Late Reports Agenda of Council Briefing

Council Briefing Agenda 24 April 2018

5 Development Services

5.7 LATE REPORT: No. 48 (Lot: 66; D/P: 6049) Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Five Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref: D18/23645

Author: Andrea Terni, Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: North

Precinct: 1 – Mount Hawthorn

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Development Application Supporting Information ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Arborist Report ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Applicant's Response to Submissions ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - DAC Minutes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for five Grouped Dwellings at No. 48 (Lot: 66; D/P: 6049) Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed street setback to Milton Street does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes or the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.2 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the setback is not an appropriate distance to accommodate additional space for landscaping to reduce the impact of the development on Milton Street or the adjacent dwellings and the location of the outdoor living area for Unit B does not allow for provide adequate privacy or open space for that dwelling;

2. The proposed lot boundary setbacks do not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.3 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as the building mass and form has not been designed to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties; and

3. The proposed outdoor living area for Unit B does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.3 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as it will not be open to winter sun and does not optimise use of the northern aspect of the site and does not incorporate any other space that has access to winter sun.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for five Grouped Dwellings at No. 48 Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

PRoPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of five, two storey grouped dwellings. Four of the grouped dwellings will gain vehicle access from a shared common driveway, with one of the units having a separate crossover for access from Milton Street.

Background:

Landowner:	DND Investments WA PTY LTD
Applicant:	Denis Murselovic
Date of Application:	15 December 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:	Grouped Dwelling
Lot Area:	756m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	Not applicable

The subject site is located north west of Milton Street, between Brady Street and Jugan Street. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The locality is predominantly characterised by single storey and double storey grouped dwellings. The site adjoins two single storey single houses to the eastern lot boundary, three single storey grouped dwellings to the northern lot boundary and three two storey grouped dwellings to the western lot boundary. Directly opposite the subject site is four two storey grouped dwellings. The subject site and the immediate adjoining properties are zoned Residential with a density code of R60 and this is not contemplated to change under draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). In accordance with 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.

On 15 December 2017 the City received a development application seeking approval for the construction of five, two storey grouped dwellings at the subject site. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s site information and summary supporting the development application are included as Attachment 3. The applicant has also provided an arborist report and this 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 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
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
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 element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.2 of the Built Form Policy

The primary street setback is to be the average of the five properties adjoining the proposed development.

Average setback

= 4.405m

Primary street setback proposed;

Unit A

= 2.007m

Unit B

= 2.008m

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

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit A

= 1.5m

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit A

= 1.213m

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit B

= 1.5m

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit B

= 1.020

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit D

= 1.5m

Eastern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit D

= 1.078m

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit C

= 1.5m

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit C

= 1.0m

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit E

= 1.5m

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit E

= 1.013m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit A

= 3.2m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit A

= 1.213m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit B

= 1.6m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit B

= 1.020m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit C

= 2.8m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit C

= 1.742m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit D

= 1.5m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit D

= 1.244m

North lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit E

= 3.2m

North lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit E

= 1.213m

Boundary Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3 of the Built Form Policy

Building on the boundary average height of 3m and maximum height of 3.5m

Unit A

Maximum height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.4m

Average height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.25m

Unit D

Maximum height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.2m

Average height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.1m

Unit E

Maximum height of wall on west lot boundary

= 3.6m

Average height of wall on west lot boundary

= 3.45m

Maximum height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.4m

Average height of wall on east lot boundary

= 3.2m

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.1 of the R-Codes

Outdoor Living Area

Area of 16m²

Behind the street setback area;

With a minimum dimension of 4.0m;

to have at least two-thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover.

Unit A

46.35% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

Unit B

Minimum Dimension of 3.7m x 3.3m

Within the front setback area

0% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

Unit C

Minimum Dimension of 4.0m x 3.5m

Unit D

Minimum Dimension of 4.0m x 3.5m

44.29% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

Unit E

44.37% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

Site Works

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes

C7.1 Excavation or filling between the street and building, or within 3m of the street alignment, whichever is the lesser, shall not exceed 0.5m, except where necessary to provide for pedestrian or vehicle access, drainage works or natural light for a dwelling.

Unit C: excavated 0.686m

Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.8 of the R-Codes

C8.1 Retaining walls set back from lot boundaries in accordance with the setback provisions of table 1.

C8.2 Where a retaining wall less than 0.5m high is required on a lot boundary, it may be located up to the lot boundary or within 1m of the lot boundary to allow for an area assigned to landscaping, subject to the provisions of clauses 5.3.7 and 5.4.1.

Retaining wall height

0.548 metres from natural ground level proposed on the eastern lot boundary (Lot C)

Retaining wall height between Unit A and Unit C 0.686m from natural ground level

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 22 February 2018 and concluding on 8 March 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.21.5 – Community Consultation. Two submissions were received by the City during the community consultation period. One submission received neither supported nor objected to the proposal and the second submission received objected to the proposal.

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

· Concerns regarding how local resident traffic will cope and be impacted with numerous building projects occurring at the same time on Milton Street and close by on Jugan Street.

· The street setback will create a wall of concrete up to the road and harm the character and amenity of the street.

· The landscaping does not meet the requirement of the City’s policy. Landscaping helps reduce excess bulk viewed from neighbouring properties and the streetscape.

· The building on the boundary wall on the western lot boundary adjacent No. 50C Milton Street will affect direct sun and overshadow the alfresco area. The proposed white wall will reflect into the alfresco area to be unusable in the afternoons.

· The outdoor living area does not meet the minimum requirement in accordance with the R-Codes.

· The building area has been maximised and does not meet the requirement for outdoor living areas.

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 5. The applicant has also provided responses to the submissions received and this is included as Attachment 6.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: Yes

The applicant elected not to have the application referred to the DAC, however Administration referred the proposed development plans to the Chair of the DAC for preliminary comments. The comments received are included as Attachment 7 and can be summarised as follows:

· The design, bulk and mass of the development do not contribute positively to the streetscape;

· The development provides no convincing character. More detail is required of the architectural language and influence of the elevations to fit in with the streetscape.

· Consideration to be given for the development to increase the height to three storeys to allow increased setbacks and vegetation within the lot.

· Consideration to be given to break up the long mass of the building to provide increased direct sun and ventilation to cross the site to neighbouring developments.

· Provide more detail on the landscaping proposed to demonstrate compliance with the City’s landscaping requirements.

The applicant lodged modified plans to address the above mentioned comments raised by the DAC. The modifications included:

· Providing slimline exposed face brick (Brickmakers New Orleans Vintage Roman Brick) material to portions of each unit and differentiating the colour scheme to the development to increase the architectural influence to the streetscape;

· A revised landscaping plan was submitted to increase the canopy coverage of the site at maturity to 40 per cent.

It is considered that the amended plans submitted by the applicant do not address all the issues raised by the DAC.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· 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 house is not on the City’s Heritage List and does not require development approval from the City for its 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 Clause 76(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 deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), who have insisted issued approval for a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in Design WA. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS 2)

On 4 April 2018, the Acting Minister for Planning endorsed the LPS2. LPS2 is scheduled to be gazetted and become operational on 10 May 2018. As such, LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. The zoning and density of the subject site and surrounds are not proposed to change under LPS2.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the proposal is for development classified ‘Category 2’ as the Application proposes more than three 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:

Street Setback

In accordance with Clause 5.2 of the City’s Built Form Policy, the primary street setback is determined as the average of the five properties adjoining the proposed development. The street setback requirement for the subject property is 4.405 metres. The proposal incorporates a ground floor setback of 2.007 metres to Unit A and a 2.009 metre setback to Unit B which is measured to the slimline exposed face brick feature walls. The upper storey is setback a further 400 millimetres from the ground floor of both Unit A and B. A portion of the outdoor living area of Unit B is proposed to be located within the primary street setback area.

The development encroaches into the street setback area which is considered to add to the perception of building bulk to the streetscape. As such, it is considered that the development does not preserve and enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape by considering existing building setbacks. The reduction of the street setback area is also considered to reduce the ability to accommodate additional landscaping in the front setback area which would assist to reduce the perception of a single continuous dwelling given the lack of separation between Unit A and B.

The materials and colour scheme incorporated into the proposed development are considered to be limited and do not contribute to enhancing the streetscape character of Milton Street. The use of render to the majority of the development facing the primary street in conjunction with a lack of separation between the units and materials incorporated to the design is considered to exacerbate the bulk of the building and will negatively impact on the streetscape.

The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and does not positively contribute to or enhance the streetscape of Milton Street. A portion of the outdoor living area encroaching within the primary street setback further exacerbates the perception of building bulk of the development and minimises open space to the street. The proposed location of the outdoor living area is considered to reduce the privacy of prospective occupants of Unit B, as the outdoor living area is proposed to be located within close proximity to the street. In light of the above, it is considered that the reduced setback to Milton Street does not align with the design principles of the R-Codes or the Local Housing Objectives of the Built Form Policy resulting in a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding landowners and on the streetscape.

Lot Boundary Setback

Eastern Boundary

The proposal incorporates a number of departures from the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks to the eastern lot boundary particularly, given the irregular shape of the lot. As such, the lot boundary setbacks proposed are considered to contribute to building bulk and scale perceived from the single storey dwellings at the neighbouring properties of Nos. 27 and 29 Brady Street.

The ground floor and upper floor setback of Unit A propose a 1.213 metre setback from the eastern lot boundary in lieu of a required 1.5 metre setback from the ground floor and a 3.2 metre setback from the upper floor. Unit C proposes a ground floor setback of 1.097 metres in lieu of a required 1.5 metres and an upper floor setback of 1.742 metres in lieu of 2.8 metres. Unit D proposes a 1.078 metre ground floor setback and a 1.244 metre upper floor setback in lieu of a 1.5 metre setback and Unit E proposes a 1.296 metre ground floor setback and a 1.217 metre upper floor setback in lieu of a 1.5 metre setback.

The departures proposed to the lot boundary setbacks are considered to pose a significant impact on the amenity of the two adjoining single storey dwellings to the eastern lot boundary particularly given the location of the open space and outdoor living areas of the adjoining single storey dwellings. In addition, the walls addressing the eastern lot boundary propose no architectural feature or varying materials and limited windows to help mitigate the perception of building bulk viewed from the neighbouring properties. The development does not propose a setback between the units on the ground or upper floor resulting in one continuous building which further contributes to the perception of excessive building bulk and scale to the neighbouring properties.

The development is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the Residential Design Codes with regard to lot boundary setbacks nor the local housing objectives and is not compatible with its setting particularly with due regard to the neighbouring single storey dwellings at Nos. 27 and 29 Brady Street.

Northern Boundary

With regard to the northern lot boundary setback, Unit E proposes a 1.013 metre ground floor setback in lieu of 1.5 metres and a 1.213 metre setback in lieu of a 3.2 metre setback to the upper floor. The walls addressing the northern lot boundary are fully rendered and do not propose any varying material to help minimise building bulk to the neighbouring property. Given the minimal setback provided, no integration of landscaping is considered between the building and the lot boundary to address the impact of development on adjacent residential properties.

Over Height Boundary Walls

The development proposes a considerable amount of buildings on the lot boundary which is a result of the over development proposed for the site. The development proposes three separate walls to the eastern lot boundary and a wall to the western lot boundary.

Unit A proposes a building on the eastern lot boundary to No. 29 Brady Street with an average wall height of 3.25 metres which exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirement of a 3 metre average wall height on the lot boundary. Unit D proposes an average wall height of 3.1 and Unit E proposes an average wall height of 3.2 metres which both adjoin the outdoor living area and open space of No. 27 Brady Street. The proposed buildings on the boundary coupled with the proposed reduced lot boundary setbacks and scale of the entire development are considered to negatively impact on the amenity and prevailing development of the locality and do not provide an attractive setting for the adjoining dwellings.

The wall on the west lot boundary proposes a maximum height of 3.6 metres with an average wall height of 3.45 metres. The wall is positioned abutting the neighbouring properties existing wall and is not considered to pose an undue impact on the adjoining neighbouring property.

Outdoor Living Areas

Unit B, C and D propose outdoor living areas that do not meet the minimum dimension of 4 metres by 4 metres in accordance with the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes. Although the outdoor living areas are capable of use in conjunction from a habitable room, the total area provided is considered to limit the enjoyment and potential of outdoor living pursuits. It is further noted that the outdoor living areas exceed permanent roof cover which provides an impact with regard to dwellings being open to direct sun.

The outdoor living area of Unit B in particular proposes an outdoor living area dimension of 3.7 metres by 3.3 metres, is 100 per cent covered by permanent roof and is partially proposed within the front setback area adjacent the common property driveway. The outdoor living area will not be open to winter sun given the full extent of permanent roof coverage proposed. The lack of open outdoor living areas is not considered to assist with reducing building bulk to the site or cater for attractive settings between buildings and landscaping. The site is considered to be over developed, particularly given the minimal outdoor living areas proposed for each unit with due regard to the nil setbacks proposed from each individual unit and the minimal setbacks proposed to the north and eastern lot boundaries. The minimal open space between each individual unit provides limited means of capturing winter sun for the outdoor living areas and habitable spaces of the dwellings. The site is considered to provide significant opportunity in achieving access to natural sunlight for the dwellings and is therefore considered to not contribute in providing an attractive setting for the units proposed.

Site Works and Retaining Walls

The development proposes excavation of up to 0.686 metres within Lot C. This is to provide a consistent finished floor level within the dwelling and to the outdoor living area. The excavation will reduce the building height of unit C. A retaining wall is proposed on the eastern lot boundary at a height of 0.548 metres at its maximum height before tapering down as the site becomes level with the neighbouring property. The retaining wall is required to support the proposed different ground levels between the subject property and the neighbouring property. The proposed site works and retaining wall are not considered to pose an undue impact on the locality.

Conclusion

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to street setback, lot boundary setback, outdoor living area, site works and retaining walls for this development. The proposed street setback in conjunction with the double storey walls are considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and streetscape. It is considered that the departures to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks further contribute to the impact of building bulk and scale on the streetscape and adjoining properties. The boundary walls are considered to exacerbate the perception of building bulk and scale both to the streetscape and the adjoining properties and will result in a negative built form outcome and will not positively contribute to Milton Street. The outdoor living area of Unit B impeding within the street setback area will contribute to the perception of building bulk of the development. The development does not satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes or local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and as a result, it is recommended that Council refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the recommendation.