AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

1 May 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Michael Quirk

A/Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 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                                                                             1 May 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             No. 4/190 (Lot: 4; S/P: 56227) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Recreational Facility to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 8

9.2             Nos. 103-107 (Lot: 500; D/P: 53859) Edward Street, Perth - Change of Use from Warehouse to Place of Public Worship and Warehouse. 21

9.3             No. 45/87 (Lot: 45; D/P: 65963) Bulwer Street, Perth - Proposed Amendment to Operating Hours of Previous Approval: Change of Use from Office to Eating House. 45

9.4             No. 34 (Lot: 51; D/P: 2931) Cleaver Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings. 56

9.5             Nos. 120 and 122 (Lot: 2; STR: 9055) Summers Street, Perth - Proposed Four Three-Storey Grouped Dwellings. 115

9.6             No. 18 (Lot: 80; D/P: 2334) Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreational Facility. 147

9.7             No. 48 (Lot: 66; D/P: 6049) Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Five Grouped Dwellings  176

9.8             Submission on WALGA Draft Climate Change Policy Statement 234

9.9             Amendment to Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas. 285

9.10           Outcomes of Advertising - Town Centre Place Plans. 384

9.11           LATE REPORT: Extension to Public Alfresco Permit Timeframe – Leederville Town Centre. 494

10        Engineering. 497

Nil

11        Corporate Services. 498

11.1           Financial Statements as at 31 March 2018. 498

11.2           Investment Report as at 31 March 2018. 582

11.3           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 March 2018 to  31 March 2018. 592

12        Community Engagement 610

12.1           Asset Disposal - Vincent Community Bus. 610

13        Chief Executive Officer 617

13.1           Information Bulletin. 617

13.2           Australasian Management Challenge Final 2018. 666

13.3           Resignation of Chief Executive Officer 668

14        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 674

Nil

15        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 674

Nil

16        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 674

17        Urgent Business. 674

Nil

18        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 675

18.1           Review of Policy No. 4.2.13 - Design Advisory Committee and Appointment of Design Review Panel 675

19        Closure. 676

 

 


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

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

5.1          Petition received from Ms G Box of Alma Road, North Perth, along with 42 signatories, on behalf of residents of North Perth residential streets, requesting that:

 

Council addresses volume and speed on Alfonso, Alma (west of Leake), Camelia, Claverton, Persimmon, Sekem Place and Vine Streets and engages with residents to develop acceptable measures to make these streets safe and more liveable; and

the measures developed are included in the next Council Budget round.

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 4 April 2018

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9            Development Services

9.1          No. 4/190 (Lot: 4; S/P: 56227) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Recreational Facility to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/23721

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   2 – Mount Hawthorn Centre

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

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 Recreational Facility to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) at No. 4/190 (Lot: 4; D/P: 56227) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans included 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 ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ 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       The hours of operation for the ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ shall be limited to the following times:

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

·       8:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

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

·       Closed Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day; and

 

1.4       This approval for the use of the premise as an Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) is limited to a period of 12 months from the date of this approval;

2.       Car Parking and Access

2.1       Within 90 days of the date of this approval, two class three bicycle bays shall be provided at the applicants cost within the Scarborough Beach Road verge immediately adjacent to the subject site in a location to the City’s satisfaction. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and all works shall be undertaken to the City’s specification and satisfaction; and

2.2       A Parking Management Plan shall be provided within 28 days of the date of this approval. The Parking Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements and be to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Interactive Frontage

The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the ‘Reception’ areas of the development and Scarborough Beach Road 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 Scarborough Beach Road are not permitted to be used during the hours of operation; and

4.       General

Where conditions 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 Recreational Facility to Unlisted Use (Non‑Medical Consulting Rooms) at No. 4/190 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

Proposal:

The application proposes to change the use of the subject site from Recreational Facility to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) for the purposes of massage therapy. The application proposes two consultants and the following operating hours:

 

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

·       Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm;

·       Sunday: 11:00am to 5:00pm; and

·       Public Holidays – Closed.

 

Minor modifications to the external façade are also proposed.

Background:

Landowner:

Sasson Saddick, Ruth Saddick

Applicant:

Aaron Yong

Date of Application:

3 November 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Commercial

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Recreational Facilities

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms)

Lot Area:

1306m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Matlock Street in Mount Hawthorn, as shown in Attachment 1. The site is located on the fringe of the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre. The area is characterised by a mix of developments including residential dwellings, shops, eating houses, offices and consulting rooms. The site comprises of a three-storey mixed use building with seven commercial tenancies located on the ground level and nine multiple dwellings located on the upper levels.

 

The site is currently approved as a Recreational Facility for the purposes of providing personal training services. The Recreational Facility operated with a maximum of eight persons on the site at any one time. This includes two employees and six customers. The approved hours of operation are 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 5:00pm on Saturdays.

 

The subject site and surrounding properties to the east, west and south are zoned ‘Commercial’ under the Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the land located to the north is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of R30. The zoning of the subject site will not change under the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), however the zoning of the adjacent property to the east will change from ‘Commercial’ to ‘District Centre’.

 

This application proposes to change the use of the site from ‘Recreational Facility’ to ‘Non-Medical Consulting Room.’ The business will offer massage services by qualified consultants, which does not align with the definition of Consulting Rooms under the TPS1. The services offered do not relate to the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments, and as a result are not considered to meet the definition of Consulting Rooms under TPS1.

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms defines ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ as:

 

“any building or part thereof used in the practice of a qualified beauty technician, touch therapist, natural massage therapist or the like”.

 

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

 

The application proposes an internal fit out of the subject site and modifications to the external façade. The development will comprise of three consulting rooms, which will be serviced by two consultants. Two of the consulting rooms will be used as treatment rooms and the third will used for consultations and administration. The proposed hours of operation are:

 

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

·       Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm;

·       Sunday: 11:00am to 5:00pm; and

·       Public Holidays – Closed.

 

The applicant’s development application 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. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements. 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

Operating Hours

ü

 

Car Parking

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

 

ü

12 month development approval time limit

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

 

 

Non-Medical Consulting Rooms – Unlisted Use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

1.86 car bays (based on standard for ‘Shop’ given the proposal meets this definition under LPS2)

 

 

 

1 car bay

Bicycle Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

1.95 Class 3 bicycle bays

 

 

 

0 Class 3 bicycle bays

 

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:

Consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 30 January 2018 until 19 February 2018. In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, a notice was placed in the local newspaper and 62 letters were sent to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1. There were no submissions received during this advertising period.

 

Following the initial advertising, the applicant amended the development application to increase the number of consultants from one to two. The increase in consultants resulted in a car parking shortfall and the application was readvertised from 14 March 2018 until 27 March 2018. The advertising method included 62 letters being sent to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1. There were no submissions received during this advertising period, however the City received one submission objecting following the conclusion of advertising. The submission did not provide details of the nature of the objections.

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. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements.

 

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.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 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.  LPS2 includes the following new objectives for the Commercial zone:

 

“Commercial –

 

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”.

 

Generally LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. Under the LPS2, the proposal would fall under the land use definition of a ‘Shop,’ which is defined as the following:

 

“shop means premises used to sell goods by retail, hire goods, or provide services of a personal nature (including a hairdresser, or beauty therapist) but does not include a showroom or fast food outlet”.

 

A ‘Shop’ is indicated as a “P” use within the Commercial zone under LPS2. Development Approval is not required for a change of use to a “P” use where the use complies with applicable development standards. As the proposal does not comply with the City’s Parking Standards the application would also require development approval under LPS2.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for an “Unlisted Use” which under the City’s TPS1 requires an Absolute Majority decision.

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 use cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ in TPS1 and is therefore considered an Unlisted Use. The subject site and adjoining properties along Scarborough Beach Road are zoned Commercial, which is not contemplated to change under LPS2. Under LPS2, the development would be considered a ‘Shop,’ which is a permitted use within the Commercial zone.

 

The development proposes three consulting rooms with two consultants, and will operate by appointment only. Two of the consulting rooms will be used for massage services and the third will be used for sit down consultations and administration. The proposed number of consultants is considered to be reasonable for the number of rooms. The development meets the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms with respect to accredited qualifications of employees and operating hours. The proposed use is also considered to be a compatible use within the subject site and surrounding area, which contains numerous commercial tenancies.

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms requires development approvals for Non-Medical Consulting Rooms to have an approval period of 12 months. As such, it is recommended that a condition limiting the approval period to 12 months is included on the development approval.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

The development requires a total of 1.86 car parking bays under the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements. A total of one car bay is available on-site for the exclusive use of the tenancy. In addition to two visitor bays which are available for all tenancies and residences on the site. Given the tenancy only has exclusive access to one bay, the technical shortfall for the proposed development is 0.86 car parking bays.

 

The site is currently approved as Recreational Facility with a maximum of two employees and six customers on site at any one time. This proposal incorporates a maximum of two staff, both qualified massage therapists, and will have no more than two customers being treated at any one time. As a result, the proposed use is considered to be a less intensive use than the currently approved Recreational Facility.

 

The car parking on site is proposed to be available for the exclusive use of customers only. The applicant has highlighted that the staff will be commuting via public transport. This effectively creates one dedicated customer parking bay for the development, along with the two visitor parking bays that exist for the building that customers will also be able to use. Given the business will operate by appointment only, the parking provided on site is considered to be sufficient, subject to a parking a management plan being provided which requires the tenancies single car bay to be made available for customers at all times during operating hours.

 

It should be noted that the subject site is located within an established mixed-use building, which provides seven enclosed long term bicycle bays and shower facilities for the use of the commercial tenancies. There are currently no short term bicycle racks located on the subject site and the applicant has not proposed any additional bicycle parking despite the City’s Parking Policy setting a deemed-to-comply standard of two short term bicycle bays for this application. Given the development has a shortfall of car parking, it is not considered appropriate to waive the bicycle parking requirements with adequate room available on the footpath at the front of the site for a single U-rail, which would provide two short term bicycle parking facilities. As such a condition of the development approval is recommended requiring the installation of the required facilities prior to the commencement of the use.

 

Given it is recommended that the development be approved for an initial 12 month time period only and that the parking is considered to be adequate for the site, noting the additional end-of-trip facilities and long term bicycle parking provided within the building, the short term bicycle parking requirement and the Parking Management Plan requirements, it is not considered appropriate to charge cash-in-lieu for the car parking shortfall as part of a temporary approval. The parking and cash-in-lieu requirements will again be assessed if the applicant choses to apply for permanent use of the site following this temporary 12 month approval. An advice note is recommended to notify the applicant that the requirement for cash-in-lieu will be considered at such time, should they seek permanent approval.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed land use is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the immediate locality and will contribute to the commercial development along Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn. In light of this, it is recommended that the development be approved subject to conditions relating to the provisions a Parking Management Plan, bicycle parking and a 12 month approval period.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.2          Nos. 103-107 (Lot: 500; D/P: 53859) Edward Street, Perth - Change of Use from Warehouse to Place of Public Worship and Warehouse

TRIM Ref:                  D18/23831

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   13 – Beaufort

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

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Parking Survey

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 development approval for a Change of Use from Warehouse to Place of Public Worship and Warehouse at Nos. 103-107 (Lot: 500; D/P: 53859) Edward Street, Perth, in accordance with the plans shown as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1       This approval for use of the premises as a Place of Public Worship is limited to a period of 5 years from the date of the approval;

1.2       The number of persons attending the Place of Public Worship at any one time shall be limited to the following:

1.2.1     The ‘Office’ area as depicted on the approved plans shall be limited to a maximum of nine persons;

1.2.2     Any ‘bible study, prayer group or home group’ or other meetings held on the subject site shall be limited to a maximum of 15 persons; and

1.2.3     The ‘Sunday church service’ shall be limited to a maximum 80 persons;

1.3       The operating hours of the Place of Public Worship shall be limited to the following:

1.3.1     Office – Tuesday to Friday from 9:30am to 4:00pm;

1.3.2     Warehouse – Monday to Friday from 9:30am to 4:00pm;

1.3.3     Bible study, prayer group and home group meetings – Thursday from 4:00pm to 9:30pm;

1.3.4     Church Service – Sunday from 9:00am to 12:30pm; and

1.3.5     Closed – Monday and Saturday;

2.       Interactive Frontage

The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the use of the development and Edward 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 from Edward Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the developments operation unless church is in service;

3.       Management Plan

3.1       Prior to the commencement of the Place of Worship use, a Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The Management Plan shall address noise, traffic/car parking, and anti-social behaviour to the satisfaction of the City;

3.2       The Management Plan shall be reviewed every 12 months, with any changes identified during this review or by the City, being incorporated into an updated Management Plan approved by the City as part of the review; and

3.3       All requirements of the Management Plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City;

4.       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 where practicable from adjoining buildings;

5.       Bicycle Bays

A plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development detailing the location on-site of a minimum of four long term and two short term bicycle bays. The bicycle bays shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of use of the development and thereafter;

6.       Waste Management

A plan indicating the location of a bin store of sufficient size and suitably accessible to accommodate the City’s maximum bin requirement to the satisfaction of the City shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The bin store shall be provided in accordance with the plan approved by the City prior to the occupation or use of the development and to the satisfaction of the City;

7.       Acoustic Report

7.1       An Acoustic Report, in accordance with the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation and to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. 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 commencement of the development; and

7.2       Certification from an acoustic consultant shall be provided to the City that the recommended measures identified in the approved Acoustic Report have been undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use 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 Change of Use from Warehouse to Place of Public Worship at Nos. 103-107 Edward Street, Perth (the subject site).

 

proposal

The application proposes to change the land use at Nos. 103-107 Edward Street, Perth from Warehouse to Place of Public Worship/Warehouse. The application proposes the following activities for Place of Public Worship:

 

·       Office – Tuesday to Friday from 9:30am to 4:00pm;

·       Bible study, prayer group and home group meetings – Thursdays from 4:00pm to 9:30pm;

·       Church Service – Sunday from 9:00am to 12:30pm; and

·       Closed – Monday.

Background:

Landowner:

Trevian Nominees Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Eagles Communicare Ltd

Date of Application:

25 January 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential Commercial          R Code: R80

LPS2:    Zone: Mixed Use                             R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use

Existing Land Use:

Warehouse

Proposed Use Class:

Place of Public Worship – AA

Warehouse – SA

Lot Area:

1,371m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Edward Street and Matson Lane at Nos. 103-107 Edward Street, Perth. The site is occupied by a single building with three tenancies, as shown in the location map included as Attachment 1. The site was previously operating as a Warehouse with incidental office for the storage of data products and accessories. The City was unable to obtain any records of when the site was originally approved or constructed.

 

The site is bound by Edward Street to the north, Matson Lane to the east, a warehouse to the south and a non-medical consulting room to the west. On the opposite side of Edward Street is an office, non-medical consulting room and grouped dwellings. On the opposite side of Matson Lane is an office. The subject site and the surrounding area are zoned ‘Residential/Commercial’ with a density code of R80 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). The City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) retains the Mixed Use zoning and density coding of R80.

 

The subject site comprises of three tenancies, which are currently vacant, however previously operated as a Warehouse with ancillary Office. This application proposes to change the use of the building to ‘Place of Public Worship’ and Warehouse with incidental office. The Warehouse component of the building will be used by Eagles Communicare (the applicant) to store goods of a bulky nature for local charity shops. No customers will be coming to the subject site to collect stored items. The items will be delivered of distributed by appointment only. The incidental Office component will allow for administrative services associated with the storage of goods on the site and the on-site Place of Public Worship to occur. A maximum of nine persons will attend the office at any one time.

 

The applicant previously lodged an application for development approval for a change of use from Showroom and Office to Place of Public Worship and Office at Nos. 84-92 Parry Street, Perth. The Council granted conditional approval for the development at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 September 2017 (Item 9.7). Condition 1 of the development approval limited the approval period to five years. The applicant was unable to secure the lease for this property and has lodged this subsequent application.

 

The Place of Public Worship will host group meetings and church services within tenancy three. The group meetings include bible study, prayer meetings and home group meetings. The home group meetings are a social gathering for arranged activities such as movie nights. The meetings are open to the public and do not service a specific demographic. A summary of the operating hours of the Place of Public Worship and expected number of attendees is as follows:

 

Office/Warehouse

·       Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday 9:30am to 4:00pm

·       Maximum 9 persons

 

Group Meetings (bible study, home group, prayer group)

·       Thursday 5:15pm to 9:30pm

·       Maximum 15 persons including staff

 

Church Services

·       Sunday 9:00am – 12:30pm

·       Maximum 80 persons including staff.

 

The Place of Public Worship is proposed to operate at alternative times to the Warehouse and the ancillary Office. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and management plan is included as 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) and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements.  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

Bicycle Facilities

 

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

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

“P” Use

 

 

Place of Public Worship – “AA” Use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

22.55 car bays

 

 

 

9 car bays (shortfall of 13.55 car bays)

Bicycle Parking

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

2 short term and 4 long term bicycle bays

 

 

 

Nil.

 

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 on the proposal was undertaken for a period of 14 days from 12 February 2018 to 25 February 2018. The method of consultation being 18 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers adjacent to the site, as shown in Attachment 1, and publishing the proposal on the City’s website, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

One submission was received by the City during the community consultation. The submission objected to the proposal and raised the following concerns:

 

·       Inadequate car parking; and

·       Noise impact on surrounding residential and commercial properties.

 

Administration’s response to each issue is contained in Attachment 4.

 

The community consultation advertised a car parking requirement of 10.24 car parking bays, which was representative of the car parking requirement for the Place of Public Worship at its peak intensity on Sunday only. The requirements for the Warehouse component were not included as there is no car parking shortfall within the proposed hours of operation of the Warehouse which will not operate during the peak demand period for the Place of Public Worship.

 

It should be noted that the consultation carried out for the previous development application lodged by Eagles Communicare Ltd for a Place of Public Worship at a different property in the area, Nos. 84-92 Parry Street, Perth, included letters being sent to all owners and occupiers within a broader area bound by Brewer Street, Lord Street, Newcastle Street and Pier Street.

 

Given that this site falls within the same precinct, the submissions received as part of this previous application were taken into account as part of the assessment of this application along with the submissions received from the adjacent owners and occupiers as part of the public consultation undertaken.

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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements.

 

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.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 4 April 2018 the Acting Minister for Planning endorsed 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.

 

LPS2 does not change the zoning or density of the site. LPS2 does include the following new objectives for the Mixed Use zone (previous the Residential/Commercial zone):

 

·       To provide for a wide variety of active uses on street level which are compatible with residential and other non-active uses on upper levels.

·       To allow for the development of a mixed of varied but compatible land uses such as housing, offices, showrooms, amusement centres, eating establishments and appropriate industrial activities which do not generate nuisances detrimental to the amenity of the district or to the health, welfare and safety of its residents.

·       To provide for a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial development.

·       To promote residential use as a vital an integral component of these mixed use zones

·       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.

·       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.

 

The land use permissibility for a ‘Place of Public Worship’ will be retained as a discretionary use under the LPS2 and requires Council to exercise discretion when approving the use.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as ‘Place of Public Worship’ is classified as a Category 2 application which is required to be referred to Council for determination.

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 and surrounding area is zoned Residential/Commercial R80 under the TPS1, which will not change under LPS2. The proposed Place of Public Worship is a discretionary use under both the TPS1 and LPS2. LPS2 sets out objectives to guide development within the Mixed Use zone (previously Residential/Commercial zone). The proposal is considered to be consistent with these objectives, which envisages a compatible mix of residential and commercial development within the locality. The area is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses exist on the opposite side of Parry Street, with the rest of the area commercial in nature. This includes warehouse, offices and a non-medical consulting room that immediately adjoins the subject site, as well as predominantly offices and showrooms in the broader area. The proposed Place of Public Worship is considered to be compatible with these existing commercial and residential uses and the objectives of the Mixed Use zone under LPS2.

 

Noise

 

The submission received during the community consultation raised concerns relating to the noise impact of the use on the surrounding residential and commercial properties. The hours proposed by the applicant are considered appropriate to minimise the impact of any noise on nearby residential properties. It is also noted that the stage of the auditorium is setback at the rear of the property, which is approximately 50 metres from the Edward Street properties. The management plan included with the application outlines that no attendees will be permitted to mingle or gather in front of the building or on Edward Street during the Sunday church services, which will reduce the impact of incidental noise by patrons.

 

The proposal will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and in order to ensure this occurs a condition is recommended requiring an acoustic report to be prepared and for any required measured to be implemented prior to the commencement of development. This could include requiring access to the Place of Public Worship for the Sunday Service from the adjoining right-of-way, rather than Edward Street, which will minimise the impact of noise on the residential properties. There is also opportunity for the management plan to be further developed to include management of patrons before and after attendance at activities on the site and to address anti-social behaviour. This is consistent with the previous approval issued by Council for the Eagles Communicare Ltd Place of Public Worship.

 

Parking

 

The development requires a total of 22.55 car parking bays resulting in a shortfall of 13.55 bays. It must be noted these car parking requirements are collective requirements for all uses on the site and they do not take into account the predominant uses operate at alternative times. The Warehouse component of the proposal requires 6.55 car bays and the Place of Public Worship requires 16 car bays. The Warehouse is not proposed to operate at the time of the Place of Public Worship. The office, which is ancillary to the Warehouse and Place of Public Worship is not proposed to operate at the time of the Place of Public Worship services. The table below outlines the parking requirements for the individual uses at their respective operating times:

 

Hours of Operation

Use

Parking Requirement

Comment

Tuesday – Friday

9:30am – 4:30pm

Warehouse/Office component of Place of Public Worship only

6.55 car bays

2 car bay surplus

Thursday

5:15 – 9:30pm

Place of Public Worship only

3 car bays

6 car bay surplus

Sunday

9:00am – 12:30pm

Place of Public Worship only

16 car bays

7 car bay shortfall

 

The applicant has provided a car parking management plan and a car parking survey, which are contained in Attachment 3 and Attachment 5 respectively.  The management plan indicates that approximately thirty-percent of the persons attending the Sunday church services will travel by public transport or walk. The parking survey prepared by the applicant indicates 32 of the 33 car bays located on Edward Street were unoccupied on Sunday morning 11 March 2018 during the proposed operating hours. In addition, it stated that 14 on-street car bays were unoccupied during the proposed operating time between 5:15pm – 6:30pm and 29 on-street car bays were unoccupied during the proposed operating time between 7:00pm – 9:30pm. The car parking provided on site is considered sufficient to cater for both the Warehouse and Place of Public Worship during the proposed operating hours Monday – Friday.

 

The Warehouse component of the development will operate between the hours of 9:30am to 4:00pm Tuesday to Friday, and the Place of Public Workshop will operate on Thursdays between the hours of 5:15pm to 9:30pm and Sundays between 9:00am to 12:30pm.  The nine on-site car bays are sufficient to cater for the car parking demand of the development during operations of the Warehouse, where a maximum of nine persons will be on site, and for the Thursday evening operation for the Place of Worship will there will be a maximum of 15 persons. The peak demand for car parking will occur during the Sunday morning church service from 9:00am to 12:30pm where 16 car parking bays are required, resulting in a shortfall of seven bays.

 

In response to the applicant’s car parking survey identifying the availability of sufficient on-street parking, Administration undertook its own observations to verify the information submitted by the applicant. These observations were undertaken on Sunday 1 April at 10:30am and Sunday 8 April at 9:00am and 11:00am and found the maximum occupancy of the on-street car parking was 25 percent of the car bays located on Edward Street on 1 April. The on-street parking was 100 per cent unoccupied on 8 April.  Administration notes the on-street car bays located on Edward Street only have a time limited parking restrictions from Monday to Saturday and are unrestricted on Sundays. Furthermore, the subject site is located 550 metres from the Claisebrook Train Station and 130 metres from the Lord Street high frequency bus route.

 

Administration considers that the car parking shortfall is appropriate given that the one activity, the Sunday Church Service, which is reliant upon on-street parking operates during off peak parking times when there is sufficient on-street parking available. It is noted that the intensity of development in this area will increase over time due to the R80 density coding. As a result, it is recommended that a condition requiring a parking management plan to be developed and reviewed every 12 months and limiting the approval period to five years be imposed. This will allow the City to understand if the car parking shortfall will become an issue in the future when redevelopment occurs. It is noted that there have been no major developments recently approved for the area and should any proposal be received that the time required to obtain the necessary planning and building statutory approvals, complete the construction and enable the development to establish that a period of five years could lapse before any impact could be evaluated. Based on this methodology it is recommended that a condition with a limited time period of five years be imposed.

 

In relation to bicycle parking, it is recommended as a condition of approval be imposed requiring the development provide four long term bicycle facilities and one short term bicycle rack in accordance requirements of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Car Parking.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate use for the site, given the mixed use character of the area, and the re-use of the existing building. The development proposes a high intensity use of the site on Sunday morning at the same time as the lowest intensity use of the on-street parking along Edward Street. These times are ‘off‑peak’ when most of the businesses in the area are not in operation and does not overlap with any residential parking. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.3          No. 45/87 (Lot: 45; D/P: 65963) Bulwer Street, Perth - Proposed Amendment to Operating Hours of Previous Approval: Change of Use from Office to Eating House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/23804

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   13 – Beaufort

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Application Approval  

 

 

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 5.2015.350.1 for Change of Use from Office to Eating House at No. 45/87 (Lot: 45; D/P: 65963) Bulwer Street, Perth, granted on 17 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1.       All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2015.350.1 granted on 17 November 2017 continue to apply to this approval, with exception of Condition 1 which is amended to read as follows:

“The Eating House is only permitted to operate between the following hours:

 

7:00am to 10:00pm Monday – Sunday

 

2.       A Venue Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the City shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the Eating House operating during the additional hours approved in this amendment. The Venue Management Plan will outline how the development will operate and manage noise during the approved trading hours. The premises shall operate in accordance with the approved Venue Management Plan and

3.       Acoustic Report

An Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the City, which accords with the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. All of the recommended measures included in the approved Acoustic Report shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development, to the satisfaction of the City.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend the operating hours the development approval for change of use from Office to Eating House at No. 45/87 Bulwer Street, Perth.

Proposal:

The application proposed to amend the operating hours set by the existing development approval from 7:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Sunday and closed public holidays, to 7:00am to 12:00am Monday to Sunday and open on public holidays.

Background:

Landowner:

Kien Ngo

Applicant:

Andy Ngo

Date of Application:

1 February 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential Commercial          R Code: R80

LPS2:    Zone: Mixed Use                             R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use

Existing Land Use:

Eating House

Proposed Use Class:

Eating House

Lot Area:

1,404m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 45/87 Bulwer Street, Perth, which comprises of a five-storey mixed-use building, as shown in the location plan included as Attachment 1. The site has two commercial tenancies located on the ground floor and 44 Multiple Dwellings located on the upper four floors of the building.

 

The site adjoins a Restricted Premises to the east and an Eating House to the west. A Service Station is located to the north on the opposite side of Brewer Street, and Grouped Dwellings are located to the south on the opposite site of Greenway Street.

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential/Commercial’ with a density code of R80 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). The zoning of the subject site will not change under the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Approval was granted for the subject site by Development Assessment Panel in April 2013 for the construction of 44 Multiple Dwellings and three Offices. An application to change the use of the subject site from ‘Office’ to ‘Eating House’ was approved by Council on 17 November 2015. Condition 1 of the development approval limited the hours of operation to those hours applied for by the applicant at the time, being the following:

 

·       Monday to Sunday 7:00am to 5:00pm; and

·       Closed on Public Holidays.

 

A copy of this approval is provided in Attachment 2. The development has been operating as an Eating House since being approved by Council. The City has undertaken a site inspection and confirmed the development has complied with all the conditions of development approval. The City has no record of receiving any complaints regarding the development.

 

On 1 February 2018, the City received an application to amend condition one of the exiting development approval to extend the operating hours of the Eating House to 7:00am – 12:00am Monday to Sunday.

Detailed Assessment

Details

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. 7.7.1 – 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

Operating Hours

ü

 

 

The land use permissibility has previously been approved by Council and is discussed in more detail in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation on the proposal occurred for a period of 14 days from 24 February 2018 to 10 March 2018. The method of consultation involved a notification being placed in the Perth Voice newspaper and 87 letters being mailed out to all owners and occupiers adjacent to the site, as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

One submission was received during advertising in support of the application and one submission was received objecting to the application. The submission received objecting to the application did not provide specific details of the nature of the objection.

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. 7.5.7 – Licenced Premises; and

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation.

 

The application to amend the aforementioned condition of development approval has been made in accordance with Clause 77(1)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which enables an application to be made requesting a local government to amend or delete any condition to which a development approval is subject.

 

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.

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 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.

 

LPS2 includes the following objectives for the Mixed Use zone:

 

i.        To provide for a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial development;

ii.       To promote residential use as a vital and integral component of these mixed use zones;

iii.      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; and

iv.      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.

The modified version of LPS2 does not change the zoning of the subject site and would also require the use to be advertised before Council can exercise its discretion and determine the use. The application has been advertised in accordance with the requirements of both TPS1 and LPS2.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to amend an application previously 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:

The subject tenancy was originally approved as an Office as part of the development approval for the five-storey mixed use development. An acoustic report was provided for the original development approval for the Office. Council granted approval for a change of use from an Office to an Eating House on 17 November 2015. No acoustic reporting was required as part of the approval for an Eating House. However, condition 1 of the development approval limited the hours of operation to 7:00am to 5:00pm and condition 2 limited the maximum number of patrons to 20.

 

The applicant seeks to amend condition 1 of the development approval to extend the trading hours to 7:00am – 12:00am Monday to Sunday and to allow the eating house to operate on public holidays. The City’s Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licenced Premises does not restrict the operating hours of eating houses and on this basis it is considered appropriate for the premise to operate on public holidays.

 

The subject tenancy is located on the ground floor of a mixed-use building with multiple dwellings located directly above. The site is located in a mixed use area containing offices, services station, eating houses and shops. The service station is located adjacent to the subject site and operates on a 24 hour basis. The eating house is located on the site adjoining the subject site and operates until 10:00pm. The remaining offices and shops within the area generally operate during business hours.

 

The subject site has been operating as an Eating House since being approved by Council. The City has no records of any complaints being received in relation to the use of the premise as an Eating house. The City has undertaken a site inspection confirming all the conditions of the current development approval have been satisfied. The applicant has not provided an acoustic report as part of the development application, however, the City notes that the original development did not provide acoustic treatments between the ground floor tenancy and the apartments above.

 

The development will be required to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, which require stricter acoustic requirements after 10:00pm. Given the close proximity of the eating house to the above residential dwellings and the lack of acoustic treatment between the ground floor tenancy and apartment’s above, it is not considered appropriate to support the trading hours beyond 10:00pm at this point. On this basis, it is recommended that the application to amend condition one of the development approval be approved on the condition that the hours of operation are limited to the following:

 

·       7:00am to 10:00pm Monday – Sunday.

 

To ensure the potential impact of noise is mitigated, an acoustic report is recommended to be provided as a condition of development approval. The development will be required to comply with all requirements of the acoustic report. A venue management plan is also recommended to be provided as a condition of approval. The venue management plan will outline how the development will operate and manage noise as outlined in the acoustic report in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and to the satisfaction of the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.4          No. 34 (Lot: 51; D/P: 2931) Cleaver Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D18/42440

Author:                     Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   5 – Cleaver

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Initial Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicant's Justification and Comments

4.       Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions and Administration's Comments

5.       Attachment 5 - Schedule of Submissions and Applicant's Response

6.       Attachment 6 - Proposed Development Plans

7.       Attachment 7 - Proposed Development Perspectives

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 application for the proposed Four Grouped Dwellings at No. 34 Cleaver Street (Lot: 51; D/P: 2931) Cleaver Street, West Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 6, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 8:

1.       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 wall 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.       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, to the satisfaction of the City, 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;

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.       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;

6.       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;

7.       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 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City;

8.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

8.1       A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge, to the satisfaction of the City, shall 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 19 per cent of the site area as deep soil zones and 35 per cent canopy cover at maturity; and

8.2       All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 8.1 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;

9.       Car Parking and Access

9.1       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;

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

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

10.     Right of Way Widening

10.1      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;

10.2      The 0.5 metre right of way setback area shall be sealed, drained and graded to match into the level of the existing right of way; and

10.3      The 0.5 metre right of way setback area referred to in condition 10.1 above, is to be ceded free of cost to the City on subdivision or amalgamation of the land, including Built Strata subdivision; and

11.     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 the development of four Grouped Dwellings at No. 34 Cleaver Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of four grouped dwellings, three storey grouped dwellings. Two of the dwellings gain access to a double garage from the rear right-of-way and two of the dwellings gain access to a single garage and tandem carport from Cleaver Street. The proposal incorporates two car parking bays per unit and no visitor parking bays. In this instance, visitor car parking bays are not required as the proposed units do not share access from a common driveway.

Background:

Landowner:

Mountain Spring Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Site Planning and Design

Date of Application:

6 November 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwellings

Lot Area:

548.91m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, City owned with access rights to the subject site

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Cleaver Street to the west and a right of way (ROW) to the east. The site abuts a single storey dwelling to the north and three, two storey town houses to the south. The site and surrounding area are zoned ‘Residential’ and are characterised by a mix of single and grouped dwelling developments ranging from one to three storeys in height. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The current Residential zoning and density code of R80 is not contemplated to change under draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), the site has been identified a falling within a Residential Built Form Area.

 

On 3 November 2017, the City received a development application seeking approval for the development of four, three storey grouped dwellings at the subject site. The initial development plans that was lodged and advertised is included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s site information and summary supporting the development application is included as 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 Built Form Policy 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

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

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

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.2 of Built Form Policy

 

The average of the five adjoining properties:

8.60m

 

 

Unit 1: 5.15m

Unit 3: 5.69m

Lot Boundary Setbacks and Walls Built on Boundary

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

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

 

North

 

Unit 2:

Level 1: 1.6m

Level 2: 2.0m

 

 

 

North

 

Unit 2:

Level 1: 1.0m

Level 2: 1.0m

South

 

Unit 3:

Level 1: 2.0m

Level 2: 2.6m

 

Unit 4:

Level 1: 1.6m

Level 2: 2.0m

 

South

 

Unit 3:

Level 1: 1.5m

Level 2: 1.5m

 

Unit 4:

Level 1: 1.0m

Level 2: 1.0m

Walls Built on Boundary

 

Maximum length: 24.46m

Maximum height: 3.50m

Average height: 3.00m

Walls Built on Boundary 

 

North

 

Unit 1 and 2:

Total length: 26.10m

 

Maximum height: 8.70m (unit 1)

Average height: 6.05m

 

South

Unit 4:

Average height: 3.20m

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.2 of the R-Codes

 

The street setback area developed without car parking, except for visitors’ bays, and with a maximum of 50% hard surface.

 

 

Carports for residents proposed in front setback area. 53% hard surface in the front setback area.

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.5 of the R-Codes

 

Access to on-site car parking to be provided from the right of way.

 

 

Access for units 1 and 3 from the 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 4 December 2017 to 17 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. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, eleven submissions were received by the City comprising of eight objections, one raising concerns and two supporting the proposal. The main issues raised as part of the consultation relate to:

 

·       Excess bulk due to the proposed three storey boundary wall and lack of articulation between the first and second floors;

·       The reduced street setback will result in excess bulk onto the streetscape; and

·       Concerns raised regarding the garages and carports facing onto Cleaver Street.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each is included as Attachment 4. The applicant has also provided responses to the submissions received and this is included as Attachment 5.

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 on 19 December 2017. The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 

·       The design has split the group dwellings into two modules – by creating the courtyard space between the modules it reduces the bulk and mass to the adjoining lots.

·       The proposed development will not have a negative impact on the street, however the impact on the laneway needs further consideration. The applicant should show greater context of the current built form east of the laneway.

·       Materials are limited and are appropriate for a group dwelling.

 

Subsequently, the applicant lodged amended plans on 23 January to address the above comments. Administration was not satisfied with the amended plans and the applicant requested a meeting with Administration and the DAC Chair. Administration deemed that it was more appropriate to have the proposal considered at a full DAC meeting and this was undertaken on 7 March 2018. The comments received from the DAC can be summarised as follows:

 

·       Consideration should be given to breaking down the scale of the walls to reduce the building bulk and consider material changes to the shape around the separation of the units in the rear façade so as to present two town houses.

·       Consideration should be given to finer traditional grain and colouring in the wall material treatments, including but not limited to standard commons or smaller format masonry. The two course high brick concrete blockwork has a commercial look and feel and does not tie into the remainder of the streetscape.

·       Provision of more detailed landscaping to demonstrate compliance with the City’s landscaping requirements including calculation of soft and hard landscaping and consider planting one tree per courtyard.

 

On 3 April 2018, the applicant lodged modified plans and development perspectives, as shown in Attachment 6 and 7 respectively, to address the comment by the DAC. The modifications included the following:

 

·       Increased front setback to reduce the impact of building bulk onto the streetscape;

·       Smaller format red brick throughout the elevations of the proposed development;

·       At least one large tree in each courtyard;

·       Increased canopy cover in the front setback and increased overall canopy cover across the site of 35 per cent; and

·       Inclusion of open panels to the laneway on the second floor balconies of the rear units to provide for greater articulation.

 

The amended plans provided were considered to satisfy the comments of the DAC and no further referrals 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;

·       R-Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       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 instead issued approval for a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Design WA suite of documents. 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 development is three storeys in height and incorporates four 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

 

The application proposes a primary street setback of 5.15 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard set by the Built Form Policy of 8.60 metres. The 8.60 metre setback is the average for the five adjoining properties on either side of the subject site and has been taken to the dwelling line. This calculation did not include the properties on the corner of Cleaver Street as these properties do not address the street. The five adjoining properties have an average setback 5.00 metres when measured to the building line (any building including garages and carports). The subject site is located along a portion of Cleaver Street which consists of a tree lined streetscape. This portion of Cleaver Street does not incorporate any Heritage Listed properties and is not currently contemplated to form part of a future Character Retention Area.

 

This portion of Cleaver Street is considered to be an area in transition with a number of properties capable of being redeveloped from a single dwelling to a grouped or multiple dwelling development. It is highly likely that the result of the redevelopment will be a reduced front street setback for this section of Cleaver Street. There are a number of established dwellings along Cleaver Street which incorporate a significant street setback which is not consistent with the more recent developments in the street, including those directly opposite the subject site.

 

The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes including elements of render, fine grain small format red brick and timber panels. The incorporation of these materials is considered to reinterpret the existing development style which currently exists in the streetscape. Given this, the design is considered to be sympathetic to the area and 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 3 ensures that there is minimal area of the façade which is left blank.

 

The proposal is compliant with the landscaping requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy and incorporates a number of large trees within the front setback area. The provision of mature trees within the front setback area is considered to provide some screening to the development as well as reduce the perception of building bulk onto the street.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls

 

Northern Boundary

 

The proposal incorporates two boundary walls on the northern boundary which in aggregate have a length of 26.10 metres, a maximum height of 8.70 metres and an average height of 6.07 metres. The maximum height of 8.70 metres is due to the three storey boundary wall of Unit 1. Furthermore, there are some lot boundary setback departures to Unit 2.

 

The proposed wall on the northern boundary is considered to be well articulated with a number of materials to assist in the minimising of the impact on the street and surrounding landowners. This includes small format red brick on the ground floor, a terrace on the second floor, which is screened with timber panels and an opening at the front of the wall on the third floor. As a result the boundary wall is not continuous, which is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk and scale on the adjoining landowners and streetscape. In addition, the existing mature street trees along Cleaver Street will partly screen the boundary wall from the street, further minimising its impact on the streetscape. It is also noted that the landowner adjoining the subject site to the north has submitted a letter of support to the proposal.

 

Southern Boundary

 

The subject site abuts a site which has been developed to incorporate three, two storey grouped dwellings. The 3.2 metre average height, in lieu of 3 metres set by the R-Codes for the boundary wall, is considered appropriate in the context of this adjoining development. As discussed above, the development has been well articulated with a number of materials and textures being incorporated into the elevations. This is considered to significantly reduce the impact of building bulk and scale onto the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed lot boundary setbacks and the southern boundary wall will not impact on the adjoining site in terms of overshadowing due to the design of the development, which incorporates central courtyards. The space created by these courtyards has been designed to ‘line up’ with the outdoor areas of No. 34 Cleaver Street, allowing winter sun to fall directly into these outdoor areas. In addition to the above, the development complies with the deemed-to-comply overshadowing standards of the R-Codes.

 

The upper floors of the development do not incorporate any major openings to the southern boundary. Therefore, there will be no loss of privacy for the adjoining landowners.

 

In light of the above, and given the context of the development it is considered the proposed lot boundary setback and walls built on the boundary are acceptable.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the R-Codes relating to landscaping as the front setback area is proposed to have more than 50 per cent hardstand and incorporates carports for the parking of resident vehicles. The front setback area has been developed with well-designed areas of landscaping, which contributes to the appearance and the amenity of the development for the residents as well as the streetscape. This include space for three large trees to be planted in the front setback area.

 

In addition, the total deep soil zones provided equates to 19 percent of the site area, which exceeds the 15 percent set as a deemed-to-comply standard in the City’s Built Form Policy. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which shows that the proposed tree species are capable of providing 195 square metres of canopy cover which equates to 35 percent of the total site. This also exceeds the 30 percent deemed-to-comply standard set by the City’s Built Form Policy. The proposed landscaping is considered to provide an increased amenity to the area and a sense of open space between the units. A detailed landscaping plan showing irrigated and non-irrigated areas 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. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal is capable of facilitating high quality landscaping which will enhance the appearance of the development and the amenity for residents.

 

Parking and Access

 

The proposal incorporates vehicle access to units 1 and 3 from Cleaver Street as opposed to the right of way, in accordance with Clause 5.3.5 of the R-Codes. Although the development will result in additional crossovers onto Cleaver Street, the proposal has incorporated high quality landscaping in the front setback area to mitigate the visual impact of the crossovers onto the streetscape. The proposed crossovers will provide legible access to units 1 and 3 which front and address Cleaver Street. Pedestrian safety is not considered to be compromised as a result of the crossovers. In light of this, the proposed access is considered appropriate.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed front setback, lot boundary setback and walls built up to the boundary and landscaping. For the reasons outlined in the body of the report, the development is considered to address the Local Housing Objectives and Design Principles of the City’s Built Form Policy and the R-Codes respectively. The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes which are considered to be a reinterpretation of the existing streetscape. The external appearance of the proposal and the materiality incorporated are considered to significantly reduce the perception of building bulk. The proposed development satisfies the City’s Built Form Policy in relation to landscaping by providing 19 per cent and 35 per cent deep soil area and canopy cover respectively. In light of this, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.5          Nos. 120 and 122 (Lot: 2; STR: 9055) Summers Street, Perth - Proposed Four Three-Storey Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D17/116775

Author:                     Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   15 – Banks

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans Initially Lodged

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Proposed 3D Perspectives

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions and Administration's Comments

6.       Attachment 6 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response

7.       Attachment 7 - 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 the proposed Four Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 120 – 122 (Lot: 2; STR: 9055) Summers Street, Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 7:

1.       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;

2.       External Fixtures

2.1       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 screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City; and

2.2       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 shall be completed 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) to the satisfaction of the City 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 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;

6.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

6.1       A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge to the satisfaction of the City 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 15 percent of the site area as deep soil zones and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity; and

6.2       All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 6.1 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;

7.       Visual Privacy

The windows to the living room of Unit 1 and the kitchens of Units 2, 3 and 4 shall be screened or modified to meet the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.4.1 Visual Privacy of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development;

8.       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 areas 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 Managements Plans 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;

9.       Car Parking and Access

9.1       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;

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

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

10.     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 Four Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 120 and 122 Summers Street, Perth (subject site).

Proposal:

The application proposes the development of four three storey grouped dwellings to the rear of two existing single houses at the subject site. The grouped dwellings are proposed to be accessed via a single access leg, which includes tandem parking for the existing dwellings as well as a visitor parking bay that the front. Each dwelling has a single car garage and an adjoining second car parking bay.

Background:

Landowner:

Lesley and Mitchell Thomas

Applicant:

Matthew Andrews

Date of Application:

7 June 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R60

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

1,113m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not applicable

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Summers Street, Perth, between Lord Street and West Parade. There are two existing grouped dwellings on the front portion of the subject site which are proposed to be retained. The site and surrounding area is zoned ‘Residential’ and is characterised by a mix of single and grouped dwelling developments ranging from one to two storeys in height. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

Pursuant to the provisions of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R60. The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) contemplates a change in density to the subject site and surrounding area to R80. In accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the site is located with a Residential Built Form Area and.

 

On 7 June 2017, a development application was submitted to the City for four, three storey grouped dwellings. The development plans initially lodged and subsequently advertised are included as Attachment 2. A number of concerns were raised during the community consultation period. On 20 September 2017, the application was referred to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and was referred for a second time on 22 November 2017.Administration subsequently met with the applicant on a number of occasions to work with them to address the concerns of the surrounding landowners as well as the DAC’s comments to ensure that a positive built form outcome was delivered. On 23 March 2018, the applicant lodged a final set of amended plans and 3D perspective included as Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 respectively and these are the subject of this report.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the TPS1, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) 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

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Privacy

 

ü

Landscaping

 

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 require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R-Codes Clause 5.1.3

 

Unit 1

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Living room: 2.5m

 

 

 

Unit 1

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Living Room: 2.1m

Unit 2

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.8m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 3: 4.3m

 

Unit 2

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.0m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 3: 2.2m

Unit 3

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.8m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 3: 4.3m

 

Unit 3

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.0m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 3: 2.2m

Unit 4

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.5m

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen: 3.1m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 2: 4.9m

Unit 4

 

Eastern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen to powder room: 2.0m

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 1 – Kitchen: 2.1m

 

Level 2 – Bedroom 2: 2.46m

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R-Codes Clause 5.4.1

 

Setback from boundary of certain major openings: 4.5m

Unit 1:

 

Living room: 2.1m

 

 

Unit 2:

 

Kitchen : 2.0m

 

 

Unit 3:

 

Kitchen: 3.0m

 

 

Unit 4:

 

Kitchen: 2.0m

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.2 of the R-Codes

 

The street setback area with a maximum of 50% hard surface.

 

 

The street setback area with 73% hard surface.

 

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 30 August 2017 and concluding on 12 September 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, five submissions were received by the City, two raising concerns, two objecting and one supporting the application.

 

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

 

·       Potential impact of lot boundary setback departures;

·       Loss of the existing vegetation on the subject site; and

·       Potential loss of privacy.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each are 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 application was referred to the DAC on two separate occasions being 20 September 2017 and 22 November 2017. The comments from the DAC’s meeting of 22 November 2017 can be summarised as follows:

 

·       It is considered that the proposal will result in an overdevelopment of the site. The overdevelopment of the subject site will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents and on the streetscape. Overdevelopment has precluded achieving a meaningful improvement to the design;

·       The front façade of the proposed dwellings is dominated by garages; and

·       Landscaping should be increased to achieve the requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

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

 

·       A reduction in the size of the proposed units and increased lot boundary setbacks to accommodate additional landscaping;

·       Modified the materials and finishes of the proposal to incorporate red brick and weatherboards;

·       An amended landscaping plan which proposes 16.3 percent and 12.5 percent deep soil zone and canopy cover respectively; and

·       Modified the garage layout to include a mix of enclosed single garages and open carports with landscaping in between.

 

The plans provided are considered to address the concerns raised by the DAC 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.

 

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 instead issued approval for a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Design WA suite of documents. 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 subject site is proposed to be zoned Residential R80 under LPS2. This is not considered to impact the current application as the proposal has been designed to a R60 standard.

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 and 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:

Lot Boundary Setback and Visual Privacy

 

The proposal incorporates a number of departures from the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks to the eastern boundary. Throughout the community consultation period a number of submissions raised concerns regarding the proposed lot boundary setbacks and resultant overlooking. The amended plans lodged following the consultation period reduced the size of the proposed units and incorporated greater lot boundary setbacks to the western and northern lot boundaries.

 

The locality includes diverse development styles with a number of historic federation style homes as well as a number of contemporary style designs. The revised proposal has been designed to incorporate materials and finishes that a much more sympathetic to the locality than the original design. Furthermore, the proposed elevations have been well articulated and include a number of openings. This is considered to significantly reduce the perception of building bulk and scale of the revised design.

 

The proposed eastern lot boundary setback departures are as a result of major openings which also result in overlooking into the adjacent property. A number of submissions received raised concerns regarding the departures to the visual privacy requirements and the potential loss of a privacy as a direct result. The adjoining property to the east has been developed with four grouped dwellings and aerial photography shows that there are courtyards and outdoor living spaces adjoining the eastern boundary of the subject site. Therefore, it is considered that the visual privacy departure proposed is likely to result in a loss of privacy to the adjoining landowners, which will have a direct impact on the amenity of the adjoining landowners. In light of this, a condition of approval has been recommended to ensure that these major openings are redesigned or screened to protect the visual privacy of the adjoining landowners. Each of these spaces have large windows to the west, which provides adequate light to these spaces and an alternative outlook to the development’s access leg. Given this, it is not considered that the redesign of the windows facing east will have any impact of the amenity of the kitchens or living area of these dwellings.

 

The proposed northern elevation of the development has been well articulated so as to provide breaks within the northern façade. Furthermore, the incorporation of major openings and differing materials further reduces the perception of building bulk onto the adjoining landowner. Although a major opening is proposed to bedroom 2, it is compliant with the visual privacy requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.

 

The orientation of the property will ensure that the resultant overshadowing from the proposed development will fall onto the subject site itself and onto Summers Street on 21 June and is therefore, compliant with Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes relating to solar access for adjoining sites.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed lot boundary setbacks satisfy the design principles and the local housing objectives of the R-Codes and the Built Form Policy respectively.

 

Landscaping

 

In accordance with Clause 5.3.2 of the R-Codes a maximum of 50 percent of the front setback area is permitted to be hardstand. The proposal incorporates 73 percent landscaping within the front setback area. However, the proposal exceeds the deemed-to-comply deep soil areas, with 16.3 percent of the site proposed as deep-soil zone in lieu of the 15 percent deemed-to-comply standard. This allows for significant tree planning to occur in front of the exiting dwellings, with three large trees proposed in this area.

 

The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant does not specify tree species and it is considered that with the correct selection of tree species the proposed development is capable of achieving the 30 percent canopy cover required by the City’s Built Form Policy. In this regard, a condition of approval has been recommended to require a detailed landscaping plan to be provided prior to the commencement of the development and for that plan to show and deliver 30 percent canopy cover.

 

Assessment against R80 Requirements

 

The departures discussed in the Detailed Assessment section of this report have also been assessed against the R80 density code requirements. The lot boundary setback requirements are assessed against Tables 2a and 2b of the R-Codes and therefore, the required setback distances stated in the Detailed Assessment Table apply to both the R60 and R80 density code and will not change. The visual privacy setback requirements do not differ from R60 to R80, as Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes prescribes setbacks for all areas coded higher than R50 and this provision will be applicable in both instances. Similarly, the landscaping provisions of the R-Codes apply to all grouped dwellings and do not differ from R60 to R80. Therefore, it is considered that the departures being sought for this application will not altered in any way upon implementation of the R80 density code.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed lot boundary setbacks, visual privacy and landscaping. The proposal has incorporated a number of materials, finishes and openings that are sympathetic to the existing area and which mitigate the perception of building bulk and scale on the surrounding landowners and existing streetscape. The landscaping proposed meets the deemed-to-comply deep soil zone and canopy coverage standards of the City’s Built Form Policy and are considered appropriate. In order to address the concerns raised by the submitters regarding overlooking, a condition requiring the proposal to comply with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes has been recommended.

 

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. In light of this, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.6          No. 18 (Lot: 80; D/P: 2334) Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreational Facility

TRIM Ref:                  D17/167016

Author:                     Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   7 – Charles Centre

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Proposed Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Car Parking Survey

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions and Administration's Comments

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response

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 development approval for a Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreational Facility at No. 18 (Lot: 80; D/P: 2334) Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth, in accordance with the plans shown as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1       This approval only relates to the Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreational Facility as shown on the plans dated 21 September 2016. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2       The use of the premises shall conform with the City of Vincent’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 definition of Recreational Facility which states:

“Recreational Facilities” means any land or building or part of a building used for:

 

a)       Public tennis courts;

b)      Public or private swimming pools;

c)       Squash courts or centres;

d)      Basketball centres;

e)       Gymnasia;

f)       Ice and roller skating rinks;

g)      Physical health studios; and

h)      Any other similar purpose;

in respect of which a charge is made for the use thereof”;

1.3       A maximum of three staff and 26 patrons are permitted on the site at any one time;

1.4       The business operating from the premises is permitted a maximum of 35 55 members at any one time; and

1.5       The hours of operation for the ‘Recreational Facility’ shall be limited to 5:00am – 10:00pm Monday to Sunday;

2.       Active Frontage

The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the ‘Reception and Class Area’ and Scarborough Beach Road and Sydney 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 Scarborough Beach Road and Sydney Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the developments operation;

3.       Bicycle Parking

3.1       Within 90 days of the date of this approval, a minimum of one long term bicycle bay designed in accordance with AS2890.3 shall to be provided onsite to the City’s satisfaction; and

3.2       Within 90 days of the date of this approval, four short term bicycle bays shall be provided at the applicants cost within the road verge immediately adjacent to the subject site in a location to the City’s satisfaction. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and all works shall be undertaken to the City’s specification and satisfaction;

4.       Parking Management Plan

Within 90 days of the date of this approval, the applicant/landowner shall submit a parking management plan to the City for approval, which details the following to the satisfaction of the City:

·       Sets appropriate requirements for staff to take alternative means of transport to commute to the Recreation Facility; and

·       Measures to be implemented to educate and encourage all staff and members of alternative means of transport to the site including public transport, cycling and walking.

The development shall thereafter comply with the approved parking management plan to the satisfaction of the City; and

5.       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 proposed Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreational Facility at No. 18 Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the approved use of subject site from Warehouse to Recreational Facility to accommodate personal training and small format fitness classes. The application proposes operating hours of 5:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday, 55 memberships with a maximum of 26 patrons at any one time.

Background:

Landowner:

C Fiore Nominees Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Lucas Cox and Michael Colley

Date of Application:

19 September 2016

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Commercial

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use Area

Current Approved Land Use:

Warehouse

Existing Land Use:

Recreational Facility

Proposed Use Class:

Recreational Facility

Lot Area:

475m²

Right of Way (ROW):

None

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Sydney Street, North Perth, approximately 150 metres west of Charles Street. The subject site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Commercial under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). This zoning will not change under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2).

 

The subject site abuts Commercial zoned land to the north, east and south (across Scarborough Beach Road). To the west of the subject site is Sydney Street with Residential zoned land. The area to the north west has been developed with residential developments including single houses and grouped dwellings. Directly to the north is a car park associated with the adjoining Liquorland. To the east are a number of commercial uses including a car wash, funeral parlour and eating houses. The location of the subject site is shown on the plan included as Attachment 1. The lots immediately to the west and to the south west of the subject site are currently zoned Residential with a density code of R60. LPS2 proposes to zone these lots Residential with a density code of R80. No other zoning changes are proposed to occur under LPS2 for the lots surrounding the subject site.

 

On 22 September 2016, the City received a development application for a change of use from Warehouse to Recreation Facility at the subject site. The proposed operating hours are Monday to Sunday: 5:00am to 10:00pm, with a maximum number of 26 patrons permitted at any one time. The plans submitted as part of this application are included as Attachment 2.

 

The proposal was advertised from 6 October 2016 – 19 October 2016. At the conclusion of the advertising period a request for further information was sent to the applicant on 26 October 2016 which was subsequently responded to by the applicant on the same day. The response was not noted by the assessing officer at the time and as a result the application was not progressed further after until 15 June 2017 when the application was allocated to a new assessing officer who followed up on the previous request. The applicant again responded to the same day to advise that this request had already been responded to. Following this the City met with the applicant to discuss the proposal and requested a car parking survey to justify the shortfall of car parking on the site. The applicant was aggrieved by the timeframe for processing the application and stated that the business had commenced operating on the presumption that development approval had been issued.  However, the applicant agreed to provide a car parking survey to justify the shortfall in car parking.  On 30 March 2018, the car parking survey was submitted to the City and this is included as 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) 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 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 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

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

Permitted Use

 

 

Recreational Facility – “AA” Use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

 

Recreational Facility (maximum 26 patrons at any one time): 5.2 car parking bays required

 

 

Nil.

Bicycle Facilities 

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

 

Long term: 1

 

 

Nil.

 

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 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 6 October 2016 to 19 October 2016. The method of community consultation included advertising the proposal on the City’s website and letters sent to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site as shown in 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 five submissions were received of which three raised concerns and two objected to the proposal. The key issues raised from the community consultation related to:

 

·       Lack of on-site car parking; and

·       Concerns regarding the potential impact on surrounding landowners as a result of excessive noise.

 

A summary of submissions and Administration comments on each is provided in Attachment 4. The applicant’s response to the submissions is included 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;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

 

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 has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 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.  LPS2 includes the following new objectives for the Commercial zone:

 

“Commercial –

 

(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 efficient and water conservation.”

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a car parking shortfall of more than five car parking bays under the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

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 Recreational Facility is a discretionary land use under TPS1. The subject site is zoned Commercial which is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent properties. The zoning of the site as well as the adjoining properties will not change in LPS2. The immediate vicinity is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses. The proposed Recreational Facility is considered to be compatible with the existing commercial uses in the surrounding area and the objectives of the Commercial zone under LPS 2, which envisages a compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development.

 

The surrounding context of the subject site comprises of a mixture of land uses including car wash, funeral parlour, eating house, liquor store and grouped and single dwellings. The subject site is bound by Scarborough Beach Road, Sydney Street, a car park and a car wash, which adequately buffers the subject site from the surrounding residential dwellings. The proposal is considered to be low scale with a maximum of staff members and 26 patrons.

 

The operating hours are restricted to 5:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday and are considered appropriate in the locality. The adjoining car wash operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are a number of eating houses surrounding the subject site which operate until 10:00pm and one of which operates 24 hours a day. Therefore, the proposed operating hours are considered to be generally in keeping with the surrounding locality. It is noted that, since the Recreational Facility has commenced operating in 2016, the City has not received any noise complaints relating to this property.

 

Car Parking and Bicycle Facilities

 

The City’s Policy No 7.7.1 – Parking and Access sets a deemed-to-comply standard of 5.2 car parking bays for the subject site as well as one long term bicycle bays. The proposal does not incorporate any car parking bays or bicycle parking, but does incorporate end-of-trip facilities. The subject site has been built out and the building currently on the site occupies the entirety of the site. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the provision of car parking bays on-site.

 

The portion of Scarborough Beach Road abutting the subject site has been developed with on-road cycle lanes on both sides. The pathway abutting the Scarborough Beach Road reserve has been designed as a shared path with the ability for both pedestrians and cyclists to utilise this existing infrastructure. Whilst the development plans submitted do not show any bicycle parking bays, it has been recommended that a condition requiring the provision of long term bicycle parking in accordance with the City’s Parking and Access Policy be imposed on the development approval. Scarborough Beach Road provides a high frequency bus route with direct bus services. The existing provision of cycle facilities and a high frequency bus route is considered to contribute to achieving more active and sustainable transport modes.

 

In order to justify the shortfall of car parking, the applicant has provided a car parking assessment, including an assessment of the on-street car parking available in the immediate vicinity of the site. A total of 22 car parking bays were surveyed within close proximity to the subject site along Scarborough Beach Road and up to the speed hump on Sydney Street. The time periods for the survey are considered to coincide with the peak operating hours of the Recreational Facility. The car parking survey were undertaken while the Recreation Facility was operation and demonstrate that there is a significant surplus in on-street car parking bays at the peak operating times of the development.

 

In light of the above, it is not considered that the proposal will have any negative impact on car parking in the area. As part of the car parking assessment the applicant has mentioned that a number of patrons cycle to the premises and stated that there is capacity for four short term bicycle parking bays to be provided in the adjoining road verge. Given the lack of car parking and the local nature of the development it is considered necessary for this bicycle parking to be provided and a condition has been recommended accordingly. The existing infrastructure surrounding the site will also provide alternative and sustainable methods of transport to the site. It is also considered appropriate to require a parking management plan to ensure staff take alternative means of transport to commute to the Recreation Facility and that all staff and members are educated and encouraged to alternative means of transport to the site including public transport, cycling and walking. As such, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and that cash-in-lieu of car parking is not required.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Recreational Facility is considered to be an appropriate land use within the locality given the immediately surrounding commercial land uses. The proposal is considered to be low scale with only two employees, a maximum of 26 patrons and restricted operating hours. The location of the subject site is considered to be well separated from the surrounding residential developments and therefore, the impact on these properties is considered to be negligible. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Recreation Facility has been operating for over a year without any complaint.

 

As mentioned above, the subject site is entirely occupied by the existing building and therefore, the subject site cannot provide any car parking on site. A parking survey has been submitted by the applicant which demonstrates that the surrounding on street car parking bays are capable of accommodating the required number of parking bays for the proposed Recreation Facility. The site is located within close proximity to high frequency bus route, an on street cycle lane and existing shared paths which allow for alternative modes of transport. A condition requiring short and long term bicycle bays has been recommended to ensure that sufficient bicycle parking is provided on site. In light of this, it is recommended that the proposal is approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.7          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.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.8          Submission on WALGA Draft Climate Change Policy Statement

TRIM Ref:                  D18/44610

Author:                     Anita Marriott, Sustainability Officer

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Discussion Paper - WALGA Climate Change Policy Statement Review

2.       Attachment 2 - Submission - WALGA Climate Change Policy Statement Review

3.       Attachment 3 - Draft WALGA Climate Change Policy Statement  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       SUPPORTS the Western Australian Local Government Association’s draft Climate Change Policy Statement; and

2.       NOTES that Administration will forward a submission in support of the draft Climate Change Policy Statement to the Western Australian Local Government Association.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider Administration’s comments on the Western Australian Local Government Association’s (WALGA’s) draft Climate Change Policy Statement.

Background:

WALGA released a discussion paper on the review of its current Climate Change Policy (adopted in 2009) for comment by local government in 6 November 2017. This Discussion Paper is included as Attachment 1.

 

A submission prepared by Administration was circulated to Elected Members on 12 January 2018 and amended in line with the feedback received.

 

Administration’s submission was provided to WALGA on 16 January 2018 and is included as Attachment 2.

 

WALGA subsequently released its draft Climate Change Policy Statement (included as Attachment 3) for consultation with local government on 12 March 2018. The consultation period closed on 24 April 2018, however the City of Vincent was granted an extension until 3 May 2018.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 4 April 2018 (Item 14.1) Council considered a notice of motion and endorsed the position expressed in the Western Australian Local Government Association’s Draft Climate Change Policy Statement that there is a climate emergency which requires urgent action by all levels of government to avoid an unacceptable burden on future generations.

Details:

A summary of the key themes and proposed changes to WALGA’s current Climate Policy Statement is provided below:

 

Key themes

 

The key themes covered by the draft Climate Change Policy Statement are as follows:

 

·       Acknowledgement of the science of climate change – Local government supports the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, and human activities are the dominant cause.

·       Acknowledgement of the threat posed by climate change to human societies and the Earth’s ecosystems - climate change is a global threat, and Australia has committed to being part of the solution.

·       Call for shared responsibility for action on climate change – Local government is already acting to implement both mitigation and adaptation actions, but all levels of government must act in cooperation.

·       Call for urgent mitigation action – a range of policy measures is needed across all levels of government, including a greenhouse trigger at the federal level. Local government is well placed to delivery localised projects and programs but requires the support and coordination of state and federal governments.

·       Call for effective adaptation and resilience planning – all regulation and policies should take into consideration the likely impact of climate change on current and future human settlements, natural resources and ecosystems and facilitate adaptation to these.

 

Key changes proposed to the existing Policy

 

1.         Strengthening of language around the urgency of climate change action

 

WALGA’s current Climate Change Policy Statement includes a statement to the effect that local governments acknowledge anthropogenic climate change and support immediate action on climate change mitigation and adaptation. The draft Policy proposes to strengthen its language to state: “Local government recognises that we are in a state of climate emergency which requires urgent action.” This is in line with the City’s previous submission.

 

2.         Greater emphasis on the need for state and federal governments to play a stronger leadership and coordination role, and engage in long-term planning on climate change

 

The existing Policy Statement states that climate change is a matter of national significance, and is therefore the primary responsibility of State and Commonwealth Governments. Given the inconsistent climate change policy approach and lack of leadership at state and federal levels over the last decade, this issue is emphasised in the draft Policy Statement: “Local Government stresses that climate change is a matter of national significance, and is a direct responsibility of both the State and Federal Governments. The State and Federal Governments have an obligation to address climate change in cooperation with Local Governments, and in consultation with the Australian community as a whole.” This is in line with the City’s previous submission.

 

3.         Call for evidence-based action

 

The draft Policy calls on state and federal governments to ensure that all action on climate change is evidence-based and guided by the scientific consensus. This is in line with the City’s recommendation in its previous submission.

 

4.         Call for state and federal governments to remove regulatory barriers and support local government to take action on climate change

 

The existing Policy Statement acknowledges climate change as a “new and additional aspect of environmental management that Local Governments will have to broaden their suite of services to include.” and that cost impacts are likely to be proportionately high for Local Governments. It calls for local government to be “adequately resourced via Australian Government revenue avenues to meet these community and political obligations.”

 

The draft Policy Statement goes further, in calling for the removal of existing barriers to climate mitigation actions by local governments and active support of local governments to take mitigation and adaptation actions (without placing undue liability for the delivery of such actions on Local Governments).  It also calls upon state and federal governments to take direct responsibility for the delivery of mitigation actions, adaptation and resilience planning in areas that lend themselves to centralised coordination, while partnering with and resourcing local governments to deliver community emissions reduction programs that are most effectively implemented at the local government level. These changes are in line with the City’s recommendation in its previous submission.

 

5.         Strengthened call for adaptation and resilience planning

 

The existing Policy Statement broadly asserts that “it is the responsibility of all spheres of Australian Government to ensure that all current regulation and policies take into consideration the likely impact of climate change on current and future human settlements, natural resources and ecosystems and facilitate adaptation to these.”

 

The draft Policy has been updated to state that the effects of climate change are now being felt and that local government are already responding to these effects, as well as planning for a changing climate into the future. It goes on to identify a number of state government actions urgently needed to assist local governments with adaptation and resilience planning, including emergency management and disaster relief policies that adequately incorporate climate change in their planning and implementation. This is in line with the City’s previous submission.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation on this matter by the City is not required by legislation or by City of Vincent Policy.

 

The timing of WALGA’s consultation period and the timeline for Council Report preparation precluded consultation of the City’s Environmental Advisory Group on this matter.

Legal/Policy:

The proposed changes to WALGA’s Climate Change Policy Statement will have no direct legal or policy impact on the City of Vincent.

 

The Policy Statement will inform WALGA’s future advocacy position on climate change matters.

 

It is in the City’s interest to ensure that WALGA’s Policy Statement is closely aligned with the City’s stance on climate change as such alignment will strengthen the City’s voice and advocacy position on related matters into the future.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:     Providing comment on the draft Climate Change Policy Statement by WALGA poses no significant risk to the City.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic plan 2013-2023 states:

 

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

 

1.1.3     Take action to reduce the City’s environmental impacts and provide leadership on environmental matters.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016 states:

 

“Air and emissions (objectives)

 

1.         Contribute to a cleaner local and regional air environment…

2.         Reduce and offset the use of non-renewable energy …

3.         Promote the use of renewable energy sources, and use such sources in the City’s operations where possible”.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil

Comments:

The key themes and changes in WALGA’s draft Climate Change Policy Statement closely align with Administration’s comments and recommendations provided in its submission to WALGA on 16 January 2018 and are therefore supported by Administration.

 

Specific areas of concern raised by Administration in its submission were the need for:

 

·       Removal of regulatory barriers to mitigation and adaptation actions by local governments;

·       Appropriate leadership, coordination, responsibility and support from state and federal governments for climate change actions undertaken by local governments; and

·       All action on climate change to be evidence-based and guided by the strongest scientific consensus.

 

Administration’s recommendations in relation to the above three areas have been incorporated into WALGA’s draft Climate Policy Statement. Changes proposed in the draft Policy Statement to these areas are therefore supported by Administration.

 

(a)        The other proposed changes in WALGA’s draft Policy Statement align with the City’s 16 January 2018 submission to WALGA and are therefore also supported by Administration. Key among these changes is the strengthening of language around the urgency of climate change action, which was endorsed by Council at its Meeting on 4 April 2018 (Decision Item 14.1).

(b)         

As the key themes and changes in WALGA’s draft Climate Change Policy Statement closely align with Administration’s previous submission and with Council’s recent resolution on Climate Change, Administration recommends that Council supports WALGA’s draft Climate Change Policy Statement.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.9          Amendment to Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas

TRIM Ref:                  D18/29386

Authors:                   Amanda Fox, Strategic Planning Officer

Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas - Advertised version

2.       Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

3.       Attachment 3 - Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas with tracked changes

4.       Attachment 4 - Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas without tracked changes  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       PROCEEDS with the amendment to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas with modifications, and ADOPTS the Heritage Area designation of Janet Street, with modifications, as shown in at Attachment 4 pursuant to Clauses 5 and 9 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

2.       NOTES:

2.1       the submissions received in relation to the advertising of the amendment to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas and the proposed Heritage Area designation of Janet Street and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions included as Attachment 2; and

2.2       that the approved Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas, as shown in Attachment 4, will be published and the City will give notice of the Heritage Area designation to the Heritage Council of Western Australia and each owner of land affected by the designation pursuant to Clauses 5 and 9 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the outcomes of the public consultation on draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas (the Policy) and determine whether to proceed with the designation of Janet Street, West Perth as a Heritage Area and Carr Street, West Perth as a Character Retention Area.

Background:

On 12 December 2017 Council resolved to prepare an amendment to the Policy to designate Carr Street, West Perth as a Character Retention Area and Janet Street, West Perth as a Heritage Area. The proposed amendment includes the addition of new policy provisions for both areas. The amendment was advertised between 18 December 2017 and 2 February 2018 in accordance with Council’s resolution. A copy of the advertised draft Policy is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

The City received four written submissions on the proposal to designate Carr Street as a Character Retention Area and 16 submissions on the proposal to designate Janet Street as a Heritage Area. A summary of the key issues for each proposal is included below. A full summary of submissions and Administration’s response to those submissions is included as Attachment 2.

 

1.       Carr Street Advertising Results

 

The City received four submissions in support of designating Carr Street as a Character Retention Area. No submissions objecting to the proposal were received. Of the submissions received in relation to Carr Street, none made specific comment or suggestion on the policy provisions and as a result no modifications are proposed to the Carr Street policy provisions. It is recommended that Carr Street Character Retention Area be adopted as advertised.

 

2.       Janet Street Advertising Results

 

During the formal advertising period, the City received a number of submissions representing a mix of views on the proposal to designate Janet Street as a Heritage Area. The submissions only provided comment on the proposed Heritage Area designation and did not provide comment on the potential for Janet Street to be designated as a Character Retention Area instead.

 

To clarify the community’s views on designating Janet Street as a Character Retention Area, the City undertook further consultation with all landowners in Janet Street. The City received 16 submissions on Janet Street in total. A summary of the community’s views on designating Janet Street as either a Heritage Area or Character Retention Area is included below:

 

 

Heritage Area

Character Area

Submitter 1

Object

Object

Submitter 2

No Objection

N/A

Submitter 3

Object

Object

Submitter 4

Object

Object

Submitter 5

Support

Support

Submitter 6

Support

Support

Submitter 7

Object

N/A

Submitter 8

Support

Support

Submitter 9

Support

Support

Submitter 10

Object

Support

Submitter 11

Object

Object

Submitter 12

Support

Support

Submitter 13

Support

Support

Submitter 14

Object

N/A

Submitter 15

Object

Object

Submitter 16

Support

Support

Total breakdown

8 Object to Heritage

5 Object to Character

7 Support Heritage

8 Support Character

1 No Objection

0 No Objection

 

There were four key issues raised in the submissions on Janet Street and these are summarised below.

 

1.1     Existing Development

 

Submitters were concerned that although Janet Street is a largely intact streetscape there is existing unsympathetic development that has already occurred.

 

Any redevelopment in and around Janet Street has occurred prior to a Character Retention or Heritage Area Guidelines being in place to prevent demolition and subsequent redevelopment of an uncharacteristic nature. Notwithstanding this, the remaining Janet Street is a highly intact representation of the original 1920s streetscape.  In direct response to the threat of further loss of this valued  streetscape character, a nomination from 47% of Janet Street owners represents an interest from the community to explore opportunities to protect the Janet Street streetscape into the future through the Policy.

 

1.2     Heritage Significance

 

Submitters objected to the Heritage Area designation of Janet Street as they felt that the heritage significance of Janet Street had been overstated.

 

In March 2014, the City engaged an architectural consultant to provide a heritage assessment of a number of areas including Janet Street. The consultant’s extensive report concluded that “Janet Street is supported as a heritage area due to the high level of intactness of its early twentieth century streetscape, and in particular the collection of modest Inter War Bungalow styled dwellings located on the southern side of the street”.

 

Following the nomination in June 2016, the City undertook a detailed assessment of the development on the street. This assessment indicated that the remaining area of Janet Street was suitable for inclusion in the Policy as it contains a good representation of a highly cohesive and intact 1920s streetscape. The houses on the southern side are all simple Interwar Bungalow style dwellings with the same rectangular footprint and deep front verandahs. The roof form and materials vary, comprising a mix of roof tile and corrugated metal sheeting, and hipped gable roof forms. The houses on the northern side of the street are modest examples of late Federation and Interwar periods of design.

 

Despite the objections received, the City’s heritage assessment of the street clearly demonstrates that the area does have heritage significance and meets the criteria for the area to be deemed a Heritage Area in accordance with the State Heritage Office Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas, Clause 9(1) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Clause 6.3 of the City’s Policy No. 7.6.2 – Heritage Management – Assessment. This is due to the significant cultural historic value of the street as a representation of the built environment and architectural styles from the 1920s. As a result it is recommended that the City proceed with the Heritage Area designation for Janet Street.

 

1.3     Heritage Area Imposition

 

Submitters objected to the Heritage Area designation of Janet Street as they felt that the listing is being imposed by the City and not at the request of landowners.

 

The Policy provides a mechanism for the Council to consider an area as a Heritage Area (Clause 6) where an area has been nominated for character retention, where a heritage assessment has been undertaken and the area is deemed to qualify as a Heritage Area.  In this instance a valid nomination for Character Retention was received for Janet Street by 47 percent of owners on Janet Street and a heritage assessment deemed the area suitably qualified as a Heritage Area.

 

Since the City received this nomination on 6 March 2016 the City has met with the landowners in the area on several occasions. This included workshops on the proposed policy provisions and Heritage Area nomination in June 2016 and April 2017 prior to the proposal being adopted by Council for formal consultation. During the consultation period the City wrote to all the affected landowners and held an on-site discussion in January 2018, alongside a number of other consultation methods required by legislation. Given the mixed responses to the Heritage Area designation the City conducted further consultation with the community during February and March 2018 to understand views on both Heritage and Character Area designation. This extensive consultation was undertaken to ensure that land owner and community views have been understood.

 

The consultation on the proposal has been comprehensive and the City has a clear understanding of community views on the proposal. Despite the mixed views on the proposal Janet Street is still considered worthy of protection and it is recommended that the City proceed with the Heritage Area designation.

 

1.4     Heritage Requirements

 

Submitters were concerned that the Heritage Area designation will place burdensome and unfair restrictions on landowners, will reduce property values and will make selling properties difficult.

 

The development of all properties in the City are already subject to the statutory requirements of the R-Codes and the City’s local planning policies. The Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas guidelines simply replace or augment certain planning provisions to ensure that new development maintains the existing streetscape character and/or heritage value of the area.

 

Potential impacts on property value are not a valid planning consideration to be addressed by this policy amendment. This policy deals with the development and built form within the designated area for the benefit of the broader area, notwithstanding any potential financial impacts for individual owners. Encouraging and supporting proposals to respect the existing built form and to contribute to an area’s preferred neighbourhood character is a fundamental principle of good planning and design and serves to enhance the intrinsic value of the area.

 

Following advertising of the draft Policy Administration identified a minor administrative error on the first page of Appendix 4 where the caption of the aerial photograph incorrectly refer to “Janet Street Character Retention Area”. It is recommended that this caption be modified to read “Janet Street Heritage Area” in the revised draft Policy. There are no other modifications proposed to the advertised draft Policy. The relevant page of the revised draft Policy with track change is included as Attachment 3 and the clean version of the revised draft Policy, is included as Attachment 4.

CoNsultation/Advertising:

The formal advertising of the amendment to the Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas was undertaken for a period of 46 days from 18 December 2017 to 2 February 2018. This advertising period was extended to 6 March for Janet Street in order for the City to further clarify comments in relation to the Heritage Area. Since the original advertising focussed on the proposal for a Heritage Area, it was not clear whether the objections received were objecting solely to the Heritage Area proposal or to a potential Character Retention Area as well. The City asked the owners and occupiers this question specifically and developed the table shown above in the Detail section.

 

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clauses 4 and 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation and included:

 

·       Written notification to landowners in affected areas;

·       Advertisements in the Guardian and the Perth Voice newspapers;

·       Sign on site;

·       On-site discussions with interested parties (18 January 2018 for Janet Street and 22 January 2018 for Carr Street);

·       Notice on the City’s website; and

·       Copies displayed at City of Vincent Administration and Civic Building and Library and Local History Centre.

 

Following the outcome of the Council decision, further consultation will involve notifying landowners affected by the Council decision.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

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

·       State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

Risk Management Implications:

The risk of not progressing an adequate Character Retention Area and Heritage Area policy framework is that the City will be unable to appropriately deal with development issues, potentially resulting in unintended development outcomes, resulting in the loss of character streetscapes that create attractive and desirable places to live.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

“1.1.1    Develop and implement a Town Planning Scheme and associated policies, guidelines and initiatives that deliver the community vision.

 

1.1.2     Enhance and maintain the character and heritage of the City.”

 

The proposal aligns with Council’s Strategic Priority:

 

“Supporting Liveable Neighbourhoods – we want to continue our focus on making our streets greener, safer, more attractive and inviting, and easier to get around Vincent for pedestrians and cyclists.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising and implementing this proposal will be met through the existing operational budget.

Comments:

The adoption of the Policy amendment will still allow landowners to develop their individual properties and will ensure redevelopment is sensitive to the existing streetscapes, neighbourhood character and heritage value through design guidelines and policy provisions. Administration recommends that Council adopts the final amended version of Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas as shown in Attachment 4 and to designate Carr Street, West Perth as a Character Retention Area and Janet Street, West Perth as Heritage Area.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.10        Outcomes of Advertising - Town Centre Place Plans

TRIM Ref:                  D18/30060

Authors:                   David Doy, Place Manager

Georgia Lawrence, Place Manager

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, Manager Policy and Place

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Draft Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans

2.       Attachment 2 - Draft Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions: Draft Town Centre Place Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans

5.       Attachment 5 - Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ADOPTS Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan included as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5; and

2.       NOTES:

2.1       the submissions received in relation to the advertising of the draft Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions, included as Attachment 2; and

2.2       that Administration will publish a notice of the approval of Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan, included as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, on the City’s website and social media platforms and will notify all town teams and those people who made submissions on the documents.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcomes of community consultation and to adopt Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan.

 

Background:

 

Council endorsed Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Draft Town Centre Place Plan (TCPP) Volume Series for the purposes of advertising for public comment at its meeting on 14 November 2017 (Item 9.5). The documents were advertised between 16 December 2017 and 9 February 2018. A copy of the advertised draft documents is included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

Details:

The City received seven submissions during the advertising period. A summary of all the submissions and Administration’s responses are included as Attachment 3. The submissions have resulted in two amendments to the Draft TCPP Volume Series that are outlined below.

 

1.0     Proposed Amendment 1: Volume 1 Vincent Town Centre Place Plans: Item 1.13 – Town Centre Planning Frameworks.

 

The Draft TCPPs did not outline a need to develop place-based planning controls, such as Activity Centre Plans, for each of the City’s five town centres or reference Item 6.7 of the City’s Corporate Business Plan (CBP), which requires Administration to investigate an appropriate planning framework for each of the City’s town centres. In response to the absence of information, the need to prepare Activity Centre Plans for the City’s town centres, with Leederville noted as a priority, was outlined in one of the submissions received during advertising.

 

As outlined in the submission, Administration agrees that there is a need for place-based controls for each of the town centres. However, the extent of the planning controls, the mechanism within which they are delivered and the order in which they might be prepared is yet to be determined.

 

In response to the submission, Administration recommends updating Volume 1 Vincent TCPPs to include a new Item 1.13: Investigate a planning framework for each of the City’s town centres. This wording reflects the existing commitment relating to Item 6.7 of the CBP and ensures this CBP item is captured in the TCPP Volume Series.

 

The new item, explanatory wording and updates to the implementation framework are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below.

 

Table 1: Amendment to Activity Section of Volume 1

1.         ACTIVITY

2.         PLANNING FRAMEWORK

3.         ITEM 1.13 – TOWN CENTRE PLANNING FRAMEWORKS

Diagnosis

Vincent’s town centres are expected to grow over the coming years in line with population projections and in response to the state planning framework. The town centres are distinctive in their own ways and are places that local people identify with and deeply care about. They require careful management to ensure that future development contributes to their success while preserving and enhancing their uniquely different characters.

Analysis

Draft Local Planning Strategy Action 1.4.2 – Economy and Employment states that the City should “Appropriately zone and/or prepare structure plans for planned growth areas to facilitate a mix of compatible residential and commercial development opportunities.”

Further to this, four of Vincent’s town centres are identified in State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP4.2). Leederville is identified as a Secondary Centre and requires the preparation of an Activity Centre Structure Plan, while North Perth (Fitzgerald Street), Mount Hawthorn and Mount Lawley are identified as District Centres and also require the preparation of an Activity Centre Structure Plan but only requiring WAPC approval if the amount of proposed floorspace exceeds 20,000m2.

Perth (William Street) is not listed in SPP4.2. However, a place specific planning framework will need to be investigated for this town centre if its growth and development is to be appropriately managed.

Solution

Investigate a Planning Framework for each of the town centres

 

In line with the proposed inclusion of Table 1 above, it is recommended to update the implementation framework in Volume 1 Vincent TCPPs and Volume 2 NPTCPP as outlined in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2: Amendment to Implementation Framework of Volume 1 & Volume 2

KEY ACTION/PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE TEAM

SUPPORT TEAM

TOWN CENTRE WIDE

TIMING

18/19

19/20

20/21

21/22

KEY FOCUS AREA 1: ACTIVITY

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

1.13

Investigate a Planning Framework for each of the town centres

Development Services

 

ü

 

ü

ü

 

 

The inclusion of Item 1.13 outlined in Table 1 and the updates to the implementation framework outlined in Table 2 are reflected in Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan, included as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 respectively.

 

2.0     Proposed Amendment 2: Volume 2 North Perth Town Centre Place Plan: Item 1.3 Planning Framework

 

Item 1.3 in the Draft Volume 2 NPTCPP currently reads as follows:

 

Table 3: Current wording of Item 1.3 in Activity Section of Volume 2

4.         ACTIVITY

5.         NIGHT TIME ECONOMY

6.         ITEM 1.3 – Planning Framework

Solution

7.         Improve the Planning Framework for the North Perth Town Centre to help facilitate the Night Time Economy

 

With the inclusion of Item 1.13 above, the reference to ‘planning framework’ could cause confusion. Therefore, it is proposed to amend Item 1.13 in line with Table 4 below:

 

Table 4: Amended wording of Item 1.3 in Activity Section of Volume 2

8.         ACTIVITY

9.         NIGHT TIME ECONOMY

10.       ITEM 1.3 – North Perth’s Night Time Economy 

Solution

11.       Ensure updates to the planning and policy framework facilitate the development of North Perth’s Night Time Economy

 

The recommended re-wording will make this action easier to implement and will ensure that any updates to the planning framework will be considered with a view to improving North Perth’s night time economy. In line with this amendment, it is recommended to update the implementation framework in Volume 2 NPTCPP as outlined in Table 5 below:

 

Table 5: Amendment to Implementation Framework of Volume 2

KEY ACTION/PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE TEAM

SUPPORT TEAM

TOWN CENTRE WIDE

TIMING

18/19

19/20

20/21

21/22

KEY FOCUS AREA 1: ACTIVITY

12.           NIGHT TIME ECONOMY

1.3

Ensure updates to the planning and policy framework facilitate the development of North Perth’s Night Time Economy

Development Services

 

 

ü

ü

ü

ü

 

The amendments outlined in Table 4 and Table 5 above, are reflected in Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Place Plan, included as Attachment 5.

 

3.0     Proposed Administrative Amendments

 

A number of minor administrative modifications have been made to the TCPP Volume Series in addition to the proposed amendments outlined above. These include:

 

·      Amending reference to ‘Technical Services’ directorate to ‘Engineering’;

·      References to the OnWilliam Town Team amended to now reference the newly created Northbridge Common Town Team. OnWilliam has merged with Northbridge Common, and have adopted the name Northbridge Common;

·      The map showing the location of Vincent’s Town Centres on page 5 of Volume 1 TCPP has been amended. Perth Town Centre is now shown as Northbridge Town Centre. This is consistent with the outcomes of the OnWilliam/Northbridge Common community workshops held in 2017 and 2018 where the Town Centre was consistently referred to as the Northbridge Town Centre.

Consultation/Advertising:

The draft TCPPs were advertised between 16 December 2017 and 9 February 2018. During the advertising period a notice was published on the City’s website, social media and in local newspapers and a letter was dropped to North Perth Town Centre businesses. The City’s Town Teams were also contacted and invited to comment. The City received seven submissions, which are outlined in Attachment 3. The recommended modifications following the review of submissions are outlined in the Details section above.

Legal/Policy:

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework outlined by the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires the City to adopt a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan (CBP) to be supported by the Annual Budget and a range of informing strategies. The draft TCPPs are an informing strategy to the City’s CBP.

Risk Management Implications:

The TCPPs provides strategic direction to manage the City’s ongoing investment in town centres and support for local Town Teams. The TCPPs will help improve project planning to avoid budgetary and timing issues.

Strategic Implications:

The TCPPs will contribute to many of the 2017/18 Council Priorities including:

 

Thriving & Creative Town Centres

 

Our town centres are vibrant and thriving, each with their own unique character and identity. We want to make sure it stays that way by promoting high quality development outcomes and supporting our town centres and the creativity and culture they offer.

 

Supporting Liveable Neighbourhoods

 

We want to continue our focus on making our streets greener, safer, more attractive and inviting, and easier to get around Vincent for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

A Better Customer Experience

 

Our success depends on our community’s satisfaction. We do not just want to provide customer service, we want to provide a great customer experience that is modern and matches out community’s expectations.

 

More Inviting Green & Open Spaces

 

Our open spaces are precious to our community and important to protect, enhance and expand. We want to continue making out open spaces even better as well as finding creative ways to provide new spaces that respond to community needs.

 

Improving Community Connection & Inclusion

 

Our community is diverse, passionate and welcoming – it is part of what makes Vincent great. We want to help out community come together and stay connected, to support those in need and to make everyone feel welcome.

 

As noted in the Legal/ Policy section above, the Place Plans are an informing strategy to the City’s CBP and any identified new future projects will be considered for inclusion into the CBP as part of the annual CBP review process.

 

Their relationship with the City’s future Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan is illustrated in the diagram below.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Actions within the Movement section of the TCPPs are consistent with the Sustainable Environment Strategy as outlined below:

 

TCPP Volume Series

Sustainable Environment Strategy

Item 2.2 – Advocate to State Transport Authorities for improvements to Transport Infrastructure including improved east-west connections

Action 1.10 – Advocate for improved public transport links within and to the City

Item 2.3 – Advocate for After-hours Transport Options

Item 2.4 – Prepare a Transport Education Program

Action 1.11 – Promote public transport within and to the City, through community education and incentive initiatives

Financial/Budget Implications:

Implementation of key initiatives within the draft TCPPs will be supported through allocations within future capital and operating budgets.

Comments:

Preparation and adoption of the TCPP for each of the Town Centre’s aligns with Council’s adopted approach to Place Management.  This approach to Place Management is evolving through the following three-phase process:

 

·       Phase 1: Establish

·       Phase 2: Plan

·       Phase 3: Manage

Place Management is currently in the Planning Phase and will move into the Management Phase following the completion of the TCPPs. To assist and support Place Management moving into the Management Phase, it is recommended that Council adopt the Town Centre Place Plans contained as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, which include modifications recommended in response to the submissions received from the community.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

9.11        LATE REPORT: Extension to Public Alfresco Permit Timeframe – Leederville Town Centre

TRIM Ref:                  D18/59885

Author:                     David Doy, Place Manager

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, Manager Policy and Place

Attachments:             1.       Public Alfresco Area and Relocated Taxi Zone Map  

 

Recommendation:

That Council GRANTS a Permit to Conduct an Outdoor Eating Area in the public alfresco area in part of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone, as shown in Attachment 1, up until 16 October 2018 including a condition that requires the area to be open to the general public who are over 18 or under 18 but accompanied by a parent/guardian, in addition to patrons of the permit holder, at all times.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider extending the timeframe of the Outdoor Eating Area Permit in the former Taxi Zone on Newcastle Street in the Leederville Town Centre.

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 September 2017 (Item 9.11) it was resolved that Council support a trial involving relocation of the Leederville Taxi Rank, establishment of Ride Share Pick Up/Set Down locations and installation of public alfresco area in part of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone.  The layout of that new Taxi Zone location and public alfresco area is provided within Attachment 1.

 

Specifically, this Council resolution allowed an outdoor eating area permit to be issued for the public alfresco area for a trial period only up until 30 April 2018 with Administration to then prepare a further report to Council nine months after the implementation of the changes.  This report will summarise the results of community consultation and the impact of the trial on the Leederville Town Centre along with any subsequent recommendations.

Details:

Relocation of the Leederville Taxi Rank and installation of a public alfresco area in part of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone were only completed on 2 February 2018, and as a result the Outdoor Eating Area Permit and associated Liquor Licence have only been in place for approximately three months.  The Council resolution from 19 September 2017 explicitly states that “any outdoor eating area permit issued for the public alfresco area in part of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone be limited to the trial period up until 30 April 2018 and be conditioned to require the area to be open to the public at all times and not be restricted to patrons of the permit holder at any time.”

 

To ensure that the impact of this trial within the Leederville Town Centre can be effectively implemented and assessed it is considered necessary to extend the period that an Outdoor Eating Area Permit can be issued for the public alfresco area.  An extension up until 16 October 2018 as the current Permit to Conduct an Outdoor Eating Area and liquor license from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor are due to expire on 30 April 2018 in accordance with the previous Council resolution.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration will undertake community consultation with Leederville Connect, residents, landowners and businesses within 500 metres of the Taxi Zone on the:

 

·      Need for a Taxi Zone in the Leederville Town Centre;

·      impact and performance of the relocated Taxi Zone and Ride Share Pick Up/Set Down locations during the trial; and

·      future use and design of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone area.

 

Community consultation will be undertaken in June/July 2018 with a further report to be presented to Council in November 2018 in accordance with the intended nine month timeframe.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:      Discontinuing the trial of the public alfresco area in part of the existing Leederville Taxi Zone at this point in time will impact the assessment and performance measurement of the Taxi Zone relocation trial.

Strategic Implications:

This project aligns with the following 2017/18 Council priority:

 

Thriving & Creative Town Centres

 

Our town centres are vibrant and thriving, each with their own unique character and identity. We want to make sure it stays that way by promoting high quality development outcomes and supporting our town centres and the creativity and culture they offer.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The public alfresco is an important component of the Taxi Zone relocation trial as it provides a physical barrier to Taxi’s stopping in front of the Leederville Hotel. Removing the alfresco area midway through the nine month trial period would significantly alter the performance of the trial, and therefore Administration recommends that Council allow the Outdoor Eating Area Permit expiry date be extended from 30 April 2018 to 16 October 2018.  A report summarising the results of the community consultation and the impact of the trail on the Leederville Town Centre as well as any subsequent recommendations will then be presented to Council for consideration in November 2018.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

10          Engineering

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             1 May 2018

11          Corporate Services

11.1        Financial Statements as at 31 March 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/56810

Author:                     Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 31 March 2018  

 

 Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 31 March 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the Financial Statements for the period ended 31 March 2018.

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the budget.

 

A statement of financial activity report is to be in a form that sets out:

·       the annual budget estimates;

·       budget estimates for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

·       actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

·       material variances between the year-to-date income and expenditure; and

·       other supporting notes and other information that the local government considers will assist in the interpretation of the report.

         

In addition to the above, under Regulation 34 (5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, each financial year a local government is to adopt a percentage of value, calculated in accordance with AAS 5, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1 represent the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 31 March 2018:

 

Note

Description

Page

 

 

 

1.

Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph

1-3

2.

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report

4

3.

Net Current Funding Position

5

4.

Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas

6-58

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

59-73

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

74

7.

Rating Information and Graph

75-76

8.

Debtor Report

77

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the Revised and Year to date Budget.

         

Summary of Financial Activity by Program as at 31 March 2018

 

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Variance

Variance

 

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

 

$

$

$

$

%

 

REVENUE

22,352,642

16,949,203

16,568,743

(380,460)

-2%

 

 

EXPENDITURE

(58,084,120)

(40,683,848)

(40,977,952)

(294,104)

1%

 

 

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES

(35,731,478)

(23,734,645)

(24,409,209)

(674,564)

3%

 

 

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET

NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE

Add Deferred Rates Adjustment

0

0

9,237

9,237

0%

Add Back Depreciation

10,246,060

7,684,685

7,707,202

22,517

0%

(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals

(415,015)

(415,015)

(127,888)

287,127

-69%

"Percent for Art" and "Cash in Lieu" Funds Adjustment

0

0

0

0

0%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES

9,831,045

7,269,670

7,588,551

318,881

4%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

2,733,778

1,025,000

1,026,186

1,186

0%

Capital Expenditure

(12,695,604)

(4,681,470)

(4,093,300)

588,170

-13%

Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations

333,333

333,333

166,667

(166,666)

-50%

Proceeds from Disposal of assets

202,321

202,321

305,020

102,699

51%

(9,426,172)

(3,120,816)

(2,595,427)

525,389

-17%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Repayments Loan Capital

(881,398)

(654,598)

(654,425)

173

0%

Transfers from Reserves

1,153,098

227,690

221,255

(6,435)

-3%

Transfers to Reserves

(2,401,835)

(903,860)

(438,835)

465,025

-51%

(2,130,135)

(1,330,768)

(872,005)

458,763

-34%

Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) Brought Fwd 1 July 2017

4,475,026

4,475,026

4,475,026

1

0%

Surplus/(Deficiency) Before General Rates

(32,981,714)

(16,441,533)

(15,813,064)

628,470

-4%

Total amount raised from General Rates

32,976,983

32,976,983

33,007,530

30,547

0%

NET CURRENT ASSETS at JUNE 30 C/FWD - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)

(4,731)

16,535,450

17,194,466

659,017

4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on Summary of Financial Activity by Program:

 

Operating Revenue

 

There is a difference in classification of revenue reported by Program and by Nature and Type.  Operating revenue by Program reporting includes ‘Profit on Sale of Assets’, but this is excluded in the Nature and Type report, however ‘Rates’ revenue is added.

 

Revenue by Program is showing a negative variance of 2% ($380k). This is due to lower revenue in Other Property and Services $299k (asset disposals), Recreation and Culture of $218k ($131k Beatty Park fees and charges, $95k Park Services revenue) and Transport of $127k (predominantly parking infringement revenue which is expected to improve).

 

Operating Revenue as presented on the ‘Nature and Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing nil variance in terms of percentage.

 

Operating Expenditure

 

Expenditure by Program is showing negative variance of 1% ($294k). This is due to:

 

·       Governance – overspend by $29k;

·       Community Amenities – underspend by $286k;

·       Health – underspend by $36k;

·       Recreation and Culture – overspend by $154k

·       Transport – underspend by $28k, and

·       Other Property and Services – overspend by $489k.

 

Similarly, the operating expenditure listed under the Nature and Type report reflects a corresponding unfavourable variance of 1%, with the largest variances in:

 

·       Employee Costs ($111k), $68k salaries and $111k labour. However there is favourable variance of $42k in other employee costs; and,

·       Materials and Contracts, where the variance is due to timing of $15k in Events and $418k Contractors.

 

Transfer from Reserves

 

Transfer from Reserves is aligned with the timing of Capital Works projects that are reserve funded. Most of these projects have not yet started, with a large number likely to do so before the end of the financial year.

 

Capital Expenditure

 

The variance is attributed to timing on commencement of projects. For further detail, refer to Note 5 on Attachment 1.

 

Transfer to Reserves

 

Monthly transfer to reserves commenced in July 2017 except for the Tamala Park Land Sale Reserve which is transferred when actual funds are received.

 

Opening Funding Surplus / (Deficit)

 

The surplus opening balance brought forward from 2016/17 was $4,035,268, compared to the revised budget opening surplus balance of $3,946,211, after end of year carry forward adjustments.  The actual surplus for 2016/17 was $4,475,026, which reflects an improvement of $529k over the anticipated end of year result for 2016/17.

 

Closing Surplus / (Deficit)

 

There is currently a surplus of $17,194,466 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $16,535,450. This is substantially attributed to underspending in operating and capital expenditure and the increase in the opening balance.

 

Comments on financial performance as set out in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1) and an explanation of each report is detailed below:

 

1.         Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report (Note 1 Page 1)

 

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Program.

 

2.         Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report (Note 2 Page 4)

 

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by nature and type.

 

3.         Net Current Funding Position (Note 3 Page 5)

 

Net current assets is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities, less committed assets and restricted assets. This amount indicates how much capital is available for day to day activities.  The net current funding position as at 31 March 2018 is $17,194,466.

 

4.         Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 58)

 

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by Service Unit.

 

5.         Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 59 - 73)

 

The following table is a summary of the ‘2017/2018 Capital Expenditure Budget by Program’, which compares year to date budget with actual expenditure to date.  The full Capital Works Program is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

 

 

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Land and Buildings

               2,018,358

                   734,258

                   629,119

69%

Infrastructure Assets

               8,153,653

               2,843,120

               2,417,820

70%

Plant and Equipment

               1,441,911

                   556,510

                   542,421

62%

Furniture and Equipment

               1,081,682

                   547,582

                   503,940

53%

Total

             12,695,604

               4,681,470

               4,093,300

68%

FUNDING

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Own Source Funding - Municipal

               8,606,407

               3,226,459

               2,540,838

70%

Cash Backed Reserves

               1,153,098

                   227,690

                   221,255

81%

Capital Grant and Contribution

               2,733,778

               1,025,000

               1,026,186

62%

Other (Disposals/Trade In)

                   202,321

                   202,321

                   305,020

-51%

Total

             12,695,604

               4,681,470

               4,093,300

68%

 

 

Note:         Detailed analysis is included on page 59 - 73 of Attachment 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.       Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 74)

 

The Cash Backed Reserves schedule details movements in the reserves, including transfers and funds used, comparing actual results with the annual budget.  The balance as at 31 March 2018 is $9,125,699.

 

7.         Rating Information (Note 7 Page 75 – 76)

 

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2017/18 were issued on 07 August 2017.

 

The Local Government Act 1995 provides for ratepayers to pay rates by four instalments.  The due dates for each instalment are:

 

First Instalment

12 September 2017

Second Instalment

06 November 2017

Third Instalment

08 January 2018

Fourth Instalment

06 March 2018

 

To cover the costs involved in providing the instalment program the following charge and interest rates apply:

 

Instalment Administration Charge

(to apply to second, third, and fourth instalment)

$13.00 per instalment

Instalment Interest Rate

5.5% per annum

Late Payment Penalty Interest

11% per annum

 

Pensioners registered with the City for rate concessions do not incur the above interest or charge.

 

The Rates debtors balance to be collected as at 31 March 2018 is $1,577,741 (this includes deferred rates of $100,194). This represents 3.84% of collectable income compared to 3.86% at the same time last year.

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 77)

 

Receivables of $3,752,266 are outstanding as at 31 March 2018, of which $2,791,291 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

 

·        $2,692,932 (85.1%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance and returns the funds to the City for a fee. Administration is currently finalising systems updates that have had implications for timely collection of infringement debtors;

 

·        $347,172 (12.4%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year; and

 

·        $69,987 (2.5%) relates to Other Receivables, (refer page 77).

 

Administration has been following up outstanding items which relate to Other Receivables by issuing reminders when they are overdue and initiating formal debt collection when payments remain outstanding over longer periods of time.

 

9.         Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position Report (Note 9 Page 78)

 

As at 31 March 2018 the operating deficit for the centre was $766,405 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $602,693.

 

Once the depreciation component has been deducted, the cash position showed a current cash surplus of $104,465 in comparison to the year to date budget estimate of a cash surplus of $269,759.

 

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances

 

All material variances as at 31 March 2018 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

 

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $10,000. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget, where that variance exceeds $10,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2017/18 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding year and such other financial reports as are prescribed.

 

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires the local government to prepare each month, a statement of financial activity reporting on the source and application of funds as set out in the adopted Annual Budget.

 

A statement of financial activity and any accompanying documents are to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, specifies that a local government is not to incur expenditure from its Municipal Fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Provision of monthly financial reports fulfils a statutory requirement.

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:

Not applicable.

Comments:

All expenditure included in the Financial Statements is incurred in accordance with Council’s revised budget.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               1 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                             1 May 2018