and in writing, of the negative impact that inappropriate car parking can have on permanent residents.

 

 

The Management Plan does not detail the parking restrictions applicable in the area and no commitment has been included to advise occupiers of the negative impact inappropriate car parking can have on surrounding neighbours.

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified standards set out in the City’s Policies and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 10 November 2017 until 2 December 2017. The method of consultation being a sign on site, a notice in the local newspaper ‘The Voice’, and 52 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Two submissions were received, both of which objected to the proposal. The main concerns raised by the submissions are as follows:

 

·       The presence of short stay accommodation will increase real estate prices and create social problems in the local community.

·       This establishment has been operating without authorisation since June 2014 and continues to do so without any penalty.

 

No evidence has been provided to indicate that the proposed development has impacted on real estate prices or contributed to anti-social behaviour. A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s response to each is contained in Attachment 4.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access;

·       Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the modified version of LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

 

Generally the modified version of LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. The proposed development would fall within the ‘Holiday Accommodation’ land use under the LPS2, which is defined as the following:

 

‘Means 2 or more dwellings on one lot used to provide short term accommodation for persons other than the owner of the lot’.

 

Holiday Accommodation is an Unlisted Use within the LPS2 and would require consideration against the objectives of the Residential zone. Under the LPS2, the objectives of the Residential zone are as follows:

 

i.          To provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.

 

ii.         To facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.

 

iii.         To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

 

iv.        To promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

 

v.         To enhance the amenity and character of the residential neighbourhood by encouraging the retention of existing housing stock and ensuring new development is compatible within these established areas.

 

vi.        To manage residential development in a way that recognises the needs of innovative design and contemporary lifestyles.

 

vii.        To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to an Unlisted Use, which requires an Absolute Majority Decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The proposed land use of a Short Term Dwelling is not specifically identified in the land use table in the TPS1 and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of one of the Use Class Categories of TPS1. The use is considered an ‘Unlisted Use’ under TPS1 and Council is required to consider if the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Residential zone, following community consultation. There are no objectives for the Residential zone in TPS1, as such the proposal has been assessed against the objectives of the Residential zone that will be included LPS2. It should be noted that the proposed development would be considered as ‘Holiday Accommodation’ under the LPS2. Holiday Accommodation is still classified as an ‘Unlisted Use’ under the LPS2 and would also require consideration against the objectives of the Residential zone.

 

The subject site is located in the Residential zone with a residential coding of R80. The land surrounding the subject site is also zoned Residential with a residential coding of R80. The surrounding properties include a mix of residential uses, including single houses, grouped and multiple dwellings. The zoning of the subject and adjoining sites are not contemplated to change in the City’s LPS2.

 

The proposal is considered to provide an alternative form of residential accommodation. No physical works are required and the proposal will maintain the current residential built form and intensity of the subject site. This alternative form of residential accommodation will service both the local and broader community. The proposal does not incorporate any signage and therefore, will not lead to a commercialisation of the property. Consequently the existing residential character of the area will be retained. The Short Term Dwelling is limited to four guests at any one time. This number of guests is consistent with the number of people that would typically be accommodated within a two-bedroom residential dwelling. As such, the proposal is not considered to increase the intensity of the use of the subject site.

 

It is noted that since 2014, the City has not received any complaints regarding the operations of the subject site other than the broader submission on numerous suspected unauthorised Short Term Dwellings. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal is being managed appropriately through the existing management plan and is of a scale compatible for the area and consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone.

 

Management Plan

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation, a Management Plan and Code of Conduct has been provided as part of this application.  The Management Plan outlines that a maximum of four guests can be accommodated at the subject site at any one time. The guests are required to provide the landowner with details of the nature of their intended stay before a booking is accepted. The landowner meets all guests on site at the time of arrival and together they review the Code of Conduct. The occupants of Unit 19, 20 21, 23, 24 have been provided the landowner’s telephone number should there be any complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour.

 

The Management Plan and Code of Conduct are considered to generally meet the requirement set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation. The Management Plan does not detail the parking restrictions applicable in the area and no commitment has been included to advise occupiers of the negative impact inappropriate car parking can have on surrounding neighbours, as is required by the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation. In order to address this, a condition has been recommended requiring the Management Plan to be amended to incorporate this information and requirements for guest parking.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Short Term Dwelling is considered an appropriate use for the site and consistent with the objectives of the ‘Residential’ zone outlined in LPS2. The proposal offers an alternative form of accommodation at a low scale that is compatible for the area. The City is satisfied the proposal will be able to operate under the Management Plan and the Code of Conduct with minimal impact on the surrounding residential area. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.4          No. 14 (Lot: 7; D/P: 2360) Florence Street, West Perth - Change of Use Single House to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling)

TRIM Ref:                  D17/165433

Authors:                    Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   5 – Cleaver

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Management Plan and Code of Conduct

4.       Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the development application for Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) at No. 14 (Lot: 7; D/P: 2360) Florence Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1.    The Short Term Dwelling shall accommodate a maximum of 5 guests at any one time; and

1.2.    The Short Term Dwelling shall operate with a mandatory minimum night stay period of 2 consecutive nights;

2.       Car Parking

2.1.    A minimum of two on-site parking bays shall be made available to guests at all time and be maintained to the satisfaction of the City; and

2.2.    A Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City within 28 days of the date of this approval detailing the location of the two parking bays and how the tandem car parking bays proposed on site will be managed, to the satisfaction of the City. Parking shall be managed in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan;

3.       Management Plan

3.1.    The Management Plan and Code of Conduct shall be modified to detail updated complaints management procedures and security procedures in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Temporary Accommodation, within 28 days of the date of this approval. The Use of the premises shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management Plan and all requirements of the Management Plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City;

3.2.    The ‘House Rule for Guests and Visitors’ contained in the approved Management Plan shall be provided to guests of the Short Term Dwelling at the time of check-in and displayed in a prominent location within the entrance area of the Short Term Dwelling; and

 

4.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) at 14 Florence Street, West Perth (the subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Charber Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Charber Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

21 June 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling)

Lot Area:

1,020m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

Municipal Heritage List Category B

 

The subject site is located at No. 14 Florence Street, West Perth. The subject site encompasses a single house located fronting Florence Street and a light industry warehouse located at the rear of the property. The single house is the portion of the subject site relevant to this application, as shown in Attachment 1. The rear warehouse is listed on the City’s non-conforming use register.  The landowner has recently lodged a separate application for development approval for the rear portion of the subject site which seeks to demolish the warehouse and construct three grouped dwellings.

 

The subject site is located in the Residential zone with a residential density code of R50. The land surrounding the subject site is zoned Residential with a residential density code of R50 (north and west) and R80 (east and south). The area surrounding the subject site is predominantly characterised by residential development. The subject site adjoins single residential houses to the north and south. The area to the east and west of the subject site includes single houses and multiple dwellings, with the exception of the light industry warehouse located on the rear of the subject site and the lot directly adjoining to the east.

 

The City received a complaint in May 2017 about a suspected temporary accommodation at the subject site. The complaint related to the unauthorised use of the subject site impacting the availability of onsite parking within the area. The City investigated the matter in June 2017 and the landowner subsequently proceeded to lodge an application for a change of use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling).

 

The subject site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage List Category B and comprises of a four bedroom Single House. This application proposes to change the use from Single House to an Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling) with three of the bedrooms to be used for accommodating guests and the fourth bedroom being allocated for the use by the keeper who will be responsible for the upkeep and management of the Short Term Dwelling. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2. The application outlines that a maximum of five guests will be accommodated at the subject site at any one time in addition to the keeper.

 

The proposed Short Term Dwelling does not align with any Use Class Categories provided in the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). As such, the proposal has been assessed an ‘Unlisted Use’ under the TPS 1. The City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation does provide a list of potential unlisted uses including Short Term Dwelling, which is defined as follows:

 

‘Short Term Dwelling means the provision of temporary accommodation, lodging or boarding within a residential dwelling for a maximum of six (6) persons, inclusive of the keeper if they reside at the dwelling, for a continuous period of less than six (6) months within any twelve month period.’

The proposed development is considered to meet the definition of ‘Short Term Dwelling’ set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation and has been assessed against the associated requirements. The Policy requires a Management Plan and Code of Conduct to be submitted as part of all applications for Short Term Accommodation. A Management Plan and Code of Conduct were submitted as part of the development application and are included in Attachment 3.

 

The subject site has been operating as a Short Term Dwelling without development approval from the City since June 2016. A plaque displaying 'City Home Stay' and the mobile numbers of the landowner is located on the front door of the subject site. The neighbours of the adjoining properties have also been provided the mobile phone number of the landowner should any complaints occur about noise and anti-social behaviour. A copy of the Code of Conduct is also provided at the subject site.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City’s TPS1, the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation, Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines and Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Management Plan

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

“P” Use

 

 

Unlisted Use (Short Term Dwelling)

Management Plan

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Management Plan

 

The Management Plan should detail any relevant parking restrictions and include a commitment to advising occupiers of the premise, verbally and in writing, of the negative impact that inappropriate car parking can have on permanent residents.

 

 

The Management Plan does not detail the parking restrictions applicable in the area and no commitment has been included to advise occupiers of the negative impact inappropriate car parking can have on surrounding neighbours.

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified standards set out in the City’s Policies and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 21 November 2017 until 11 December 2017. The method of consultation being a sign on site, a notice in the local newspaper ‘The Voice’, and 107 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

No submissions were received during the advertising period.

 

Heritage

 

The subject site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory Management Category B. The heritage classification of the subject site does not required referral to the State Heritage Office.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines;

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 Parking and Access; and

·       Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the modified version of LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

 

Generally the modified version of LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. The proposed development would fall within the ‘Holiday House’ land use under the LPS2, which is defined as the following:

 

‘Means a single dwelling on one lot used to provide short-term accommodation but does not include a bed and breakfast.’

 

A Holiday House is an Unlisted Use within the LPS2 and would require consideration against the objectives of the Residential. Under the LPS2, the objectives of the Residential zone are as follows:

 

i.          To provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.

 

ii.         To facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.

 

iii.         To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

 

iv.        To promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

 

v.         To enhance the amenity and character of the residential neighbourhood by encouraging the retention of existing housing stock and ensuring new development is compatible within these established areas.

 

vi.        To manage residential development in a way that recognises the needs of innovative design and contemporary lifestyles.

 

vii.        To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to an Unlisted Use, which requires an Absolute Majority Decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The proposed land use of a Short Term Dwelling is not identified in the land use table in the TPS1 and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of one of the other Use Class Categories of TPS1. The use is considered an ‘Unlisted Use’ under TPS1 and Council is required to consider if the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Residential zone, following community consultation. There are no objectives for the Residential zone in TPS1 and so the proposal has been assessed against the objectives of the Residential zone that will be included LPS2. It should be noted that under LPS2, the development would fall within the ‘Holiday House’ land use, which is an Unlisted Use in the LPS2 and would also require consideration against the objectives of the Residential zone.

 

The subject site is located in the Residential zone with a residential density coding of R50. The land within the immediate area is zoned Residential with a residential coding of R50, with the exception of select pockets that have a density coding of zoned R80 (including the property immediately to the east). The zoning of the subject site and surrounding area is not proposed to change in LPS2. The subject site is also listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category B.

 

The properties surrounding the subject site predominantly comprise of single detached houses with some multiple dwellings. This proposal requires no physical works and will maintain the current heritage character of the subject site. The proposal does not incorporate any signage and will not lead to a commercialisation of the property. Therefore, the proposal is considered to maintain the existing residential character of the area.

 

The Short Term Dwelling is limited to five guests at any one time. This number of guests is consistent with the number of people that would typically be accommodated within a three-bedroom residential dwelling. As such, the proposal is not considered to increase the intensity of the use of the subject site. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal is of a scale that is compatible with the area and consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone.

 


 

Car Parking

 

This development application was triggered by a complaint received by the City. The original complaint related to the impact of the temporary accommodation use has on the availability of on-street car parking. The on-street parking located on Florence Street is time limited to 3 hours between 8:30am – 5:30pm weekdays. The proposal complies with the car parking requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access, which requires one car bay to be provided for the Short Term Dwelling. Two bays are currently provided in a tandem arrangement on the existing paved area in front of the dwelling. This area is screened by mature landscaping and vegetation and is considered an appropriate location for the car parking. In order to appropriately manage this parking arrangement a condition has been recommended requiring a parking management plan to be developed for the use.

 

It is noted that a development application has been lodged with the City proposing to redevelop the rear warehouse into three grouped dwellings. Should this application be approved, the subject site will be able to provide an additional two onsite car bays in the existing rear access way, as shown on the development plans.

 

Management Plan

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation, a Management Plan and Code of Conduct has been provided as part of this application.  The Management Plan outlines that a maximum of five guests and 1 employee can be accommodated at the subject site at any one time. The landowner’s telephone number is present on the plaque of the front door and has been provided to the neighbouring properties. The provided Management Plan and Code of Conduct outline the procedures for dealing with anti-social behaviour and are considered to generally meet the requirement set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation. The Management Plan does not detail the parking restrictions applicable in the area and no commitment has been included to advise occupiers of the negative impact inappropriate car parking can have on surrounding neighbours, as is required by the City’s Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation. In order to address this, a condition has been recommended requiring the Management Plan to be amended to incorporate the Parking Management Plan, which will include these requirements.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Short Term Dwelling is considered to be consistent with use permissibility and objectives of the ‘Residential’ zone outlined in LPS2. The proposal offers an alternative form of accommodation at a low scale that is compatible for the area. The proposal is compliant with the required car parking bays outlined in the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and it is considered that the proposal will be able to operate under the Management Plan and the Code of Conduct with minimal impact on the surrounding residential area, subject to a detailed parking management plan being developed for the site. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.5          No. 384 (Lot: 85; D/P: 1197) Lord Street, Highgate - Proposed Change of Use from Single House to Consulting Rooms

TRIM Ref:                  D17/166766

Authors:                    Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   15 – Banks

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1- Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Change of Use from Single House to Consulting Rooms at No. 384 (Lot: 85; D/P: 1197) Lord Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes contained in Attachment 4:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1.    The use of the development subject to this approval shall only be for the purposes of ‘Consulting Rooms’, as defined by the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and shall operate in accordance with the definition of ‘Medical Consulting Rooms’ as set out in the City of Vincent’s Policy No. 7.5.22 Consulting Rooms;

1.2.    Prior to the use or occupation of the development and within 28 days of leasing or subleasing any part of the subject site thereafter, the landowner is to provide the City with copies of the certifications of that lessor’s or their consultant’s qualifications that aligns with the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ under the City of Vincent’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

1.3.    A maximum of three consultants and consulting rooms shall operate from the tenancy at any one time, in accordance with the approved plans;

1.4.    The hours of operation for the ‘Consulting Rooms’ shall be limited to the following times:

·       8:00am – 9:00pm, Monday – Friday;

·       8:00am – 5:00pm, Saturday;

·       11:00am – 5:00pm, Sunday and Public Holidays; and

·       CLOSED Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day;

1.5.    The development shall operate as one practice and no part of the development shall operate independently from another part. The ‘Lab’ area shall only service patients of the consultants operating from this development;

1.6.    All patient visits shall be by appointment only;

2.       Car Parking

2.1.    The car parking and access areas shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans and are to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 prior to occupation or use of the development;

 

2.2.    The parking areas and associated access indicated on the approved plans shall not be used for the purpose of storage or obstructed in any way at any time, without the prior approval of the City;

2.3.    The proposed crossover is limited to a width of 5.0 metres and is subject to a separate crossover application to be approved by the City. The 5.0 metre wide crossover shall be positioned and constructed with approved materials in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications; and

2.4.  A Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City use or occupation of the development detailing how staff and customer parking will be managed on site such that parking bays are always available for customers and parking associate with the development does not impact on the surrounding residential area. Parking associated with the development shall be managed in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan;

3.       Landscaping

3.1.    No verge trees shall be removed without the prior written approval of the City. The verge trees shall be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning, to the satisfaction of the City;

3.2.    A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge is to be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

3.2.1. The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

3.2.2. Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

3.2.3. On-site provision of canopy cover equivalent to no less than 30 percent of the site area at maturity; and

3.3.    All works shown in the approved detailed landscape and reticulation plans as identified in Condition 3.2. above shall be undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

4.       Waste Management

4.1.    A Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the use or occupation of the development detailing a bin store to accommodate the City’s specified bin requirement and the form and timing of waste collection, to the satisfaction of the City;

4.2.    Waste management for the development shall comply with the approved Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       External Fixtures

5.1.    All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and be screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City; and

5.2.    The existing unit located on the southern façade shall be adequately screened from Cantle Street to the satisfaction of the City;

 

 

 

6.       Active Frontage

The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the ‘Reception’ and ‘Consult 1’ areas and Lord Street and ‘Consult 2’ and ‘W’ areas and Cantle Street during the hours of the development’s operation to the satisfaction of the City. Darkened, obscured, mirror or tinted glass or the like is prohibited. Curtains, blinds and other internal or external treatments that obscure the view of these areas from Lord Street and Cantle Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the developments operation; and

7.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Single House to Consulting Rooms at No. 384 Lord Street, Highgate (the subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Antonio Napolitano

Applicant:

Antonio Napolitano

Date of Application:

27 October 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R60

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R100

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Consulting Rooms

Lot Area:

556m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Aria Lane (dedicated laneway)

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Lord Street and Cantle Street within the suburb of Highgate. The site is currently occupied by a single house, as shown in the location map included as Attachment 1. The subject site is located fronting Lord Street, which is a ‘District Distributor A’ road under the Main Roads’ Road Hierarchy. The subject site has a secondary frontage to Cantle Street, which is screened by an existing 1.8 metres boundary fence, and backs on to Aria Lane.

 

The subject site and the surrounding area are zoned Residential with a density code of R60 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). The City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) retains the Residential zoning of the property but increases the density code to R100.  Further, the subject site is located in the ‘Transit Corridor’ built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

The subject site directly adjoins a Child Care Centre to the north on Lord Street and a right of way to the east. A Consulting Room (Podiatric Surgeon) is located immediately opposite on the western side of Lord Street and grouped dwellings are located on the south side of Cantle Street. The broader section of Lord Street located in Highgate is characterised by a mix of residential, educational and commercial uses.

 

The development proposes to change to the land use of the subject site from Single House to Consulting Rooms, with the future medical tenants of the Consulting Rooms subject to the site being marketed for lease following the determination of the change of use application.

 


 

The proposal is consistent with the definition for ‘Consulting Rooms’ as outlined in the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consultation Rooms, which is defined at the following:

 

‘Consulting Rooms means any building or part thereof used in the practice of a profession by a legally qualified medical practitioner or dentist, or by a physiotherapist, a masseur, a chiropractor, or a person ordinarily associated with a medical practitioner in the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments but does not include a hospital.’

 

This application proposes to reuse the existing single house and outbuilding on the subject site and undertake the following modifications:

 

·       Internal fit out providing three consulting rooms, six onsite car bays and six onsite bicycle bays.

·       Two of the consulting rooms are proposed to be located in the existing single house and one of the consulting rooms is proposed to be located in the existing outbuilding located at the rear of the property (adjoining the lane way).

·       Minor modifications to the façade of the existing outbuilding.

·       Landscaping included eight new trees along the portion of the lot fronting Lord and Cantle streets.

·       Alteration to existing crossover on Cantle Street.

·       Operating hours:

-      8:00am – 9:00pm, Monday – Friday

-      8:00am – 5:00pm, Saturday

-      11:00am – 5:00pm, Sunday and Public Holidays

-      CLOSED Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day.

 

The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Hours of Operation

ü

 

Parking and Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

 

ü

Landscaping

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

Permitted Use

 

 

“SA” Use – Consulting Rooms


 

Bicycle Facilities

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 Parking and Access

 

Bicycle Parking

 

Two Class 1 or 2 facilities

 

Four Class 3 facilities

 

 

Bicycle Parking

 

Nil Class 1 or 2 facilities

 

Six Class 3 facilities

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

 

80% of open air car parks to be provided as canopy cover

 

1.5m landscaping strip to be provided around the perimeter of all open air car parks

 

 

 

8% canopy cover proposed within the car park

 

 

0.5m landscaping strip provided on north boundary, 1.065m landscaping strip proposed on east boundary and 0.5m landscaping strip proposed on west boundary.

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified standards of the City’s Policies and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 21 November 2017 to 11 December 2017. The method of advertising included a sign on site, a notice in the newspaper (Guardian Express), and 16 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site, as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of three submissions were received by the City, all of which objected to the proposal. The key issues raised through the submissions were:

 

·       The proposal will intensify the use of the site and increase the demand for on-street car parking on Cantle Street; and

·       A commercial premise should not be operating within a Residential zone.

 

In response to the above, the applicant has provided the following statement:

 

‘Our proposal to convert the existing buildings into medical consulting rooms, we believe, is in line with Council’s vision to provide jobs and support sustainable infill development in the surrounding area. Our proposed design, meets all Council policies, is similar to several other supported building uses in the immediate area and being of such a small footprint, that it will have minimal impact on our residential neighbours, all of whom are separated from the property with significant margin. With the child care centre next door being approved to expand, the limited residential amenity that we have enjoyed is set to diminish further.’

 

A schedule of submissions including Administration’s response is provided as Attachment 3. It is noted that the departures from the deemed-to-comply requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form for landscaping was omitted in error from the community consultation material.

 


 

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

 

It is noted that the subject site is located abutting Lord Street, which is reserved as an Other Regional Road under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS) and classified as a Category 2 Road as per The Planning and Development Act 2005 Instrument of Delegation DEL2017/02 (Instrument of Delegations). The Instrument of Delegations specifies that referral to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is not required for Category 2 applications that do not encroach on the road reserve and do not seek to change the current function of the road reserve. This application meets these requirements and therefore was not is not referred to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

 

Generally the modified version of LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. The proposal will be classified as ‘Medical Centre’ under LPS2 which is an ‘A’ use in the Residential zone. The LPS2 includes the following new objectives for the Residential zone:

 

i.        To provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.

 

ii.       To facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.

 

iii.      To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

 

iv.      To promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

 

v.       To enhance the amenity and character of the residential neighbourhood by encouraging the retention of existing housing stock and ensuring new development is compatible within these established areas.

 

vi.      To manage residential development in a way that recognises the needs of innovative design and contemporary lifestyles.

 

vii.     To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This application is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal contemplates a ‘SA’ land use and a written objection was received during the community submission period.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1     Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

A Consulting Room is a ‘SA’ within the Residential zone under TPS1. A ‘SA’ use is permitted subject to Council exercising its discretion. The proposal’s scale, location and impact are the key factors to consider when assessing the appropriateness of the use within the Residential zone.

 

The surrounding context of the subject site comprises of a mixture of land uses including a Child Care Centre, Consulting Room, Grouped Dwellings and Single Houses. The subject site is bound by Lord Street, Cantle Street, Aria Lane and the existing Child Care Centre, which adequately buffers the subject site from the surrounding residential dwellings.

 

Similarly, the proposal will retain and re-use the existing single house and outbuilding on the subject site, meaning there will be limited impacts on the existing character of the area and streetscape. The only external works to the existing buildings on site relate to the building façade of the outbuilding. The proposed changes to the outbuilding involve replacing the existing awning and door and introducing a new window. The application also proposes to remove the existing 1.8 metres fence located on the Cantle Street frontage. These modifications are considered minor in nature and will improve the existing outlook to Cantle Street.

 

The proposal incorporates a maximum of three consultants and three consulting rooms which will be located in the existing single house and outbuilding. Parking for customers is provided on site and the proposal is considered to be a low scale operation that is compatible with the Residential zoning and mixed use context of the area. Should development approval be granted, a condition has been recommended to limit the number of consultants and consulting rooms to three. This will ensure that the business will remain to be low scale and therefore, have a negligible impact on the surrounding area.

 

Draft LPS2 sets out objectives to guide development within the Residential zone. The proposal l will reuse and retain and existing buildings on site, provide adequate parking and is considered to be compatible with the surrounding residential area and consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential zone set out in LPS2.

 


 

Parking

 

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access requires the proposal to provide two Class 1 or 2 bicycle facilities and four Class 3 bicycle facilities. The proposal has provided six Class 3 bicycle facilities comprising of three bicycle racks in the car parking area. The provision of six Class 3 bicycle facilities is considered appropriate as the bicycle racks are located in a relatively secure location close to the rear entrance of the building and can adequately service the demand of both staff and patients.

 

A number of submission raised concerns with the impact the development will have on car parking in the area. The development provides six car parking bays for the three consultants proposed, which meets the standards of the City’s Parking and Access Policy No. 7.7.1. However, given the Residential zoning of the area it is recommended that Parking Management Plan be developed and implemented for the site to ensure that the parking bays are managed appropriately for both staff and customers and that the development does not impact on parking in Cantle Street.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal does not meet all the deemed-to-comply requirements for landscaping under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1. The departures to the deemed-to-comply requirements relate to canopy cover and landscaping strips within the car park area. The introduction of additional landscaping within the car park area would inhibit the ability for the proposal to meet the car parking requirements and vehicle manoeuvring requirements. It is highlighted that the proposal is compliant with the City’s requirements for deep soil zone, soft landscaping coverage and shade trees within the car park.  As a result, it is considered that the site has ample opportunity to provide increased canopy coverage and high quality landscaping across the site that compensate for the removal of the existing trees on site as a result of the new car park and the lack of proposed canopy coverage of this car park. Given this it is recommended that any approval include a condition requiring a landscaping plan to be developed by a suitably qualified landscape architect that demonstrates 30 percent canopy coverage of the site at maturity, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Consulting Room is considered to be an appropriate use in the locality given the existing non-residential uses currently operating adjacent to the subject site, including the adjoining child care centre and opposite consulting room. The proposal will maintain the existing building on the subject site, meaning there will be limited impacts on the existing character of the area and streetscape.

 

The issues raised through community consultation primarily relate the potential scale of the proposal and impact the development will have on car parking in the area. The proposal is compliant with the car parking requirements of City Policy 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and it is considered that the impact of the development can be appropriately managed through conditions of approval.  This includes  a condition limiting the use to a maximum of three medical practitioners, a requirement for a parking management plan to ensure bays are available for customers and a requirement for the site to be landscaped appropriate such that the development does not lead to a reduction in landscape amenity of the subject site or for the area. In light of this, it is recommended that the proposal is approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.6          No. 51 (Lot: 801; D/P: 44852) Mary Street, Highgate - Proposed Three Storey Addition to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D17/162628

Authors:                    Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   12 – Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicant's Justification

4.       Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for the proposed Additions to a Single House at No. 51 (Lot: 801; D/P: 44852) Mary Street, Highgate in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination notes in Attachment 4:

1.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary walls in a good and clean condition prior to the occupation or use of the development and thereafter to the satisfaction of the City;

2.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air condition units, piping ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and screened from view from the street, and where practicable from adjoining buildings to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

4.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule prior to the use or occupation of the development;

5.       Verge Trees

No verge trees shall be removed without the prior written approval of the City. The verge trees shall be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning, to the satisfaction of the City;

6.       Right of Way

An area 1 metre in width adjacent to the Right of Way shall be sealed drained and graded to match into the level of the existing Right of Way;

 

 

 

7.       Privacy

Screening to the eastern and western side of the balconies on level one and level two shall be installed in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes, to prevent overlooking into the active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the property to the east prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

8.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a rear three-storey addition to a single house at No. 51 Mary Street, Highgate (the subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Robert Paul Gray and Margaret Jane Gray

Applicant:

Officer Woods Architects

Date of Application:

29 September 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

413m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, sealed and privately owned by the City

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Mary Street, Highgate. The site is adjoined by a three-storey single house to the east and two-storey multiple dwellings to the west. The Sacred Height Church and Primary School is located to the east, on the opposite side of Mary Street. The site abuts a 3 metre wide right of way (ROW) to the south. The area to the south of the ROW comprises of single storey single houses.  A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The southern side of Mary Street (including the subject site) is characterised by narrow 10 metre wide lots with a natural north to south slope. The subject site spot levels vary from 28.81 (north) and 24.61 (south), creating a 4.2 metre level difference. As a result, the development on the southern side of Mary Street is generally characterised by two to three-storey development with two to three storey boundary walls. The existing three-storey developments present as either one or two stories to Mary Street.

 

The subject site has an existing 6.9 metre boundary wall to the east and a 5.5 metre boundary wall to the west. No. 49 Mary Street (adjoining to the east) comprises of a three-storey single house with an 8.3 metre high parapet wall adjoining the subject site and an overall building height of 10.4 metres. The multiple dwellings adjoining to the west are setback 1.5 metres with the exception of a 2.8 metre portion of the building on the upper level, which has a nil boundary setback. The multiple dwellings have a wall height of 7.9 metres and a top of pitched roof height of 9.7 metres.

 

The subject site and surrounding area is zoned Residential with a density code of R50. This is not contemplated to change under Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site is located within the ‘Residential’ built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), and has been assessed against the applicable standards and requirements of the policy.

 

The City received a development application seeking approval for the construction of a three-storey rear addition to the Single House at the subject site. An assessment of the initial application was undertaken which identified a number of elements where the proposal did not meet the deemed-to-comply standard of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the City’s Built Form Policy, including lot boundary setbacks, visual privacy and building height. The City liaised with the applicant to progress the application, including the submission of amended plans.

 

The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s justification for the proposed departures from the deemed-to-comply standards is included in Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Building Height

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Visual Privacy

 

ü

Parking

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Stormwater Management

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3 of Built Form Policy and 5.1.3 of the R‑Codes

 

Western Boundary

 

Level One: 1.2m

Level Two: 1.5m

 

 

 

Western Boundary

 

Level One: 1m

Level Two: 1m

Boundary Walls

 

Maximum height of 3.5m and average height of 3m for two-thirds (23.6m) of the lot behind the front setback line, unless the wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed wall of similar or greater dimensions.

Eastern Boundary

 

Eastern wall abutting an existing boundary wall. Proposed eastern wall protrudes 1.7m higher and 3m further than existing boundary wall.

 

Maximum height of 9.9m and average height of 7.3m on the eastern boundary.

 


 

 

Western Boundary

 

The application proposes a boundary wall to the dwelling and garage.

 

Dwelling: Maximum height of 9.9m and average height of 9.55m to the parapet wall.

 

Garage: Average height of 3.3m.

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of Built Form Policy

 

Two storeys with a maximum height of 7m to top of external wall (concealed roof)

 

 

Three storeys proposed with a maximum height of 9.9m to top of external wall (concealed roof)

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes Visual Privacy

 

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces setback 7.5m.

 

 

East

Nil setback from balconies located on level one and two.

 

West

1m setback from balconies located on level one and level two.

 

The above elements of the proposal does not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 9 November 2017 until 22 November 2017. The method of consultation being written notifications (11 letters) being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

No submissions were received by the City at the conclusion of the community consultation period. However, it is noted that the landowner of No. 49 Mary Street provided a letter in support of the proposed departures from the deemed-to-comply as part of the development application.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             Yes

 

The proposal was referred to the Chair of the DAC for comment on 6 December 2017. The Chair provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

·       The proposed design to the South extends past the existing neighbouring properties located West and East of 51 Mary Street.

·       The proposed design has decks on the ground level (upper ground from rear ground level ) and the first floor level (two levels up from Southern ground level) the proposed decks extend beyond the building boundaries of the existing neighbouring properties.

·       The decks (on both levels) are fully framed by a solid wall to the east and an open steel structure to the east, the latter steel structure, its detail adjoining No. 49 Mary Street is partially screened on ground floor level (full height), however, the first floor deck has a steel balustrade height and is open above that level to the pergola structure above. This detail of the deck and screen to the east together with the southern projection of the design (beyond No. 49 Mary Street) needs to be reconsidered due to the impact on the amenity of No. 49 Mary Street in relation to privacy.

 

The comments of the DAC are noted, however the landowner of No. 49 Mary Street has provided a letter in support of the proposal, including the visual privacy variation proposed, and has requested this area be left open to reduce the bulk of the wall.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS 2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the modified version of LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. The modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council 1’ as the development is three storeys in height and is classified as a ‘Category 1’ in Council’s Delegated Authority Register.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Building Height

 

The application proposes a three-storey building height to the rear of the lot with a maximum height of 9.9 metres (concealed roof) in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of two-storey building height with a maximum height of 7 metres (concealed roof) set under the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The residential development on Mary Street is characterised by two to three-storey development which presents a single or two storey façade to Mary Street. The lots on the southern side of Mary Street, including the subject site are impacted by a significant level change from north to south (approximately 4.2 metres), which has facilitated three-storey development to the rear, that presents as one to two-storey dwellings to the street.

 

The proposal relates to a rear addition only and will maintain the front section of the existing dwelling, which currently presents as a single storey to Mary Street. The proposed rear addition is setback 12.4 metres from the primary street and maintains the existing single storey façade to Mary Street.  A small portion of the rear addition (1.3 metres) protrudes higher than the existing roof of the retained portion of dwelling. The visibility of the rear addition from Mary Street is mitigated by the existing façade of the development as well as the significant canopy cover provided by the existing verge trees located along Mary Street. The proposal is considered to responded to the existing streetscape character of Mary Street by preserving the existing dwelling and maintaining the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal will result is 44 percent overshadowing to the adjoining lot to the east (No. 49 Mary Street), which complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. It is noted that the majority of No. 49 Mary Street’s outdoor living area is currently overshadowed by the existing three-storey development on that lot (No. 49 Mary Street). The proposal will increase the overshadowing of No. 49 Mary Street by 4.5 square metres which is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of No. 49 Mary Street. It is noted the proposal does not impact any views of significance and that the owner of No. 49 Mary Street endorsed the proposal.

 

It is acknowledged that there are existing developments along Mary Street which are up to three-storeys in height. The proposal is considered to maintain the existing streetscape through the significant setback of the rear addition and the retention of the single storey presentation to Mary Street. The three-storey building height is consistent with the style of development within the immediate area, which comprises of numerous three-storey development of a similar scale and form.  Based on this, the proposed three-storey height is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Lot Boundary Setback and Walls on Boundary

 

East

 

The eastern boundary has been designed to consider the immediate locality and respond to the neighbouring context. The subject site abuts a three-storey single house to the east, which contains a three-storey boundary wall with a pitched roof. The proposed east boundary wall is of a similar scale and dimension to the existing boundary wall, however the proposed wall will protrude 1.7 metres above the height of the existing boundary wall and 3.0 metres further back than the length of the existing boundary wall. The additional wall height (top of concealed roof) is less that the roof height of the adjoining property (top of pitched roof) and is therefore not considered to impact the adjoining property in terms of building bulk. Further, the portion of the proposed boundary wall that protrudes past the adjoining boundary wall comprises of open balustrades, which introduces a contrasting material and reduces the bulk of the façade.

 

West

 

The proposal provides a boundary wall with a maximum height of 9.9 metres and average height of 9.55 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard set by the R-Codes of 3.5 metres maximum and 3 metres average. The proposal also presents an 8.8 metre section of wall which is setback 1 metre in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 1.2m (level one) and 1.5 metres (level two). The applicant has proposed contrasting materials and finishes to the west external wall of the dwelling which assists in mitigating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties. The proposal provides for glass blocks on the lower level of the boundary wall and redbrick on the upper levels. A portion of the western wall is stepped-in 1 metre off the boundary which reduces the appearance of bulk on the adjoining property. This provides adequate ventilation and sunlight to the adjoining property to the west. The proposal responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation or fill.

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the neighbourhood context and streetscape or Mary Street and the design is not considered to overwhelm or dominate the adjoining development. Based on this, the proposed departure from the deemed-to-comply requirements for lot boundary setbacks is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and Built Form Policy.

 


 

Visual Privacy

 

The proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes, which requires a 7.5 metres setback for outdoor living areas (balconies). The subject site is a long and narrow lot with a 10 metre frontage. This significantly constrains the ability for 7.5 metre setback to be accommodated to meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the R-Codes.

 

The proposal will result in a 1 metre setback to the level one and level two balconies to the west and a nil setback to the level one and level two balconies to the east. The proposal has been designed to minimise the extent of overlooking with the balconies orientated to the rear of the subject site and the sides of the balconies being screened.

 

The area impacted by the overlooking comprises of the backyard and roof of the garage of the adjoining property to the east and the extended backyard of the adjoining property to the west. It is noted that the overlooking on the first and second level relate to the same general area and the proposal will not increase the current level of overlooking facilitated by the existing balcony of the two-storey dwelling on site.

 

Given the above, in conjunction with there being no objection from the adjoining owners or occupiers, the departure from the deemed-to-comply is considered appropriate within the site context.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the building height, lot boundary setbacks and visual privacy. Given the context of the site, the proposed departures from the deemed‑to‑comply requirements are considered to provide minimal impact on the surrounding properties and the streetscape and meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the Built Form Policy. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.7          Nos. 77 and 79 (Lots: 3 and 4; D/P: 7680) Anzac Road, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Six Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D17/159822

Author:                      Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   1 – Mount Hawthorn

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Subdivision Approval

3.       Attachment 3 - Previously Refused Plan and Perspectives

4.       Attachment 4 - Proposed Development Plans

5.       Attachment 5 - Proposed Development Perspectives

6.       Attachment 6 - Schedule of Submissions

7.       Attachment 7 - Schedule of Submissions and Applicant's Responses

8.       Attachment 8 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Six Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 77 and 79 (Lots: 3 and 4; D/P: 7680) Anzac Road, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 4, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 8:

1.       Amalgamation

Lots 3 and 4 shall be amalgamated into one lot on a certificate of Title or be subdivided consistent with this development approval to the satisfaction of the City prior to the occupation or use of the development;

2.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) wall in a good and clean condition prior to occupation or use of the development. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City;

4.       Waste Management

4.1.    A Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development detailing a bin store to accommodate the City’s specified bin requirement and the form and timing of waste collection; and

4.2.    Waste management for the development shall thereafter comply with the approved Waste Management Plan;

 

 

 

 

5.       Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The Construction Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction and include traffic and parking management requirements during construction. Construction on and management of the site shall thereafter comply with the approved Construction Management Plan;

6.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

7.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule prior to the use or occupation of the development;

8.       Acoustic Report

8.1.    An Acoustic Report, in accordance with the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation and State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development; and

8.2.    All of the recommended measures included in the approved Acoustic Report shall be implemented as part of the development, to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

9.       Visual Privacy

The proposed balconies of units 3 and 6 are to be screened to the eastern and western elevations in accordance Visual Privacy deemed-to-comply standards of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes prior to the use or occupation of the development to the satisfaction of the City;

10.     Verge Trees

No verge trees shall be removed without prior written approval from the City. The verge trees shall be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning, to the satisfaction of the City;

11.     Clothes Drying Facility

All external clothes drying areas shall be adequately screened in accordance with the Residential Design Codes prior to the use or occupation of the development and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City;

12.     Landscape and Reticulation Plan

12.1.  A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge is to be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

·       The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

 

·       The provision of 14 per cent of the site area as deep soil zones and 30 per cent canopy cover at maturity;

12.2.  All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 12.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

13.     Car Parking and Access

13.1.  The car parking and access areas shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans and are to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 prior to occupancy or use of the development;

13.2.  Vehicle and pedestrian access points are required to match into existing footpath levels; and

13.3.  All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications;

14.     Right of Way Widening

14.1.  A 0.5 metre right of way setback to any buildings and structures is to be maintained at all times to enable future right of way widening; and

14.2.  The 0.5 metre right of way setback area referred to in condition 14.1 above, is to be ceded free of cost to the City on subdivision or amalgamation of the land, including Built Strata subdivision; and

15.     General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for six Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 77 and 79 Anzac Road, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

P J Haselhurst

Applicant:

Built Form

Date of Application:

11 July 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

1,654m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, the ROW is on the southern side of the subject property and is 5 metres in width. The ROW is owned by the Council with right access it.

Heritage List:

No

 


 

The subject site is bound by Anzac Road to the north and a right of way (ROW) to the south. The site adjoins Residential zoned land with a density code of R30 on the east and west. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The subject sites has a combined lot frontage of 27.4 metres to Anzac Road. The site topography falls to the rear of the lot towards the ROW. A single storey residential dwelling is currently located on each individual lots with access being provided from Anzac Road.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R30 and this is not contemplated to change under draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS 2). Subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the site has been identified in the Residential Area and has been assessed against the applicable standards and requirements of the policy.

A subdivision application was conditionally approved on 22 December 2015 for the subject site by the Western Australian Planning Commission for the creation of six lots, two lots fronting onto the Anzac Road frontage and four lots to the ROW. The conditionally approved plan of subdivision is included as Attachment 2. Whilst conditional subdivision approval has been obtained the lots have yet to be created and titles have not yet been issued. This application proposes development consistent with the lot configuration proposed by the conditionally approved subdivision. A condition requiring the amalgamation of the two lots has been recommended to cover a situation where that the applicant/landowner does not pursue the subdivision.

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting held of 13 December 2016, Council refused an application for six grouped dwellings at the subject site due for the following reasons:

 

1. The outdoor living area is in the front setback area;

2. The building setback and boundary walls;

3. Street setback;

4. The impact on the streetscape and perceived bulk of the continuous rendered elements; and

5. The bulk of the development as a result of the height and boundary walls.

 

The development plans refused by Council at its meeting of 13 December 2016 are included as Attachment 3.

 

The proposal is for a six grouped dwelling development, with two of the six units fronting Anzac Road (Units 1 and 2) and the remaining four units fronting and accessed via the ROW (Units 3-6). The dwellings are two storeys in height and each include a double garage. The car bays to Units 1 and 2 are accessed via a single crossover from Anzac Road. The development plans are provided as Attachment 4 and the perspectives of the proposal are included as Attachment 5.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Front Fence

 

ü

Building Height

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

 

ü

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

 

ü

Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The Deemed-to-Comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

Average of the five adjoining properties: 8.4m

 

 

4.5m

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R‑Codes)

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Unit 6 (ground floor bed 1) setback 2.4m

 

Western Boundary

 

Unit 1 (ground floor dine to store) setback 3.0m

 

 

 

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Unit 6 (ground floor bed 1) setback 1.9m

 

Western Boundary

 

Unit 1 (ground floor dine to store) setback 1.6m

Walls Built on Boundary – Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

Western Boundary

 

Average height: 3.0m

 

 

 

Western Boundary

 

Average height: 3.1m

Outdoor Living Area

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.1 of the R-Codes

 

Behind the street setback area.

 

 

Unit 1 and 2: outdoor living area within the front setback area

Front Fences

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.10 of Policy No. 7.1.1

 

400mm width of piers.

 

 

500mm wide piers to two piers to accommodate for the letter boxes

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

Top of external wall (roof above): 6.0m

 

 

Unit 1: 6.9m top of external wall (roof above)

Unit 2: 6.6m top of external wall (roof above)


 

Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes

 

Cone of vision setback to lot boundary for balcony = 7.5m; or

Provided with permanent screening to restrict views within the cone of vision

 

 

Unit 3: 2.7m – western elevation

Unit 6: 2.7m – eastern elevation

Site Works

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes

 

Excavation or filling not more than 0.5m

 

 

0.6m of fill

External Fixtures

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.25 of Policy 7.1.1

 

External fixtures are not to be visible from the street and surrounding properties

 

 

Meter boxes can be seen from primary street

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified Deemed-to-Comply standards and are discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 16 November 2017 and concluding on 29 November 2017. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as show in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, seven submissions were received by the City comprising of three objections, two support letters and two raising concerns.

 

The main issues raised as part of the consultation relate to:

 

·       The impact of the reduced street setback on the primary street;

·       Excessive traffic impacts on the right of way as a result of the additional dwellings; and

·       Concerns have been raised regarding potential loss of privacy.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 6. The applicant has also provided responses to the submissions received and this is included as Attachment 7.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             Yes

 

The application was referred to the DAC for comments on one occasion. The DAC’s comments were sought regarding the presentation of the proposal to the primary street and rear ROW. The DAC’s comments can be summarised as follows:

 

·       The greater variety and texture of materials are an improvement from the previous plans and are more sympathetic to the streetscape;

·       The use of recycled brick is supported;

·       The shift in material/articulation to break down the mass balances the impact of the blank wall;

·       The fence design with piers is supported but more refinement is needed. Keep the fence piers simple;

·       The fencing returns do not comply with the City’s policy (perpendicular) and include excessive bulk;

·       Consider reducing the height of the letterboxes to reduce the mass;

·       Reconsider the location of the utilities (locate meter boxes to be in a less visually obtrusive but accessible side location);

·       Reconsider the upper floor treatment of the blank walls with the potential to introduce some openings; and

·       Consider planting a tree at the end of the driveway near the bin store as a focal point.

 

Subsequently to this, the applicant provided modified plans to address the comments provided by the DAC. The modified plans included:

 

·       Amendments to the front fence to reduce the bulk by incorporating picket style fencing above a lower lighter colour wall, with fence piers of the same design;

·       Reduced the height of the fencing returns to align with the lower wall proposed;

·       Relocated the metre boxes and the letter boxes so that they are incorporated into this revised lower front wall;

·       Reduced the blank rendered walls fronting the central driveway on the two front dwellings by wrapping the balcony balustrade around on the upper floors to reduce the bulk of the blank walls; and

·       Proposed the planting of a tree at the end of the driveway to screen the bin store area.

 

The plans provided are considered to address the concerns raised and Administration was satisfied with the proposed amendments. As a result no further referrals to the DAC were undertaken.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

The existing single houses are not on the City’s Heritage List and do not require development approval from the City for their demolition given the exemption provisions included in the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

It is noted that the landscaping of the Built Form Policy requires the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and as a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS 2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the LPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application. Proposed LPS2 and the modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the proposal is for development classified ‘Category 2’ as the development incorporates six grouped dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Streetscape

 

The application proposes a primary street setback of 4.5 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard set by the Built Form Policy of 8.4 metres. The subject site is located along a portion of Anzac Road which consists of a tree lined streetscape. The proposal now incorporates a range of materials and finishes including red face brick, weatherboard cladding and elements of render. The incorporation of the red face brick and weatherboard cladding is considered to reinterpret the existing development style which currently exists in the streetscape whilst the render is considered to add an element of contemporary architecture to the design which is also included in some of the designs on Anzac Road and the wider locality. Given this, the design is now considered to be sympathetic to the area and will preserve and enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape.

 

The inclusion of the aforementioned materials are also considered to reduce the impact of building bulk and scale of the overall development on the streetscape. The inclusion of these materials contributes to the perception of appropriate massing of the buildings and thus, present an acceptable scale to the streetscape. The positioning of windows and balconies on the upper floor of units 1 and 2 ensures that there is minimal area of the façade which is left blank.

 

The reduced street setback does not compromise the proposals ability to accommodate for landscaping which is capable of facilitating four trees to contribute to canopy cover to mitigate potential impacts on the streetscape.

 

The upper floors of units 1 and 2 include open balconies which overlook Anzac Road. The outdoor living areas of units 1 and 2 are located within the front setback area of the subject site and as a result a front fence is proposed to distinguish these outdoor living areas from the public realm. The outdoor living areas of both of the units can be directly accessed from the living rooms of each unit and given the northern frontage of the subject site, are open to the winter sun and are capable of attaining adequate sun light and ventilation.

 

The front fence now incorporates a simpler form with a lower white rendered wall and 400mm piers proposed with dark grey infill slates above. There are four 500mm piers proposed where the fence returns from the front boundary into the subject site. These piers have been included to accommodate three letter boxes on each side to provide for the six units proposed on site. The revised design of the front fence is now considered complement the existing front fences within the locality. This is considered to ensure that the visual character of the streetscape is not compromised.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks/ Boundary Walls

 

Eastern Boundary

 

The first floor of unit 6 proposes a 1.91 metres setback to the eastern lot boundary in lieu of the required 2.4 metres. This wall does not include any major openings and therefore, will not result in any overlooking into the adjoining property. The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes which is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk on the adjoining landowners. The orientation of the subject site ensures that the shadow cast on 21 June 2017 falls onto the site itself and onto the ROW.

 

Western Boundary

 

The ground floor of unit 1 proposes a 1.6 metres setback to the western lot boundary in lieu of the required 3 metres. The majority of this wall does not incorporate any major opening with the exception of one opening to the kitchen. This window has a sill height of 1 metre and a top of window height of 2 metres and therefore 0.2 metres of the opening will protrude above the fence line. This is considered to have a negligible impact on the adjoining landowner in terms of loss of privacy.

 

The wall on the western boundary is articulated and broken up to provide of a drying court. As a result this wall is not continuous and is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk on the adjoining landowners. The proposed landscaping at the ground level will also assist in reducing the impact of the development on the neighbouring property and will provide a sense of open space between buildings.

 

The proposed boundary walls on the western elevation of the subject site exceed the average permitted height by 0.1 metres. The proposed development has been designed to consider the immediate locality and respond to the neighbouring context, with the plans depicting contrasting materials and finishes to the external walls of the dwelling which assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed boundary walls are not adjacent to any outdoor living areas or major openings of the adjoining properties and are not considered to have an impact in terms of bulk. The proposed boundary walls will not result in overshadowing onto the adjoining properties as the orientation of the subject site will allow for the shadow to be cast onto the right of way. The design allows the habitable areas of the dwelling, including the open space and the designated outdoor living area, to be fully open to direct sun and ventilation. Given the above the setbacks to the western boundary are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes.

 

Building Height and Site Works

 

Units 1 and 2 incorporate a maximum wall height of 6.9 metres and 6.6 metres respectively in lieu of the maximum 6 metres permitted under the City’s Built Form Policy. The 6.6 metres high wall of unit 2 is on the eastern elevation which faces towards the common property and therefore, will not be readily visible from the primary street and will not compromise on the overall character of the locality.

 

The proposal does not result in any overlooking into the adjacent properties and due to the orientation of the site, the shadow cast on 21 June 2017, will fall onto the subject site itself and onto the right of way. The proposal meets the deemed-to-comply standard of Clauses 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 of the R-Codes relating to visual privacy and overshadowing respectively.

 

The proposal has incorporated a range of materials and finishes including red brick, weatherboard cladding and rendered panels. This is considered to ensure that the development is in keeping with the character of the locality and is complimentary to the existing developments.

 

The development proposes fill and associated retaining to a maximum height of 600mm in lieu of 500mm, which results from a proportion of cut and fill works for a section of the site to account for the current slope on the property. The proposed site works are considered to be minor in nature and are principally located towards the middle of the property and minimise any potential impact to the adjoining properties.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of the R-Codes relating to landscaping. The total deep soil zones provided equates to 14 percent of the site area. Although this is a departure from the deemed‑to‑comply provisions of the City’s Built Form Policy, which requires 15 percent of the site area to be landscaped, it is considered that this area will be sufficient in reducing the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

 

In isolation, each lot (not including the common property) has been provided with 15 percent landscaping. These areas are capable of accommodating trees which, at maturity, will provide canopy cover and provide an increase urban air quality and a sense of open space between the units.

 

A detailed landscaping plan has not been submitted as part of this application however, a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be lodged and approved by the City has been recommended. This will ensure that the landscaping provided.

 


 

External Fixtures

 

The proposal incorporates a number of metre boxes to service the proposed units. Two of which are located on the front fence in each corner of the subject site. The remainder of the meter boxes have been located on the fence fronting onto the common property of the proposal. All metre boxes are located perpendicular to the street and therefore, cannot be readily seen from the street. Furthermore, the impact of the side of the meter boxes is considered to be significantly less than that of the face of the meter boxes. The verge on the north western corner of the subject site has an existing mature tree which is not proposed to be relocated or removed as part of this application. This tree is considered to provide some screening of the meter box. It is considered that the meter boxes cannot be readily seen from the street and therefore, will not have a detrimental impact on the overall streetscape.

 

Privacy

 

The cone of vision setback of the proposed balconies of units 3 and 6 will marginally fall into the adjoining properties to the east and west and may impact on the adjoining landowners. Given the potential for direct overlooking, a condition is recommended to ensure the proposed balconies are screened to satisfy the visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development. For the reasons outlined in the body of the report, the departures from the deemed-to-comply standards of the City’s Built Form Policy and the R-Codes are considered to address the Local Housing Objectives and Design Principles respectively. The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes which are considered to be a reinterpretation of the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the external appearance of the proposal and the materiality incorporated are considered to significantly reduce the perception of building bulk. In light of this, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.8          No. 78B (Lot: 1; STR: 66198) Carr Street, West Perth - Proposed Grouped Dwelling

TRIM Ref:                  D17/163268

Authors:                    Andrea Terni, Urban Planner

Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   5 – Cleaver

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Previous Approved Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Development Application Supporting Information

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Grouped Dwelling at No. 78B (Lot: 1; STR: 66198) Carr Street, West Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site, prepared by a landscape architect, is to be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

1.1.    The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

1.2.    Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

1.3.    The site area to be provided with 15 percent deep soil zone and 30 percent canopy coverage at maturity;

All works shall be undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

2.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary walls in a good and clean condition prior to the occupation or use of the development and thereafter to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air condition units, piping ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and screened from view from the street, and where practicable from adjoining buildings;

4.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

                             

 

 

5.       Privacy

5.1.    The proposed ‘Breeze Walls’ depicted on the first and second floors to the all elevations are comply with the definition of ‘screening’ under State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

5.2.    Adequate screening, highlight windows or opaque glazing shall be provided to the windows to ‘Bed 2’ and ‘Bed 3’, in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes, to prevent overlooking into the     active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the properties to the north and south prior to the use or occupation of the development;

6.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

7.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for one Grouped Dwelling at No. 78B Carr Street, West Perth (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Maxwell Graham and Nicola Louise Van Someren

Applicant:

Klopper and Davis Architects

Date of Application:

30 October 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

196m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not applicable

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located north east of Carr Street between Charles Street and Loftus Street. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The site adjoins two-storey grouped dwellings to the eastern lot boundary which has an extensive boundary wall along the boundary with glass block inserts to a garage. A two storey single house and another two storey single house with roof terrace adjoins the subject site to the western lot boundary and a single storey grouped dwelling with an extensive back garden adjoins the subject site to the northern lot boundary. The subject site and the immediate adjoining properties are zoned Residential with a density code of R50 and this is not contemplated to change under draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The site has been identified as a Residential Built Form Area subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 


 

A subdivision approval for the site was granted conditional approval on 3 October 2013 to create two survey strata lots with a common property accessway. The subject lot is a vacant rear lot being approximately 32 metres from the primary street. On 26 September 2014, Council approved a three storey grouped dwelling on the subject site. On 23 August 2016, Council approved an extension to the term of approval for this development until 23 August 2018. The maximum building height for the development to the top of skillion roof was 9.679 metres. The approved development plans dated 23 August 2016 are included as Attachment 3. This is the current valid approval for the site.

 

The other strata lot at No. 78A Carr Street, which fronts the primary street is also currently vacant, however on 29 June 2017 a Two Storey Grouped Dwelling with Loft was approved by the City. It is noted that the maximum building height of the approved dwelling is 8.892 metres to the top of the roof pitch.

 

The City received a development application seeking approval for the construction of a three storey grouped dwelling at the subject site on 30 October 2017. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s site information and summary supporting the development application is included as Attachment 4.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Density

ü

 

Street Setbacks

ü

 

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Visual Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Vehicle Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Design of Car Parking Spaces

 

ü

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of the Built Form Policy

 

Two storeys with a maximum height of external wall (with roof above) of 6 m and top of pitched roof of 9m.

 

 

Three storeys proposed.

Maximum height of external wall of 8.986m to 10m

Top of pitched roof 10m


 

Lot Boundary setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3 of the Built Form Policy and Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes

 

Northern Lot Boundary

 

First Floor minimum setback of 3.8m

 

Second floor minimum setback of 4.3m

 

 

 

 

Northern Lot Boundary

 

First Floor minimum setback of 2.33m

 

Second floor minimum setback of 3.314m

Southern Lot Boundary

 

First floor minimum setback of 3.8m

 

Second floor minimum setback of 4.3m

Southern Lot Boundary

 

First floor minimum setback of 1.755m

 

Second floor minimum setback of 2.755m

Design of Car Parking Spaces

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.4 of the R-Codes

 

C4.1 Car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas designed and provided in accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended).

 

 

Vehicle manoeuvring area is not in accordance with AS2890.1.

 

The above element of the proposal does not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and is discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 1 December 2017 and concluding on 14 December 2017. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as show in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. Four submissions were received by the City during the community consultation period.

 

The main issues raised as part of the consultation relate to:

 

·       Concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the development as a result of the lot boundary setbacks;

·       The design of the development and the overall building height resulting in significant mass which impacts on the amenity to the surrounding properties;

·       Visual privacy impacts on the outdoor area and rear verandah seating area of No. 6 Florence Street and the gaps in the breeze wall screening resulting in overlooking.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 5.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

It is noted that the landscaping deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy required the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and has been approved in a modified form, which is now required to be advertised and adopted by Council before it becomes operational. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. The modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the proposal is three storeys in height and is therefore classified as ‘Category 1’ in the City’s Register of Delegations.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Building Height

 

The application seeks approval for a three storey grouped dwelling, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply two storeys permitted under the City’s Built Form Policy.  The Policy also outlines a deemed-to-comply external wall height of 6 metres and roof pitch of 9 metres. The external wall height proposed for the north and south elevation of the dwelling is 8.98 metres with the top of roof pitch proposed to be 10 metres. The east and west elevation of the grouped dwelling proposes a maximum wall height of 10 metres given the gable end design of the development. The submissions raised concern with the height and scale of the development and the impact this would have on the amenity of the surrounding area.

 


 

The design of the proposal, at three storeys, has allowed the footprint of the building to be minimised and significant setbacks and landscaping to be provided surrounding the proposed dwelling. The proposed development has been designed to consider the immediate locality and respond to the neighbouring context, with the applicant proposing contrasting materials and finishes and numerous openings to the external walls of the dwelling which assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties. The site immediately to the east has a single storey boundary wall with a minimal upper storey setback with minor and frosted windows to a grouped dwelling for the extent of the proposed three storey dwelling and as such this proposal will have no impact on the amenity of this site. The sites immediately to the west include two storey single houses and three storey single house and is equivalent in height to the proposed development. As a result, the proposed development is considered to align with the scale and character of these adjoining

developments to the west.

 

The site to the rear includes an existing single storey dwelling with an extensive rear yard. The subject development immediately adjoins the extensive rear yard of this property and proposes landscaping at the ground level, including four large trees, to reduce the impact of the development from the neighbouring property and provide a sense of open space between buildings. The elevation fronting this northern includes various materials, finishes and setbacks, including white painted brickwork, white painted breeze wall, and obscured window and black colourbond wall cladding above, to reduce the impact of bulk on the adjoining property. The three storey design of the proposal has allowed extensive landscaping to be provided to screen the development from the property to the north and it is considered that in this context the three storey height will not have any further impact on the property to the north when competed to the existing developments to the south that already abut this northern property.

 

The adjoining property at No. 78A Carr Street, which occupies the front lot facing Carr Street was granted development approval by the City to construct a two storey grouped dwelling plus loft which comprises a maximum height of 8.892 metres from the natural ground level to the top of the roof pitch. The subject lot is setback approximately 32 metres from the primary street and will largely be screen from the street by this development. As a result, it is considered that the proposed dwelling and third storey will not be readily visible from the primary street and will cause minimal visual impacts with regard to building bulk to the streetscape.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

Northern Boundary

 

The first floor of the dwelling proposes a 2.33 metre setback to the northern lot boundary in lieu of 3.8 metres. The second floor setbacks to the northern boundary is 3.314 metres in lieu of 4.3 metres. Concerns were raised during the consultation period regarding the bulk the development presented to this northern boundary as a result of these setbacks.

 

Given the irregular shape of the lot, the setback to the northern boundary increases from west to east with the eastern end in excess of the required setback, reducing the bulk of the development when viewed from the adjoining lot. The design allows the habitable areas of the dwelling, including the open space and the designated outdoor living area to be fully open to direct sun and ventilation. The dwelling to the north is located closer to Florence Street and the reduced setback fronts the rear yard of this property. The design of the development does not present excessive bulk to the northern property with various materials, finishes and setbacks proposed on the northern elevation, including white painted brickwork, white painted breeze wall and an obscured window on the first floor and white painted breeze wall screening and black colourbond wall cladding above on the second floor. The setbacks proposed are considered appropriate to maintain adequate ventilation and sunlight to the proposed development and the existing dwelling on the adjoining northern boundary. Following the conclusion of consultation, in response to the submissions received, the applicant updated the landscaping plan to provide for additional trees along the northern boundary. The proposed landscaping at the ground level, including four large trees, is now considered to assist in further reducing the impact of the development from the neighbouring property and will provide a sense of open space between buildings. Given the above, it is considered that the setbacks to the northern boundary meet the design principles of the R-Codes and are therefore acceptable.

 

Southern Boundary

 

The first floor of the dwelling proposes 1.755 metre setback to the southern lot boundary in lieu of 3.8 metres. The second floor setbacks to the southern lot boundary is 2.755 metres in lieu of 4.3 metres.

 

The dwelling has been designed to make more effective use of space and enhance privacy for the occupants of the subject site and the neighbouring properties. The approved development to the existing front lot to the south includes a rear courtyard fronting the adjoining lot. The design of the development does not present excessive bulk to the southern adjoining property, with various materials, finishes and setbacks proposed on the southern elevation, including white painted brickwork and window on the first floor and white painted brickwork, white painted breeze wall screening and black colourbond wall cladding above on the second floor. The development meets the deemed-to-comply overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes and the setbacks proposed are considered appropriate to maintain adequate ventilation to the proposed development and the proposed dwelling on the adjoining southern lot.  The proposed landscaping at the ground level, including two large trees, is considered to assist in further reducing the impact of the development from the neighbouring property and will provide a sense of open space between buildings. Given the above, it is considered that the setbacks to the southern boundary meets the design principles of the R-Codes and are therefore acceptable.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of the R-Codes relating to landscaping. The plans provided areas with extensive canopy coverage specifically to the northern and southern lot boundaries which abut the outdoor living and open space of No. 6 Florence Street and No.78A Carr Street respectively. The total deep soil zones provided equates to 17 percent of the site area, which exceed the 15 percent deemed-to-comply standard included in the City’s Built Form Policy. The type of tree species proposed include one Chinese Elm tree and five London Plane trees. At maturity, the trees are will contribute 31 percent canopy coverage of the subject site, which is in excess of the 30 percent deemed-to-comply standard set by the City’s Built Form Policy. The broad landscaping concept proposed will positively contribute to reducing building bulk and increasing amenity to the neighbouring properties and is considered appropriate subject to a detailed landscaping plan being developed and approved by the City.

 

Visual Privacy

 

Concerns were raised with regard to potential overlooking from the development. Following consultation the applicant submitted amended plans to screen the majority of the overlooking in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. However, screening should also be provided to the window on the southern elevation, facing the outdoor living area of No. 78A Carr Street and as a result a condition is recommended requiring screening to all relevant upper floor windows.

 

Design of Car Parking Spaces

 

The car parking bay proposed on-site is located at the end of the access leg from Carr Street, directly adjacent the dwelling for convenient access. The distance of the parking bay from Carr Street is over 15 metres, which under the R-Codes deemed-to-comply requires a turning area so that the vehicles can enter the street in forward gear. A turning area has been allocated at the end of the driveway, however, this area does not comply with Australian Standard AS2890.1 and as such the car parking space and access has been considered against the design principles of the R-Codes, which require the parking space and access to be safe for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

The proposed reversing bay has been designed to ensure that the vehicle using the space can turn around within the property using a three point turn, which will allow access to the primary street in forward gear. Given that the parking space for the proposed dwelling will be used by the same occupants of the dwelling each day, rather than visitors, the three point turn is considered appropriate in this instance. It should be noted that Carr Street is not a primary distributor or integrator arterial road and so in accordance with the R-Codes it is considered safe for vehicles to reverse on to Carr Street. In light of this, the proposed parking space and access arrangement is supported as it provides the option to either reverse on to Carr Street or turn around within the property boundaries using a three point turn and entre Carr Street in a forward gear.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the building height and lot boundary setbacks. Given the context of the site, the dwelling’s height and setbacks proposed are considered to provide minimal impact on the surrounding properties and the streetscape of Carr Street. The applicant has demonstrated the appropriate landscaping of the site that will reduce impacts of building bulk and provide additional amenity for the locality. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.9          No. 137 (Lot: 141; D/P: 1197) West Parade, Mount Lawley - Proposed Two Multiple Dwellings and Change of Use of Existing Single House to Grouped Dwelling

TRIM Ref:                  D17/171484

Authors:                    Remajee Narroo, Senior Urban Planner

Paola Di Perna, Manager Approval Services

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   15 – Banks

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans and Applicant's Report

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicant's Response to Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Design Advisory Committee Comments

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Two Multiple Dwellings and Change of Use of Existing Single House to Grouped Dwelling at No. 137 (Lot: 141; D/P: 1197) West Parade, Mount Lawley in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Boundary Wall

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) wall facing No. 139 West Parade in a good and clean condition prior to occupation or use of the development. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

2.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Car Parking and Access

3.1.      A minimum of two resident bays and one visitor bay for the multiple dwellings and a minimum of one car bay for the grouped dwelling shall be provided onsite;

3.2.      Vehicle and pedestrian access points are required to match into existing footpath and right of way levels;

3.3.      The car parking and access areas shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans and are to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 prior to the occupation or use of the development;

3.4.      The visitor parking bay is to be sign posted, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the occupation or use of the development;

4.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

4.1.      A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge is to be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

 

4.1.1.      The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

4.1.2.      Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

4.1.3.      The provision of 13.6 percent of the site area as deep soil zones, 20 percent canopy cover at maturity for the proposed Multiple Dwelling lot and two mature trees with canopy coverage of 11 square metres on the proposed Grouped Dwelling lot as shown on the approved plans; and

4.2.      All works shown in the approved detailed landscape and reticulation plans as identified in Condition 4.1 above shall be undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

5.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule prior to the use or occupation of the development;

6.       Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The Construction Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.23 –Construction and shall accord with the Public Transport Authority’s Procedure: Working In and Around the PTA Rail Reserve. The management of the site shall thereafter comply with the approved Construction Management Plan;

7.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

8.       Verge Trees

No verge trees shall be removed without the prior written approval of the City. The verge trees shall be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning to the satisfaction of the City;

9.       Clothes Drying Facility

All external clothes drying areas shall be adequately screened in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes prior to the use or occupation of the development and thereafter to the satisfaction of the City;

10.     Front Fence

The proposed front fence within the West Parade street setback area shall comply with the deemed-to-comply standards of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

11.     Drainage Infrastructure

11.1.     Prior to the commencement of development, full engineering details are required to be submitted to demonstrate how the City’s and Water Corporation’s drainage infrastructure will be protected to the satisfaction of the City; and

 

 

11.2.     Prior to the Occupation of the Development an easement in gross in favour of the City of Vincent for the purpose of protecting the City’s drainage infrastructure shall be provided on the title of No.137 (Lot 141) West Parade, Mount Lawley. The applicant/landowner shall pay all costs associated with preparing all documentation and lodgement of the easement on the title;

12.     Screening Assessment

A screening assessment undertaken in accordance with Appendix A of The Implementation Guidelines for State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. All mitigation measures identified in the approved screening assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development;

13.     Right of Way Widening

13.1.     A 1.2 metre right of way setback to any buildings and structures is to be maintained at all times to enable future right of way widening; and

13.2.     The 1.2 metre right of way setback area referred to in condition 13.1 above, is to be ceded free of cost to the City on subdivision of the land, including Built Strata subdivision; and

14.     General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two Multiple Dwellings and change of use from Single House to Grouped Dwelling at No. 137 West Parade Mount Lawley.

Background:

Landowner:

China Plate Development Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Aaron Sice

Date of Application:

30 August 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Multiple Dwelling – “P” Use

Grouped Dwelling – “P” Use

Lot Area:

491m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Located on the western side of the site with a width of 3.6 metres. The ROW is sealed and privately owned by the City in freehold.

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located1 on the western side of West Parade, Mount Lawley, between Chertsey Street and Guildford Road as shown in Attachment 1. The site is zoned Residential with a density of and is currently occupied by a single house which has vehicular access from West Parade. The adjoining land to the north and west of the subject lot is zoned Commercial and is occupied by commercial land uses. The land to the south, which fronts West Parade and Lord Street, is zoned Residential with a density of R60 and is predominantly characterised by a mix single, grouped and multiple dwellings predominately between single and two storeys. At No.131 West Parade there is an existing multiple development that is three storeys in height.

The application proposes to construct two multiple dwellings, situated at the rear of the site behind the existing single house, to a maximum of three storeys in height. Given the site is currently one lot and there is more than one dwelling on the lot, the existing single house fronting West Parade, the application also triggers a change in classification of this existing dwelling from ‘Single House’ to ‘Grouped Dwelling’. The applicant has indicated their intention to strata subdivide the existing lot as follows:

 

·       Rear Lot: To include the two proposed multiple dwellings with a site area of 231 square metres;

·       Existing Dwelling Lot: To include the grouped dwelling fronting West Parade with a site area of 260 square metres.

 

The visitor car bay and car parking for the residents for the two proposed Multiple Dwellings are proposed to be accessed from Right of Way. Vehicular access to the Grouped Dwelling will remain unchanged from West Parade. The plans which form the basis of this report are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Density/Plot Ratio

 

ü

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Roof Form

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Setback from Right of Way

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Plot Ratio

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R-Codes - Clause 6.1.1

 

Plot ratio of 0.7 which equates to 161.7m² of gross building floorspace

 

 

Plot ratio of 0.74 or 170.94m² of gross building floorspace


 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.3

R-Codes – Clause 6.1.4

 

Northern Boundary

 

Second Floor setback a minimum of 5.4m

 

 

 

 

Northern Boundary

 

Second Floor setback a minimum of 3m

Southern Boundary

 

Second Floor setback a minimum of 5.4m

 

Southern Boundary

 

Second Floor setback minimum of 3.069m increasing to 4.1m

Boundary Wall (Northern Boundary)

 

Maximum Height of 3.5m

 

Average Height of 3m

 

 

Maximum Height of 9.1m

 

Average Height 9.1m

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, from 7 November 2017 to 27 November 2017. The method of community consultation included advertising the proposal on the City’s website and 57 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers within a radius of 100 metres to the subject site, as shown on Attachment 1. A total of four submissions were received, one objection and three letters of no-objection. The objection received was not from the immediately abutting lots. The comments raised in the objection can be summarised as follows:

 

·       The proposal does not meet requirements for plot ratio and open space as required by the R-Codes;

·       The variations to the setbacks and boundary wall will not minimise the perceive bulk of the dwelling;

·       The height of the building is to be restricted to two storeys;

·       The proposal does not meet the landscaping requirement;

·       The windows on the southern elevation are to be screened to prevent any overlooking of adjoining properties; and

·       The proposal should comply with the requirements of the R-Codes.

 

A detailed summary of the objection received during the consultation period and Administration’s response to each matter raised is included in Attachment 3. The applicant’s response to the objection is included in Attachment 4.

 

Following adverting the applicant modified the plans to address the submissions received as well as the comments of the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and the City’s officers. The changes are identified as follows:

 

·       The stairs to the first floor were modified to become common to more than one dwelling and therefore excluded from the calculation of the plot ratio. The amended plans reduce the plot ratio from 0.816 as advertised to 0.74;

·       A store to the Grouped Dwelling was provided and the development now complies with the deemed-to-comply of the R-Codes in this regard; and

·       Landscaping was proposed within the front setback which accords with the deemed-to-comply standards of the R-Codes.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             Yes

 

Plans for the development were first presented to DAC on the 5 July 2017. At that time the DAC requested that the amended plans be referred back to the DAC when received. Amended plans were referred by email to DAC Chair for comment. The DAC Chair advised that the amended plans were supported. An extract of the Minutes of the meeting and the DAC Chair’s response are provided in Attachment 5.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

It is noted that the landscaping provisions of the City’s Built Form Policy require approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and as a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS 2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval will be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the LPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application. Proposed LPS2 and the modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the proposal is for development classified ‘Category 1’ as the development is three storeys in height.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.


 

Comments:

Plot Ratio

 

The application proposes a plot ratio of 0.74 (170.94 square metres of gross building floorspace) which is great that the deemed‑to‑comply plot ratio of 0.7 (161.7 square metres gross building floorspace) set by the R-Codes for this R60 site.

 

The submission received raised concern with the proposed plot ratio and that the proposed plot ratio and height had added bulk and scale to the development. The subject lot is within a three storey building height area with the adjoining land zoned Commercial. The plot ratio proposed is less than 10 square metres greater than the deemed-to-comply standard set by the R-Codes for this site and is not considered to add obvious bulk to the development. The development has been designed to comply with the height requirements and the building elevation is well articulated with contrasting materials and colours. These factors, combined with the proposed landscaping, will soften the bulk and scale of the development to adjoining properties, the ROW and the streetscape.

 

The surrounding area is intended to be rezoned under LPS2 with the land on the western side of the ROW proposed to be up coded to R100 providing for development up to six storeys. It is considered that the proposed design and density of the development is consistent with the changing character of the area.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

Northern Boundary

 

The second floor is setback three metres from the northern boundary in lieu of the 5.4.metres deemed-to-comply standard set in the R-Codes. The adjoining property at No.139 West Parade is zoned Commercial and has an existing boundary wall at a height of 6.17m for the length of the boundary adjoining the proposed units. The section of wall proposing the reduced setback does not contain any major openings and due to the orientation of the lot will not result in any overshadowing to the north. Given the existing commercial development on the adjoining property it is considered that the setback variation will not impact on the adjoining property.

 

Table 4 of the R-Codes sets out a maximum height of 3.5 metres and an average height of 3 metres for boundary walls. The development proposes a boundary wall to the northern property boundary up to 9.1 metres in height.  As outlined above the adjoining property to the north at No. 137 West Parade is zoned Commercial and contains a large commercial development which occupies almost 75% of the lot area and presents a boundary wall at a height of 6.1 metres to the northern boundary of the subject site. The existing boundary wall on this site is longer that the proposed boundary wall and as a result the 9.1 metre high boundary wall proposed will not be visible from the adjoining property, West Parade or the ROW and is considered appropriate in this instance.

 

Southern boundary

 

In accordance with the Lot Boundary Setbacks of the R-Codes the second floor is setback between 3.069 metres to 4.1 metres from the southern boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 5.4.metres set in the R-Codes. Whilst the proposal does not comply with the lot boundary setbacks, the dwelling is setback to comply with the Visual Privacy standards of the R-Codes and will not result in any overlooking. In addition the wall is well articulated with staggered sections of wall, a variety of materials and finished and the inclusion of openings to reduce the bulk of the development. The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements and will not impact on the outdoor living areas of the adjoining property. Given the above, the proposed setback to the southern boundary is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes.

 

Landscaping

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard of 15 percent deep soil zone and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity. These provisions have yet to be adopted by the WAPC, however, are given due regard in the assessment of the application. The assessment of the landscaping requirements is based on the whole site area (491 square metres), with the application proposing 13.25 percent of the site as deep soil zone and 20 percent canopy coverage. Additional landscaped areas in the submitted landscaping plan are identified as deep soil zone, however, these do not meet the one metre minimum dimension requirements in accordance with the Built Form Policy.

Consistent with the objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy the application proposes the retention of the existing dwelling. The redevelopment of the land to the rear of the existing dwelling and the need for visitor car parking and a store for the existing dwelling results in a limited area for additional canopy coverage to be provided on site. The development proposes to retain the existing mature tree at the front of the site and has designed the pedestrian access and letterbox in order to protect this important contributor to canopy coverage. The application also proposes a creeper over the pergola in the new ground floor outdoor living area, which will further contribute to the landscaping of the site. Given the retention of the existing tree fronting West Parade and the proposed arbour above the pergola, it is considered that the development responds to the intent of the City’s policy and provides an appropriate landscaping outcome.

 

Drainage Infrastructure

 

The subject lot is traversed by the Water Corporation’s Mount Lawley main drain, a 1600 diameter brick drainage structure running east to west across the north east corner of the lot. The City’s 375 RC drainage pipe also runs along the same alignment. The construction of the multiple dwelling above this drainage infrastructure will require engineering solutions for the protection of both drainage systems in accordance with the Water Corporation’s requirements. It is recommended that a condition be imposed on any approval requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the Water Corporation and City’s requirements with the landowner required to enter into an easement for protection of this infrastructure prior to occupation of the new development to ensure its ongoing protection.  The applicant is aware of this requirement and has not raised any concerns.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires the Council to exercise its discretion in relation to plot ratio and building setbacks. Both of these elements of the proposal are considered to meet the relevant design principles set out in the R-Codes and local housing objectives set out in the Built Form Policy. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

9.10        No. 7/565-567 (Lot: 7; STR: 21608) Beaufort Street Mount Lawley - Proposed Amendment to Conditions of Approval - Change of Use from Office to Recreational Facility and Office

TRIM Ref:                  D17/173157

Authors:                    Remajee Narroo, Senior Urban Planner

Paola Di Perna, Manager Approval Services

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   11 – Mount Lawley Centre

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Previous Planning Approval and Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicant's Letter

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant's Response to Submissions  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to amend planning approval 5.2014.4.1 for Proposed Change of Use from Office to Recreational Facility and Office at No. 7/565-567 (Lot: 7; STR: 21608) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, granted on 7 October 2014, subject to the following condition:

1.       All conditions and advice notes detailed on planning approval 5.2014.4.1 granted on 7 October 2014 and included in Attachment 2 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1.    Condition 4.1 is amended to read as follows:

The use of the Recreational Facility is allowed to operate twenty four (24) hours, seven days a week;”; and

1.2.    Condition 4.2 is deleted.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend conditions of the current planning approval for a change of use from Office to Recreational Facility and Office at No. 7/565-567 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley granted by Council at its meeting of 5 November 2013.

Background:

Landowner:

Silverleaf Investments Pty Ltd & RGO Enterprises Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Verism

Date of Application:

19 May 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Commercial

TPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Recreational Facility – “AA”

Proposed Use Class:

Recreational Facility – “AA””

Lot Area:

961m²

Right of Way (ROW):

3.6 metres in width, sealed, privately owned

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 7/565-567 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, on the corner Vincent Street, as shown in Attachment 1. The site is occupied by a two storey commercial development, which includes shops, office, eating house and recreational facility (gym). The existing recreational facility is located on the first floor of the building. There is existing residential development on the western side of the site and on the northern side along Vincent Street there is a drive through commercial development (Hungry Jacks). On the eastern side along Beaufort Street and on the southern side, the area comprises of commercial developments.

 

On 5 November 2013 Council approved an application for a change of use from office to recreational facility (health studio-gym) with two ancillary medical consulting rooms (physiotherapy) and office in the subject tenancy. Condition 5 of that approval stated the following:

 

“5.        This approval for Recreational Facility with Ancillary Two (2) Medical Consulting Rooms (Physiotherapy) is for a period of thirty six (36) months only and should the applicant wish to continue the use after that period, it shall be necessary to re-apply to and obtain approval from the City prior to the continuation of the use;”.

 

On 12 March 2014 a development approval was issued under Delegated Authority for a change of use to recreational facility and office at the above premises. Condition 4 of the approval stated the following:

 

“4.        This approval for Recreational Facility is for a period of thirty six (36) months only and should the applicant wish to continue the use after that period, it shall necessary to re-apply to and obtain approval from the City prior to the continuation of the use;”.

 

The applicant lodged an appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the approval being restricted to thirty six (36) months only.

 

On 7 October 2014, at the invitation of SAT, under Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the Council reconsidered the condition and approved a new condition as follows:

 

“4.        Operating Time

 

4.1       The proposed use of the Recreational Facility is allowed to operate twenty four 24 hours, seven (7) days a week for a period of thirty-six (36) months

 

4.2       After thirty-six (36) months subject to the facility only being permitted to operate from 9pm to 6am from the date of the issue of the approval revert to 6am - 9pm.”

 

The above planning approval, including the approved plans, is included as Attachment 2 which was issued on 4 November 2014.

 

A 24 hour gym has operated from the subject site, under the definition of Recreational Facility, for the past year and a half. The most recent decision by the Council granted a 36 month approval for the operation of the Recreational Facility 24 hours per day seven days per week after which time the operating hours of the Recreational Facility were restricted to between 6:00am and 9:00pm. This current application seeks a permanent approval for the 24 hour operations of the Recreational Facility by amending condition 4.1 and deleting condition 4.2 of the most recent approval, which limited the approval period for the 24 hour operating hours to 36 months.

 

The 36 month period expired on 4 November 2017 and therefore the Recreational Facility is not currently permitted to operate 24 hours per day.

 

The applicant has provided the following statement for the request to reconsider conditions 4.1 and 4.2 of the existing planning approval:

 

“Our understanding for the inclusion of this condition, on the original planning approval, was to allow a ‘test period’ whereby the operation of a 24 gym could be assessed against its impact on amenity in the local area. The Landowner has advised there were no significant negative impacts needing rectification over this period.

 

As such, we request as part of this reconsideration, that part 4.2 of condition 4 be removed from the use over the subject site and that the business be permitted to continue a twenty-four (24) hour, seven (7) day operation. The business owners indicate that the business is operating profitably with these operating times and to alter this would jeopardise the businesses viability.”

The applicant’s full justification for the proposal is included as Attachment 3.

 

The recreational facility has operated from the subject site 24 hours, seven days a week for the past year and a half. During this time the City has received 15 complaints with regard to noise from the owners/operators of businesses on the ground floor. All of these complaints related to noise being emitted during the day within the currently and ongoing approved operating hours of the Recreation Facility, which are 6:00am to 9:00pm. The City has investigated each of these complaints and has not established any breaches of the State Government’s Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.  

 

It should be noted that prior to the Recreational Facility commencing operation, and in accordance with condition 8.2 of the most recent approval, an acoustic report was submitted to and approved by the City to address the potential for noise issues to be created by the development. All of the measures required by the approved acoustic report were implemented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City. The applicant also undertook additional attenuation measures following the initial noise complaints, which have further reduced the impact of noise on the tenancy below.

Details:

The application seeks to amend the previous development approval issued by Council by removing the conditions that restrict the approval of the 24 hour gym to 36 months. The current conditions require that the operating hours of the gym convert to 6:00am to 9:00pm following the expiry of the condition on 4 November 2017.  The proposal has been assessed against the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The land use Recreational Facility is an “AA” in the ‘Commercial’ zone under TPS1 and Council is required to exercise discretion when considering whether to approve such a land use in the ‘Commercial’ zone. This element of the proposal requires the discretion of Council and is discussed in the comments section below.

 

The proposal has also been assessed against the City’s policy framework and is considered to comply with all of the City’s local planning policies.

Consultation/Advertising:

Following receipt of this application to amend the development approval, consultation on the proposal was undertaken for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 27 July 2017 until 9 August 2017. The method of advertising included 116 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers, as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. It is noted that letters were sent to the same addresses when the recreational facility was initially advertised in July 2013.

 

A total of six submissions were received in relation to the proposal comprising of five objections, and one support. The concerns raised in the submissions were as follows:

 

·       Use is inappropriate;

·       Noise impact on the existing tenancies within the building and adjoining properties;

·       Car parking; and

·       Anti-social behaviour.

 

The main issues raised in the submissions are discussed in the Comment section below. A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s response to each is contained in Attachment 4. The applicant has provided a response to the submissions in Attachment 5.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The application to amend a development approval can be considered in accordance with Clause 77 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Clause 77(4) provides that an application to amend a development approval can be approved with or without conditions or refused.

 

The applicant will have the right to have Council’s decision reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

The general objectives of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) as outlined in Clause 6 are applicable, specifically subclauses 3(b) and 3(c) which are outlined as follows:

 

“…3(b)  to protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the Town’s inhabitants and the social, physical and cultural environment;

 

3(c)  to ensure that the use and development of land is managed in an effective and efficient manner within a flexible framework which –

(i)         recognises the individual character and needs of localities within the Scheme zone area; and

(ii)        can respond readily to change. …”.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the LPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application.

 

Draft LPS 2 sets out objectives for the Commercial zones, which are outlined as follows:

 

“(i)        to facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development within the City; and

 

(ii)        to ensure development design incorporates sustainability principles, with particular regard to waste management and recycling and including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency and water conservation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development approval that is proposed to be amended was determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The subject site is located within the Commercial zone of the Mount Lawley – Highgate Town Centre. The proposed use is considered to be appropriate and consistent with both existing land uses within the Town Centre and the objectives of the City’s TPS1. The recreational facility also contributes to the activation of the Beaufort Street commercial precinct and is considered to align with the objectives of the ‘Commercial’ zone under draft LPS2.

 

Noise

 

The condition limiting the 24 operations of the Recreational Facility to 36 months was originally imposed by the City to verify the suitability of the 24 hour operations of the use for the subject property. The recreational facility has operated from the subject site 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the past year and a half. During this time the City has received 15 complaints with regard to noise from four businesses located on the ground floor below the gym. These 15 complaints include 11 complaints in 2016 and 4 complaints in 2017. This proposal seeks permanent approval for 24 hour operation of the Recreational Facility and was advertised for public comment to surrounding owners, residents and business and attracted six submissions including five objections. The main concerns related to the impact of noise from the gym on the commercial tenancies on the ground floor of the premise.

 

As part of the original approval the applicant submitted an Acoustic Report on 25 July 2016. The Acoustic Report was based on the readings taken from two businesses located on the ground floor. The report stated that the recreational facility complied with the prescribed (noise) standards contained in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, for all periods of the day or night. The City assessed the Acoustic Report in accordance with condition 8.2 of the most recent approval.

 

Following complaints about noise from the recreational facility, the City’s Health Services undertook noise readings in August/September 2016 and again in September 2017. The City carried out a detailed assessment of those noise readings, which were all found to be compliant with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

Following community consultation on this application, the applicant submitted a new Acoustic Report to the City, which addressed the noise readings taken by the City. The report states that the recreational facility does comply with the prescribed (noise) standards contained in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, for all periods of the day or night. The Acoustic Consultant verbally advised the City that since the noise readings were taken there was one activity involving dropping metal on metal that had created noise concerns not considered or assessed by the City. The operators of the recreational facility have addressed this activity by implementing additional attenuation measures with respect to the use of this equipment since September 2017. The attenuation measures involved substituting a metal plate with a thick rubber mat on the floor.

 

As set out above, the assessments demonstrate that all of the readings taken by the businesses below the recreational facility are within the limits permitted for such use. It is also noted that the City did not receive any noise complaints between 9:00pm to 6:00am. Most of the complaints related to instances of noise made during day with two complaints relating to concerns during the evening up to 7:50pm. Moreover most of the existing uses on the ground floor are closed by the evening, with the latest use closing at 10:00pm. As a result there is not likely to be any noise impacts caused by the gym operating overnight between 9:00pm and 6:00am, as is proposed by this application.

 

Given the ‘Commercial’ zoning of the area, the fact that there are no residential developments in immediate proximity of the development and that the noise being emitted from the tenancy is, at the closest nearby tenancy, within the limits prescribed by the State Government’s Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, it is considered that there is no basis to refuse the application to extend the operating hours of the Recreational Facility from 6:00am to 9:00pm to 24 hours per day.

 


 

Parking

 

Concern was raised through the submissions regarding there not being enough parking for the 24 hour gym and the impact the development is having on parking in the area. The existing recreational facility complies with the car parking requirements of the City’s Parking and Access Policy and the Barlee Street public car park, located 40 metres from the subject site, also provides sufficient parking for patrons attending the recreational facility after hours.

 

Anti-social Behaviour

 

Concern regarding the potential for a 24 hour recreational facility to create anti-social behaviour, especially within the laneway at the rear of the subject property, was also raised through the submissions. The City has not received any complaints of anti-social behaviour linked to the Recreational Facility and there is no evidence to suggest that the 24 nature of the Recreational Facility will lead to anti-social behaviour. The operator has advised that they educate their patrons regarding safe egress from the premises and it is considered that the 24 operation will actually reduce the likelihood of anti-social behaviour in the laneway to the rear and the area generally, given it will increase surveillance and activity in the area after hours.

 

Conclusion

 

The use is considered to be compatible with the Commercial zoning of the site and contributes to activate Beaufort Street. With regard to noise, the two Acoustic Reports submitted demonstrate that the recreational facility does comply with the prescribed (noise) standards contained in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, for all periods of the day or night. The recreational facility complies with the parking requirements and is considered that the 24 hour operation will actually reduce the likelihood of anti-social behaviour in the area. In view of the above, it is recommended that the use of the Recreational Facility be permitted to continue operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

10          Engineering

10.1        Safe Active Streets - Bike Boulevard Progress Report 4

TRIM Ref:                  D18/11819

Authors:                    Francois Sauzier, TravelSmart Officer

Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Design

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Consultation Comments Summary

2.       Safe Active Streets Project - Concept Plan  

 

Recommendation:

That Council

1.       NOTES that:

1.1          consultation on the Safe Active Streets Bike Boulevard Project (Phase Two) has been completed with affected residents of Shakespeare, Scott, Richmond and Bourke Streets, Mount Hawthorn/Leederville area;

1.2          the results of the consultation indicate 62% of respondents support the project; 32% of respondents do not support the project and 6% neither support nor object but have provided feedback; and

1.3          the Department of Transport has indicated that it will be offering the City additional funding of $200,000 to complete the Bourke Street link to the Mitchell Freeway, which,  will increase the total project value to $1,300,000;

2.       APPROVES an increase to the 2017/18 Capital Budget for the Bike Boulevard Stage 2 project from $1,100,000 to $1,300,000, with a corresponding increase to capital grants to recognise the increased project funding from the Department of Transport as noted in 1.3 above;

3.       SUPPORTS the implementation of the Safe Active Streets Bike Boulevard Project (Phase Two), in line with the advertised concept plan included as Attachment 2, subject to Administration finalising the construction design to incorporate, where possible, minor changes as requested in the feedback from affected owners/occupiers and additional street trees; and

4.       ADVISES all respondents of Council’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the results of the community consultation, and further discussions with the Department of Transport (DoT) in respect of a $200,000 increase in funding, for the Safe Active Streets Bike Boulevard Phase Two.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 14 November 2017 Council unanimously resolved that it:

 

“1.        NOTES that the Chief Executive Officer has entered into an Agreement with the Department of Transport for the City to deliver the design, consultation and construction of the Safe Active Streets - Shakespeare Street Bike Boulevard, Phase Two Project (Attachment 1);

 

2.         CONSULTS with affected residents of the Shakespeare, Scott, Richmond and Bourke Streets, Mount Hawthorn/Leederville; and

 

3.         RECEIVES a further report inclusive of the outcomes of the community consultation and the discussions with the Department of Transport in respect of possible additional funding.”

Consultation

 

In accordance with the City’s Consultation Policy, the City conducted consultation with the affected residents between 9 December 2017 and 22 January 2018. The consultation was conducted using the following methods:

 

·       600 consultation packs were distributed to residences and businesses in the affected area;

·       250 packs were posted to absentee landlords;

·       The concept plan was displayed in the City’s Library and Local History Centre; and

·       An online survey was promoted via the City’s webpages.

 

The consultation asked the questions:

 

·       Do you support the proposal?

·       Do you object to the proposal?

·       You neither support or object, but wish to provide feedback; and

·       Some basic information about the survey participants.

 

Aranmore Catholic College

 

Aranmore Catholic College is a co-educational secondary college located at 41 Franklin Street, Leederville, with its primary access off Shakespeare Street. Prior to the public consultation phase a meeting was held with the school Principal, Declan Tanham, to outline the scope of works and seek the school’s feedback to the plan. Principal Tanham indicated his support, on behalf of the school, as the initiative will lead to a lower speed environment around the school precinct.

 

During the consultation period, the City’s officers also met with a number of residents on site, who sought further clarification as to the project’s impact on their properties.

 

Anonymous Letter

 

The City’s officers were made aware that a resident had written and distributed a letter to some affected residents urging people to object to the project. Some misinformation was contained in the letter as well as some unjustifiable claims about the intended users of the project. The letter was forwarded to the City’s officers by a concerned resident, but as the letter contained no contact details there was no opportunity to address any of the letter writer’s concerns.  A copy of the letter was also forwarded to the DoT for their information and comment.

Details:

The consultation indicated that a clear majority of respondents supported the overall project.

 

In total, the City received 134 responses, with the all responses detailed in Attachment 1, of which;

 

·           Support 83    =   62%

·           Object     43    =   32%

·           Neither      8   =     6%

 

A breakdown of the total responses by property tenure is as follows;

 

·           88  Owner Occupier

·           29  Owner

·           17  Occupier

 

A number of comments highlighted concerns with engineering elements of the plan (such as slow points encroaching on crossovers, line-marking to indicate no parking behind verge parking), and wherever possible these will be addressed in revisions to the plan.

 


 

Support

 

The feedback from those supporting the project included the following comments and/or suggestions:

 

-     Will dissuade rat-running on Shakespeare Street,

-     Plant mature trees in the tree wells,

-     Happy that Bourke St will be connected to the bike path along the freeway,

-     Great to slow down the traffic on Scott Street and address safety at Tennyson Street intersection,

-     Plan will beautify the area,

-     Will improve safety of school and church goers in the area

-     Will add value to the houses on the boulevard

 

Object

 

The feedback from the Object or Neither groups included the following concerns:

 

-     impact of loss of parking in Richmond Street on Leederville Oval event days;

-     increased traffic noise attributed to cars on the raised plateaus;

-     perception that it will result in significant congestion;

-     will shift traffic to surrounding streets;

-     that it was a duplication of Oxford Street infrastructure; and

-     that it would increase the rate of burglary in the area.

 

Additional Funding

 

The City has prepared an estimate of costs associated with delivering the project, including the following links:

 

a.    Bourke Street, connecting Scott Street with the Mitchell Freeway Principal Shared Path (PSP), and

1.       

b.    Richmond Street, connecting Scott Street with the proposed Loftus Street bike lanes.

 

The total cost is estimated to be $1,300,000.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation policy.

 

In early December 2017, businesses and residents within affected areas of Shakespeare, Scott, Bourke and Richmond Streets were consulted regarding the proposed Safe Active Streets Bike Boulevard Phase Two project.

 

A total of 850 consultation packs were distributed to residents (including absentee landlords) and businesses.

 

At the close of consultation on 22 January 2018, a total of 134 responses had been received.  Three late responses were received after this date.  In total, this equates to a 16% response rate.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:            The works will improve the amenity for local residents, their visitors, and the wider community while providing the City an opportunity to enhance the streetscape and upgrade its infrastructure, creating a safer road environment for all road users.

Strategic Implications:

This initiative aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Physical Activity Plan 2013-2017 and the

Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016.

 

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1     Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure

2.          

1.1.5 Take action to improve transport and parking in the City and mitigate the effects of traffic”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

An increased cycling participation rate by both residents and the wider community should lead to improved general health and wellbeing of the community, while reducing carbon emissions and the dependence on motorised transport. In addition, native vegetation and tree plantings will be done in the proposed slow points leading to a marked increase in greening along Shakespeare/Scott Streets as well as in the verge along Bourke Street where opportunities allow.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The committed funding will be released at agreed upon milestones:

 

40% - Milestone 1 - upon agreement of the scope of the project – communication and engagement plan and concept design for consultation;

 

20% - Milestone 2 - Council review of engagement outcomes;

 

20% - Milestone 3 - Council endorsement of the detailed design; and

 

20% - Milestone 4 - Practical Completion of the project.

 

An initial amount of $400,000 has been received by the City from DoT, initially held in trust, but now able to be released as it relates to the completion of Milestone 1.

Comments:

The consultation undertaken has revealed significant support from respondents for the project (62% Support, 32% Object, and 6% Neither), with residents supporting the overall aims of the 30kmh streets and also the opportunities to increase greening.

 

The City’s officers are reviewing the comments submitted and are currently finalising the design to reflect comments wherever possible.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

11          Corporate Services

11.1        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 23 November 2017 to
5 January 2018

TRIM Ref:               D18/4044

Author:                      Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             John Paton, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT December 2017

2.       Payments by Cheque December 2017

3.       Payments by Credit Card December 2017  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 23 November 2017 to 5 January 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 81877 – 82003

 

$103,247.83

Cancelled Cheque 81932

-$2,366.29

EFT Documents 2170 and 2175 - 2187

 

$5,721,636.96

Payroll       

 

$1,755,681.19

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$139,335.19

 

·      Loan Repayments

$148,525.88

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$47,472.64

 

·      Credit Cards

$8,604.26

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$343,937.97

Total Accounts Paid

 

$7,922,137.66

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 23 November 2017 to 5 January 2018.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 1.14) the exercise of its power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 23 November 2017 to 5 January 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

81877 - 82003

$103,247.83

Cancelled Cheques

81932

-$2,366.29

EFT Payments

2170 and 2175 - 2187

$5,721,636.96

Sub Total

 

$5,822,518.50

 

 

 

Transfer of Payroll by EFT

28/11/17

$600,076.50

 

12/12/17

$578,962.91

 

13/12/17 Ad hoc

$1,495.94

 

22/12/17

$575,145.84

 

December 2017

$1,755,681.19

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$139,335.19

Loan Repayments

 

$148,525.88

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$47,472.64

Credit Cards

 

$8,604.26

 

 

 

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$343,937.97

 

 

Total Payments

 

$7,922,137.66

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

12.     Payments from municipal fund or trust fund, restrictions on making

 

(1)      A payment may only be made from the municipal fund or the trust fund —

·    if the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from those funds — by the CEO; or

·    otherwise, if the payment is authorised in advance by a resolution of Council.

(2)      Council must not authorise a payment from those funds until a list prepared under regulation 13(2) containing details of the accounts to be paid has been presented to Council.

 

Regulation 13(1) and (3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

13.     Lists of Accounts

 

(1)        If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared -

·        the payee’s name;

·        the amount of the payment;

·        the date of the payment; and

·        sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

(3)      A list prepared under sub regulation (1) is to be —

·       presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared; and

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Management systems are in place to establish satisfactory controls, supported by internal and external audit function.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

“4.1         Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

 

4.1.2       Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

 

(a)      Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All Municipal Fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s Annual Budget.

Comments:

If Councillors require further information on any of the payments, please contact the Manager Financial Services.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

11.2        Investment Report as at 31 December 2017

TRIM Ref:               D18/5161

Author:                      Sheryl Teoh, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:             John Paton, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 December 2017 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the level of investment funds and operating funds available, the distribution of surplus funds in investments and the interest earned to date.

Background:

Surplus funds are invested in Bank Term Deposits for various terms, to maximise investment returns in compliance with good governance, legislative requirements and Council’s Investment Policy No 1.2.4.  Details are attached in Attachment 1.

 

The City’s Investment Portfolio is diversified across several Financial Institutions in accordance with the Investment Policy.

Details:

Total funds held for the period ended 31 December 2017 including on call in the City’s operating account were $38,768,084; compared to $33,692,431 for the comparative period ended 31 December 2016.

 

Total Investments for the period ended 31 December 2017 were $37,065,389 as compared to $39,482,047 for the prior month end; and $31,165,443 for the period ended 31 December 2016.

 

Investment comparison table:

 

Month

2016/17

2017/18

Ended

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

July

$19,683,412

$18,420,252

$23,433,728

$21,212,649

August

$26,167,645

$22,573,297

$30,161,860

$27,714,651

September

$36,754,571

$34,302,896

$40,305,364

$37,944,911

October

$37,581,885

$34,521,542

$41,087,462

$38,947,823

November

$37,034,885

$35,775,011

$41,716,473

$39,482,047

December

$33,692,431

$31,165,443

$38,768,084

$37,065,389

January

$34,645,041

$33,201,749

 

 

February

$34,028,716

$32,316,251

 

 

March

$32,070,200

$31,424,409

 

 

April

$30,661,122

$26,206,328

 

 

May

$27,412,051

$25,718,292

 

 

June

$24,670,461

$23,533,279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 31 December 2017:

 

 

Adopted Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$414,960

$226,950

$250,149

110.22%

Reserve

$258,420

$118,280

$121,254

102.51%

Sub-total

$673,380

$345,230

$371,403

107.58%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$70,897

0.00%

Total

$673,380

$345,230

$442,300

128.12%

 

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust were not included in the 2017/18 Budget as actual interest earned is held in Trust and restricted.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

The power to invest is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

 

6.14.     Power to invest

 

(1)        Money held in the municipal fund or the trust fund of a local government that is not, for the time being, required by the local government for any other purpose may be invested as trust funds may be invested under the Trustees Act 1962 Part III.

(2A)      A local government is to comply with the regulations when investing money referred to in subsection (1).

(2)        Regulations in relation to investments by local governments may — 

(a)    make provision in respect of the investment of money referred to in subsection (1); and

[(b)   deleted]

(c)    prescribe circumstances in which a local government is required to invest money held by it; and

(d)    provide for the application of investment earnings; and

(e)    generally provide for the management of those investments.

 

Further controls are established through the following provisions in the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

 

19.       Investments, control procedures for

 

(1)        A local government is to establish and document internal control procedures to be followed by employees to ensure control over investments.

(2)        The control procedures are to enable the identification of —

(a)    the nature and location of all investments; and

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

19C.     Investment of money, restrictions on (Act s. 6.14(2)(a))

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

(a)    an authorised deposit‑taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

(b)   the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

(2)        When investing money under section 6.14(1), a local government may not do any of the following —

(a)    deposit with an institution except an authorised institution;

(b)    deposit for a fixed term of more than 3 years;

(c)    invest in bonds that are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory government;

(d)    invest in bonds with a term to maturity of more than 3 years;

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.

 

To further guide the prudent and responsible investment of the City’s funds, Council has adopted the City’s Investment Policy No. 1.2.4, which delegates the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate.

 

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments. It is of note that a review of the Guidelines and Policy Procedures supporting the City’s Investment function has been undertaken in November 2017 to increase the maximum direct investments within the A1 category from 20% to 25% for a single institution, and A2 category from 10% to 20% for a single institution, and from 20% to 60% for the category as per following ratings table.

 

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

A1+

30%

27.4%

30%

Nil

90%

55.3%

A1

25%

0.0%

30%

Nil

80%

0.0%

A2

20%

16.5%

n/a

Nil

60%

44.7%

 

*As per subtotals on Attachment 1

Risk Management Implications:

Moderate:      Funds are invested with various financial institutions with high Long Term and Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s or equivalent), obtaining more than three quotations for each investment. These investment funds are spread across various institutions and invested as Term Deposits from one to twelve months to reduce risk.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

“4.1      Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

 

4.1.2          Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

 

(a)      Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details and comments section of the report.  Overall the conclusion can be drawn that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets and to ensure the accountability of management.

Comments:

The funds for investment have decreased from the previous period due to excess of payments to creditors and other expenditures over cash receipts, which is the expected seasonal cash flow.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.58% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.64% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for December 2017 is 1.77%.

As at 31 December 2017, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income exceed the year to date budget estimate by $26,173 (7.58%).

 

In response to the amendment to the City’s Investment Policy that provided preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”, Administration has actively sought investment offerings from relevant institutions.

 

It is of note that in September 2017, the City added Bank Australia Ltd to the list of non-fossil fuel lending institutions utilised and further funds were invested with them during this reporting period. As a result, 60.4% of the City’s investments were held in non-fossil fuel lending institutions as at 31 December 2017.

 

The investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment Performance & Policy Compliance Charts;

·       Investment Portfolio;

·       Investment Interest Earnings; and

·       Current Investment Holding.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                     6 February 2018

11.3        Adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017

TRIM Ref:                  D17/161061

Author:                      Tim Evans, Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser:                John Paton, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - version for the government gazette

2.       Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - tracked changes version

3.       Consolidated Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 - tracked changes version

4.       Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - Summary of Submissions  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       MAKES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 included as Attachment 1;

 

2.       NOTES the purpose and effect of the local law as:

 

Purpose

The purpose of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to make a number of minor amendments to the principal City of Vincent Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to allow for the orderly conduct of Council meetings;

 

Effect

The effect of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to rename the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to become the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 and to make minor amendments to the procedures for conducting Council meetings;

 

3.       NOTES:

 

3.1     the minor amendments to the version of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 that was advertised for public comment;

 

3.2     that Administration will publish the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 in the Government Gazette in accordance with s3.12(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 noting that a copy will be sent to the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts;

 

3.3     that Administration will give local public notice, in accordance with s3.12(6) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

 

3.4     that following Gazettal, in accordance with the Local Laws Explanatory Memoranda Directions as issued by the Minister on 12 November 2010, a copy of the local law and a duly completed explanatory memorandum signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will be sent to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the submission received as a result of the public comment period on the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 and to adopt the proposed local law.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 19 September 2017, Council approved the City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017, for the purposes of public comment.

 

The purpose of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to make a number of minor amendments to the principal City of Vincent Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to allow for the orderly conduct of meetings of Council meetings. The effect of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to rename the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to become the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 and to make minor amendments to the procedures for conducting Council meetings.

Details:

The Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 amends the principal local law which is the Standing Orders Local Law 2008. Significantly, the title of the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 is amended so that it becomes the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008. An administrative version of the consolidated Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 is included as Attachment 3. The following is a summary of the changes that will result through the adoption of the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017:

 

Item #

Proposed Change

Reason

Name

The name of the local law will be amended from "Standing Orders" to "Meeting Procedures"

It is considered that the name change will make the law more recognisable and accessible to the general public.

N/A

The term "Council Member" is proposed to be used in place of "Councillor" as appropriate.

To align with the nomenclature in general use by the City of Vincent.

1.6

The definition of “Presiding Member” will be amended so that it matches the definition of “Presiding Member” in the WALGA model local law.

To align with standard industry practice.

1.6

The definition of “document” will be amended so that it matches the definition of “document” in the FOI Act.

To align with current legislation.

1.6

It is proposed to standardise the definitions so that defined words are not capitalised unless they are names or proper nouns. (“agenda”, “closed doors”, “document”, “employee”).

To align with standard industry practice.

2.2(1)(b)

Clause 2.2(1)(b) - which is a requirement to sign the notice of meeting, will be deleted

It is considered that the need for notice papers to be physically signed is no longer necessary.

2.2(1)(e)

Remove references to delivering agendas by physical post.

It is no longer considered necessary to post hard copies of meeting papers.

2.3

Include a requirement for the City to post meeting notice papers on its website.

The City's website is overwhelmingly the place where people visit to access this information.

2.8(5)

In the order of business, state that "confidential items" will be considered at the end and minor rephrasing.

To align the local law with current practice.

2.9(1)

It is proposed to remove the requirement to provide leave of absence applications at least one hour before the commencement of the meeting.

The clause is not considered necessary.

2.16

It is proposed to recognise that Council Meetings are web streamed and also give the power to the Presiding Member to decide to stop or start the web stream.

Aligns the Standing Orders with the City's adopted position on web streaming Council Meetings.

2.18(6)

It is proposed to remove the requirement to "bind" or paste the minutes or to keep a "minutes book".

This clause is no longer considered necessary. Minutes will be kept in line with normal recordkeeping practice for any other permanent record.


 

2.19(6)(a)

The requirement to state a person's address will be replaced by a requirement to state their suburb of residence or the location of a business that they are representing.

To better protect the privacy of members of the public.

2.19(6)(c)

Clarify that each person can only speak once during public question time.

To align the local law with current practice.

2.19(9)

Preclude a list of written questions from being considered as being "asked" during public question time.

To clarify the intent of the local law in relation to the process for asking questions at Council Meetings.

2.22

Extend the power to approve deputations to "the Mayor or presiding member" rather than simply "the Mayor"

To cater for circumstances where the Mayor may be absent and unable to preside.

2.24(5)

Include a requirement for the CEO to nominate an officer who will be responsible for dealing with the petition.

To formalise and clarify the process for having petitions dealt with by the organisation.

5.2(3)

Allow for the possibility of electronic voting.

To provide future options for using voting technology at Council Meetings.

6.1

Delete reference to clause 3.6.4 which does not exist.

 

To amend an error in the local law.

8.10 and 8.11

Delete explicit prohibitions on alcohol consumption and smoking.

The clause is no longer considered necessary as smoking and alcohol consumption are already prohibited under other legislation and the City's code of conduct.

9.79(2)

Addition of power for the presiding member to require a person to "be seated".

To increase the powers of the presiding member to deal with unruly behaviour.

12.9

It is proposed to include recognition of "Council Briefings" and remove "forums".

To align the local law with current practice.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public notice of the proposed City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 was given in accordance with sections 3.12(3)(a) and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995. Accordingly, advertisements were placed on the City's website, in The West Australian on 11 October 2017, The Perth Voice on 14 October 2017 and The Guardian Express on 17 October 2017 as well as posted on the City's notice boards and publicised on social media. In addition a letter was also sent to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries ("the Department") requesting feedback.

 

The submission period closed on 9 December 2017 with one submission being received. A summary of the submission along with Administration's comments is included in Attachment 4. In total the submission suggested a total of 18 minor amendments to the local law of which five are supported or partially supported by Administration. These have resulted in three proposed minor amendments to the advertised draft local law which as follows:

 

·       Inclusion of a requirement for the City to publish the agenda (notice paper) on its website;

·       Rephrasing of the words in clause 2.8(5) to improve clarity;

·       Extension of the power to approve deputations to "the Mayor or presiding member" rather than simply "the Mayor"; and

 

The Department provided feedback with respect to the form of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 which has also resulted in Administration making a number of minor amendments to the version of the local law that was advertised. The changes were administrative in nature and have resulted in several minor changes to the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017. None of the amendments alter the effect of the principal local law.


 

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the procedural requirements for the making of a local law:

 

"3.12.      Procedure for making local laws

 

(1)           In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

(2A)        Despite subsection (1), a failure to follow the procedure described in this section does not invalidate a local law if there has been substantial compliance with the procedure.

(2)           At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.”

 

(3)          The local government is to — 

 

(a)        give Statewide public notice stating that — 

(i)         the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and effect of which is summarized in the notice; and

(ii)        a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any place specified in the notice; and

(iii)        submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; and

(b)        as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

(c)        provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to any person requesting it.

 

(3a)         A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

 

(4)           After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

        * Absolute majority required.

 

(5)           After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

 

(6)           After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to give local public notice

 

(a)        stating the title of the local law; and

(b)        summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

(c)        advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the local government’s office.

 

(7)           The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

 

(8)           In this section — making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law."

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       It is not considered that the adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 will have a significant effect on the City's risk profile.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Plan for the Future – Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023 – the following Objectives state:

 

‘4.1:      Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management.

 

4.1.5     Focus on stakeholder needs, values, engagement and involvement.’

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are nominal costs associated with making the local law, including advertising and Gazettal which can be expended from the City's operating budget.

Comments:

The proposed changes are primarily minor in nature and are largely adequately explained in the table in the "DETAILS" section of this report. However, the sections below provide further comment on several particular amendments in order to clarify the reasons behind these proposals.

 

Change of Name of the Local Law

 

Administration has consulted with the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries in relation to the proposed change of name of the local law and whether it was preferable to change the name through an amendment or by repealing the current local law and making a new one. The advice received was that while both options were appropriate, an amendment was considered to be preferable in all instances where there was not considerable redrafting of sections of the law, such as in this case. Amendment local laws are considered to be easier to adopt because with any amendment local law, only the items that are being changed (3 pages) are considered and assessed by the Joint Standing Committee for Delegated Legislation. If a new local law was made, the entire new local law (44 pages) would be assessed. This would also have an impact on the fees charged to the City to gazette the local law which are related to its length.

 

Requirement to State Address

 

The requirement for a person to state their name and address when addressing Council has long been standard practice in local government. Administration notes that in the past decade there has been a change in expectations around the level of privacy of people’s personal information, which has been brought to the fore by the new paradigm of accessibility to information made available via the web. In light of these changing expectations, Administration considers that the public interest in soliciting and recording the address of people who ask public questions no longer outweighs the privacy concerns of a number of members of the public and may act as a barrier to public participation at Council meetings. Consequently, it is proposed to amend this section of the local law and require only that a person must state their name and the suburb in which they reside.

 

Recognition of Council Briefings

 

Council at its meeting on 4 November 2014 resolved to move to a monthly meeting cycle in 2015, comprising monthly Council Briefings and Council Meetings. Council Briefings occur on the Tuesday of the week prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting and provide Council Members with the opportunity to ask questions and clarify issues relevant to the specific agenda items due to be presented to Council in the following week. The Council Briefing is not a decision-making forum and the Council has no power to make decisions at the Council Briefing. To date, Council Briefings have not been covered by the Standing Orders Local Law 2008. However, the City invariably holds public question time at the start of the meeting and follows the practice of declaring any interests relating to items on the agenda. It is proposed that these practices be formalised by amending the local law to stipulate that these sections of the local law apply to Council Briefings.

Recognition of Web Streaming

 

At its meeting on 7 March 2017, Council resolved to commence web streaming of Council Meetings and Briefing Sessions in order to improve the transparency and public access to the decision making process. Live streaming was implemented from the 30 May 2017 meeting onwards. Minor amendments to the local law have been proposed, to recognise Council's decision in relation to web streaming and the role that it plays in the conduct of Council meetings. It also clarifies powers of the Presiding Member and Council to stop and start web streaming during the meeting.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                       6 February 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                     6 February 2018