AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

19 June 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 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 Meeting Procedures 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 and the suburb in which they reside or, where a member of the public is representing the interests of a business, the suburb in which that business is located 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.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

4          Declarations of Interest 7

5          Development Services. 8

5.1             No. 12 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Single House. 8

5.2             No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth - Second Storey Addition to Grouped Dwelling  29

5.3             No. 42 (Lot: 2, D/P: 2136) Woodville Street, North Perth - Proposed Six Dwellings (Multiple) 53

5.4             No. 33A (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth - Grouped Dwelling. 122

5.5             No. 16 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1962) Howlett Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Office to Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care) 191

5.6             No. 48 (Lot: 66; D/P: 6049) Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Five Dwellings (Grouped) 268

5.7             North Perth Common - Concept Design. 337

5.8             Business Advisory Group - Key Priorities. 351

6          Engineering. 354

6.1             Vincent Greening Plan - Review. 354

6.2             2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards. 418

6.3             LATE REPORT: Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023. 421

7          Corporate Services. 422

7.1             Variation of Kiddies Learning Hub Pty Ltd's licence to use Banks Reserve Pavilion to include an additional 1 hour on Mondays and extend the licence term to 28 June 2019. 422

7.2             Acquisition of private rights of way as Crown Land and vesting in City - Right of way between London and Dunedin Streets, North Perth (Lot 60) and Colvin Lane, West Perth (Lot 67) 425

7.3             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 May 2018 to  31 May 2018. 435

7.4             Investment Report as at 31 May 2018. 458

7.5             Financial Statements as at 31 May 2018. 467

7.6             Delegated Authority Review 2018. 560

7.7             LATE REPORT:  Adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Budget 639

8          Community Engagement 640

8.1             Community Engagement Policies. 640

9          Chief Executive Officer 670

9.1             Revised Terms of Reference for Various Advisory Groups. 670

9.2             Appointment of an Alternate Member for Mindarie Regional Council – 5 July 2018 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 684

9.3             LATE REPORT:  Corporate Business Plan 2018/19-2021/22. 686

9.4             LATE REPORT:  Community Budget Submissions 2018/19. 687

9.5             Information Bulletin. 688

10        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 746

Nil

11        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 746

12        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 747

12.1           Expression of Interests received and disposition options for 245 Vincent Street, Leederville. 747

13        Closure. 747

 

 


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

Cr Dan Loden – Apology for the Council Briefing

3            Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

4            Declarations of Interest


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5            Development Services

5.1          No. 12 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/78126

Author:                     Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   Leederville

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions with Administration Response

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions with Applicant response

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES, the development application for Single House at No. 12 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville, in accordance with the plans in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated advice notes in Attachment 5:

1.       Boundary Walls

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

2.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air 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 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.       Landscaping

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

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

4.1.2  Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

4.1.3  On-site canopy coverage equivalent to no less than 30 percent of the site area at maturity; and

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

 

 

5.       Verge Trees

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

6.       Schedule of External Finishes

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

7.       General

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a single house at No. 12 Scott Street, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

To consider an application for development approval for a single house at No. 12 Scott Street, Leederville (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Tuan Huy Danh Pham & Jenny Tu

Applicant:

Residential Building WA Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

9 March 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

617m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Scott Street to the west, and five developed residential lots to the north, east and south. The site is currently accommodates a single-storey house, which is proposed to be demolished. The surrounding residential developments are single-storey single houses and grouped dwellings. On the opposite side of Scott Street are single-storey and two-storey single houses. A location plan is included in Attachment 1. The subject site and adjoining properties are zoned Residential R40 and have been identified as a Residential Built Form Area subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Planning Policy 3.1 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

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping

 

ü

Privacy

ü

 

Parking and Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

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

 

Average of five adjoining properties: 7.9m

 

 

6.024m

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

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

 

Southern Boundary

Ground Floor (front portion of wall) – 1.5m

Ground Floor (rear portion of wall) – 1.5m

First Floor – 2m

 

Northern Boundary Wall

Garage wall to not be located within street setback

 

 

 

 

1m

1m

1.5m

 

 

Located so as to protrude 1.376m into the street setback.

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.14 of the Built Form Policy

 

Canopy Coverage

30% (185.1m²)

 

 

 

13.7% (84.52m²)

 

The above element 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 Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 6 April 2018 and concluding on 19 April 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, three submissions were received. One neither supporting nor objecting the proposal, but expressing concerns and two objections. Both objections were submitted by the same landowner, who owns two separate lots affected by the proposal. After the closure of the community consultation period, the City received an additional nine submissions objecting the proposed development, most of which were from outside the consultation area.

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

 

·       The proposed street setback of the dwelling;

·       Lack of distance or privacy due to reduced lot boundary setbacks;

·       Perception of overlooking;

·       Location of balcony; and

·       Landscaping.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is included as Attachment 3, with the applicants response to the submissions provided in Attachment 4.

 

Following the advertising period, the applicant amended the development application by modifying the design and materials of the façade and providing additional landscaping.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       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 has 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 Design WA but which have not been approved by Council. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to those deemed-to-comply landscaping approved by Council in the Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal received a total of eleven objections.

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 applicant proposes a primary street setback of 6.024 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 7.9 metres, being the average of the five properties either side of the development. The subject site directly abuts a lot on the corner of Bourke Street and Scott Street (northern adjoining lot). The dwelling on this lot addresses Bourke Street and has a backyard shed on the common boundary with the subject lot that is setback approximately 1.5 metres from Scott Street.  The dwelling on the southern adjoining lot is set back approximately six metres from the Scott Street boundary.

 

The proposed 6.024 metre setback is considered appropriate as the development is largely screened by the existing boundary shed on the approach from the north and the setback aligns with the dwelling immediately to the south. The proposed dwelling incorporates a balcony over the garage which adds detail and articulation in the façade, which aids in moderating the impact of the building bulk and scale when viewed from the street. The use of face brick and render is consistent with other dwellings within the streetscape. The proposal also incorporates landscaping within the street setback which includes a Fuchsia Mallee Tree, in addition to the existing street tree. This vegetation will soften the appearance of the dwelling and will contribute to the amenity of the street. As a result, it is considered that the proposed single house preserves the character of the street and is consistent with the design principles of Clause 5.2 Street Setback of the Built Form Policy.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks and Boundary Wall

 

The applicant proposes a southern ground floor setback of one metre for the front and rear portions of wall in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 1.5 metres. A first floor setback to the southern boundary of 1.5 metres in lieu of two metres is also proposed. A lot boundary wall is proposed within the street setback area in lieu of being located behind the deemed-to-comply street setback of 7.9 metres.

 

The ground floor is articulated with the front and rear portions of the wall set back at one metres and the middle portion set back at 1.5 metres. The first floor wall is set back a further 0.5 metres from the ground floor and is ten metres shorter in length than the ground floor wall. The neighbouring lot has a reduced lot boundary setback, and a wall that does not have any major openings facing the subject site. As a result, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in an adverse impact on the neighbouring habitable rooms or outdoor living space. The proposed single dwelling meets the deemed-to-comply criteria regarding visual privacy and solar access. Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the design principles of Clause 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks of the R Codes.

 

The proposed boundary wall will abut an existing (garage) boundary wall on the northern adjoining lot, with that existing garage located approximately 1.5 metres from Scott Street. As a result, the proposed boundary wall forward of the street setback line will not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties. In addition, the adjoining lot owner provided a submission supporting the wall on lot boundary in its current form. The boundary wall is considered to satisfy the design principles of Clause 5.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks of the Built Form Policy and is supported.

 

Landscaping

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard of 15 percent deep soil zone and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity. These standards and relevant corresponding design principles are given due regard when assessing and determining the proposal. The original application was advertised with three percent canopy coverage at maturity. Following community consultation, where concerns were raised over the landscaping, the applicant submitted amended plans and proposed 13.7 percent canopy cover at maturity. The applicant proposes 37.9 percent deep soil zone. The proposed landscaping within the street setback is considered to reduce the overall impact of the proposal on the public street. The proposed species provide a significant amount of coverage, and additional trees of similar size will assist in softening the overall impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties.

 

Although, the proposed canopy coverage is greater in area than the existing 10 percent canopy coverage of the subject site, it is considered that the site is capable of providing a greater canopy coverage than the proposed 13.7 percent. Additional landscaping would have the potential to provide for greater landscaping amenity for the residents and the community, further reduce the impact of the development on adjoining residential lots and create a sense of open space between dwellings. As such, it is recommended that Council impose a condition on any approval requiring a landscaping plan to be submitted prior to commencement of development to achieve a compliant canopy coverage that Clause 5.14 of the Built Form Policy.

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the street setback, lot boundary setbacks, boundary wall and landscaping. The proposed building design, incorporating articulation and different materials is considered to reduce the overall building bulk on neighbouring properties and the primary street. The proposed landscaping will contribute to the green canopy of the locality and provide increased tree and vegetation coverage for the lot and abutting properties. 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 or can be resolved by the imposition of an appropriate condition. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.2          No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth - Second Storey Addition to Grouped Dwelling

TRIM Ref:                  D18/69417

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2018 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant's Response Submissions

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for a Second Storey Addition to Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Extent of Approval

This approval only relates to the ‘PROPOSED ADDITION’ and ‘PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR’ to Grouped Dwelling shown on the approved plans dated 13 March 2018 and does not relate to the ‘PROPOSED SPA’, ‘TIMBER DECK’, ‘EXTG STUDIO/SHED’ or any other development on the lot, and does not relate to the use of the site for anything other than a Single House;

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

3.       Stormwater

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To reconsider an application for development approval for a second storey addition and alterations to an existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 Orange Street, Perth (subject site).

Proposal:

This application proposes ground floor alterations and a second storey addition to an existing Grouped Dwelling.


 

Background:

Landowner:

Derek Bower

Applicant:

Derek Bower

Date of Application:

11 December 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

362m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 3m wide, drained and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 14 Orange Avenue, Perth, as shown in the location plan included as Attachment 1. The site is bound by Orange Avenue to the west, a ROW to the east and residential properties to the north and south. The subject site comprises of a single storey dwelling, which shares a common wall and roof with No. 16 Orange Avenue.

 

The locality has been developed with predominantly ‘terrace style’ single storey single houses and grouped dwellings, although there are two storey developments, multiple dwellings and commercial developments within the broader area. There are a number of Heritage Listed dwellings that front Lake Street, that back onto the opposite side of the ROW.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the site has been identified in the Residential Area and has been assessed against the applicable standards and requirements of the policy.

 

This development application was presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 4 April 2018. The application was deferred by Council to enable the applicant time to address Council’s concerns relating to streetscape, setbacks, bulk and scale and visual privacy. The development plans previously considered by Council have been included as Attachment 2.

 

In response to the comments raised by Council, the applicant has prepared amended plans that incorporate the following modifications:

 

·       Reorientated the bathroom located on level one to increase the primary street setback by 0.51 metres to 10.63 metres.

·       Reduce the overall length of the level one by 0.51 metres.

·       Reduce the width of the bedroom located on level one by 0.7 metres to increase the cone of vision setback to the southern boundary and comply with the visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes).

·       Reduce the length of the window located on the eastern façade of the level one bedroom from 3.6 metres to 2 metres to reduce the extent of the cone of vision and comply with the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes.

·       Raise the height of the louvered windows located on the eastern façade of the level one bedroom to 1.6 metres from the finished floor level to comply with the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes.

·       Introduce an eave to the west (front) and east (rear) skillion roof to frame the second storey addition and increase the presentation to the street and ROW.

·       Changed the colour of the northern façade to grey (heritage profile zincalume orb).

 

The modification to the development plans have brought the development into compliance with the visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The amended development plans are 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 LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management - Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and State Planning Policy 3.1: 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

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

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

 

Impact on Adjacent Heritage Listed Buildings

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of Built Form Policy

 

Maximum height to top of external wall (concealed roof) – 7m

 

 

Maximum height to top of external wall (concealed roof) – 7.2m

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.3 of R Codes

 

Southern Boundary

Ground Level – Setback 4.8m

 

 

Northern Boundary

Level One – Setback 1.6m

 

 

Southern Boundary

Ground level – Setback 1.7m (shower) and 3.63m (building)

 

Northern Boundary

Level One – Setback 0.9m

 

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 on the original submission in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 1 February 2018 and concluding on 14 February 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as show in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, seven submissions were received in objection.

 

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

 

·       Impact of the development on the streetscape;

·       Impact of the development on the adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale;

·       Potential use of the development as a short-term rental;

·       Unfinished works on the subject site; and

·       Potential loss of privacy.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is included as Attachment 4, with the applicant’s response to the submissions provided in Attachment 5.

 

As previously stated, the applicant provided a further set of amended plans to address the concerns raised by Council. The amended plans were advertised to the abutting properties (being No. 12 and No. 16 Orange Avenue) from 8 June 2018 to 15 June 2018, on the basis that these two properties were likely to be most affected by the proposal. The amended plans were not advertised more broadly as the proposed amendments reduced the number of departures to the deemed to comply requirements and impact of the development on the streetscape.

 

The landowners at No. 12 and No. 16 Orange Avenue both submitted objections to the amended plans. The objections reinforced the previous comments submitted raising concerns relating to building bulk, building height, overshadowing, visual privacy and inconsistencies with the existing streetscape character.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties.

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as Council considered the previous version of the proposal, in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register 2017 – 2018.

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 Setbacks

 

Northern Boundary

 

The development provides a 0.9 metre upper floor setback to the northern boundary in lieu of the deemed‑to-comply requirement of 1.6 metres. In response to the comments received by Council, the applicant reduced the length of the upper floor wall from 11.48 metres to 10.97 metres, reducing the setback requirement from 1.7 metres to 1.6 metres. The proposed second storey addition is partly screened by a common boundary wall with No. 16 Orange Avenue, which has a maximum height of 5.5 metres and obscures the majority of the northern façade which only protrudes 1.2 metres higher than the boundary wall.

 

To further reduce the impact of building bulk, the applicant has amended the colour of the northern façade to ‘heritage profile’ which is a grey shade and more consistent with character of the existing and adjoining dwelling. The proposed colour scheme and cladding is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk. It is also noted that the northern elevation does not incorporate any major openings and therefore, will not result in a loss of privacy.

 

Southern Boundary

 

On the ground level, the proposal incorporates a 1.7 metre setback to the outdoor shower and a 3.63 metre setback to the main building in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 4.8 metres.

 

The outdoor shower has a height of 2.2 metres and a width of 1.2 metres, which is not considered to be of a scale to impact the adjoining property.

 

The ground floor development proposes to reduce the length of the building and altering the external façade to incorporate major openings. The latter change results in an increased deemed-to-comply setback requirement from what is presently required, which is the cause for the variation, keeping in mind that the existing setback will not change.

 

The reduction in the length of the ground floor and introduction of a major opening to a previously solid wall mitigates the impact of building bulk. Although the ground floor southern boundary elevation contains major openings, the finished floor level of the dwelling does not exceed 0.5 metres above natural ground level and therefore, the proposal complies with the visual privacy requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes. The proposal is also compliant with the overshadowing requirements of Clause 5.4.2 of the R Codes.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the design principles and local housing objectives of Clause 5.1.3 and Clause 5.3 of the R Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy respectively.

 

Building Height

 

The proposal exceeds the deemed-to-comply height of 7.0 metres for a concealed roof by 0.2 metres. The existing dwelling on subject site has a wall height of 3.8 metres and ceiling height of 3.4 metres, which restricts the ability to reduce the overall building height of the development and maintain compliant ceiling heights on the upper level.

 

In response to the comments received by Council, the applicant has amended the development plans to reorientate the bathroom located on level one and increase the street setback of the level one from 10.1 metres to 10.6 metres. The additional setback is considered to further reduce the visibility of the development and the impact of the additional building height on the streetscape.

 

The applicant has amended the development plans to introduce an eave along the upper level façade. The eave frames the upper level of the development and ties the development in with the existing ground level façade, which contains an eave with consistent dimensions and colour. The upper level of the development has incorporated cladding that is a similar colour as the façade of the existing dwelling, which is not proposed to be changed. It is considered that this will further assist in reducing impact of the addition on the streetscape. The southern façade also provides contrasting material and finishes to assist in mitigating the impact of bulk on the adjoining property.

 

On the northern boundary, the subject site shares a common boundary wall with the adjoining property. The length of the boundary wall varies in height, with a maximum height being 5.5 metres. The proposed second storey addition will protrude 1.2 metres above the existing boundary wall, which is not considered to impact on the adjoining property. The portion of the development that protrudes higher than the boundary wall has incorporated cladding to further reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining dwelling. Ultimately, it is considered that the additional height is negligible (representing a 3 percent variation) and will not adversely impact on the adjoining landowners.

 

The proposal allows for direct sun and ventilation to the buildings and open spaces on the subject site and the adjoining properties. The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements the R Codes and the applicant has amended the development plans to comply with the visual privacy requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes. It is considered that the height proposed satisfies the design principles and local housing objectives Clause 5.6 of the R Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy respectively.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been modified to address the concerns previously raised by Council and the surrounding landowners. The current proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the building height and lot boundary setbacks.  Given the context of the subject site, the proposed building heights and lot boundary setbacks are considered to have a negligible impact on the surrounding properties. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.3          No. 42 (Lot: 2, D/P: 2136) Woodville Street, North Perth - Proposed Six Dwellings (Multiple)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/54280

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Design Advisory Committee Comments, Plans and Applicant Response

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant Justification

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for the proposed Six Dwellings (Multiple) at No. 42 (Lot: 2, D/P: 2136) Woodville Street, North Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

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.       Stormwater

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

4.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

4.1       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 18.4% percent canopy cover within the lot boundary and 22 percent overall, at maturity; and

·       An arbour is to be provided over the driveway columns.

 

 

 

 

4.2       All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 4.1 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;

 

5.       Car Parking and Access

5.1       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;

5.2       The turning bay is to be hard stand material;

5.3       The driveway is to incorporate a paved 2.2 metres x 1.2 metres truncation in front of the bin store to assist the passing of vehicles;

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

5.5       A Parking Management Plan that details the management of visitor parking on site;

6.       Bicycle Parking

A minimum of three bicycle bays are to be provided in accordance with AS2890.3;

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.       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;

9.       Schedule of External Finishes

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

10.     Environmentally Sustainable Design Report

An Environmentally Sustainable Design Report shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the issuing of a building permit.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for Six Dwellings (Multiple) at No. 42 Woodville Street, North Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a two storey development comprising of six multiple dwellings at the subject site. Two dwellings are located at ground level (one at each end of the site), and four dwellings are located on the upper floor. The car parking area is located the two dwellings at ground level.

Background:

Landowner:

Italiano Property Group Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Riviera Homes WA Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

12 March 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Multiple)

Lot Area:

770m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not Applicable

Heritage List:

Not Applicable

 

The subject site is bound by Woodville Street to the west and residential dwellings to the north, south and eastern boundaries. There is an existing single storey single house on the site. The site adjoins double storey single houses to the rear, single storey and double storey dwellings to the north and a single storey dwelling to the south. On the opposite side of Woodville Street there a number of single storey dwellings.  A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and the immediate properties are zoned Residential with a density code of R40 under Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The zoning has not altered from Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The site has been identified as a Residential Built Form Area subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

The existing character of the streetscape consists of pitched roofed dwellings, both single and two storey. The dwellings along the streetscape have a variety of building materials including render and brickwork. The renders along the streetscape include white and grey, with the brickwork predominately being redbrick.

 

The City received a development application seeking the approval for the construction of six multiple dwellings on the subject site on 12 March 2018. The applicant agreed in writing on 27 April 2018 to extend the statutory timeframe in which to determine the application to 26 June 2018 as the City required additional information. The City advised the applicant that the amended plans and additional information was to be provided by 11 May 2018, with amended plans received on this date. The final plans were received by the City on 14 May 2018. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

ü

 

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

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 element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Clause 5.6

 

Wall height of 6.0m

 

 

6.4m

Bicycle Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Residential Design Codes (R Codes) Clause 6.3.3

 

Bicycle bays being designed in accordance with AS2890.3.

 

 

Proposed bicycle bay dimensions not compliant with AS2890.3.

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.3.4

 

Visitor bays to be close to or visible from an entry point and outside any security barriers.

 

R Codes Clause 6.3.5

 

Driveways designed for two way access where the parking space is located more than 15 metres from the street to allow for vehicles to exit in forward gear.

 

 

Proposed visitor bays located behind security barriers and entry point.

 

 

 

Two way access commences in excess of 15 metres from the 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 5 April 2018 and concluding on 18 April 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners within a 75metre radius of the site as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period 19 submissions were received by the City comprising of 13 in objection, 3 in support and 3 raising concerns.

 

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

 

·       The development will result in parking issues within the street and will impact the safety of residents;

·       The development is not consistent with the existing streetscape and will be significantly forward of the dwellings along the street;

·       The development is not sympathetic to the character of the street;

·       The setback variations result in bulk and limit access to sunlight and ventilation to adjoining properties;

·       The increase in height will negatively impact the street; and

·       The areas proposed for landscaping do not allow for greater canopy coverage.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments are included as Attachment 3.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development has been referred to DRP on three occasions, twice prior to lodgement on 6 September 2017 and 20 December 2017, and once following receipt of the application by Administration on 4 April 2018. Attachment 4 contains the development plans presented to the DRP, an extract of the minutes from each meeting and the applicant’s response.

 

The proposal was first presented to the DRP on 6 September 2017, with comments raised by the DRP summarised as follows:

 

·       Design should consider heritage building in the street and reinterpret these elements into the façade;

·       Consider increasing the front setback to reduce impact on the streetscape;

·       Landscaping to be increased to comply with City’s requirements;

·       Overdevelopment of the site which results in non-compliance and loss of amenity;

·       Screening resulting in closing off all balconies is not supported and doesn’t allow for external views, sunlight or breeze;

·       Lack of cross ventilation and poor amenity outcomes; and

·       Redesign should be respectful to internal living spaces, high quality external communal spaces for residents and apartment layout generally.

 

On 20 December 2017, an amended design was presented to DRP, with the comments raised summarised as follows:

 

·       The heritage element is to be reinterpreted rather than mimicked into the façade design;

·       Consideration to selection of tree species required, and allowing for areas to plant larger trees rather that small unusable areas;

·       The mechanisms created to mitigate privacy do not result in a good outcome and outlook is restricted due to highlight windows.

·       Consideration is required to reorganise the internal layouts of the units to gain more northern solar access into the living areas;

·       The overdevelopment of the site adversely affects the amenity of the residents and creates inefficiencies in areas;

·       High strip windows and balconies with no outlook are an effect of the over-development. Obscuring windows limits the outlook and natural ventilation opportunities; and

·       Request surrounding context be provided on elevations and perspectives to assist in demonstrating how the design will impact and relate to neighbouring buildings and the streetscape.

 

On 4 April 2018, Administration presented the development plans to the DRP, with the comments raised summarised as follows:

 

·       Provide the surrounding built form context to allow the impact on adjoining properties to be considered;

·       The site is overdeveloped from a user perspective with limited outlook from balconies and habitable rooms of the dwellings with majority of openings screened;

·       The organisation of the development on the narrow site does not allow for sufficient north sun access and an un‑screened outlook. There is the potential to reduce car parking on site to allow for more amenity;

·       Consideration to site configuration in particular relocating the balconies to the southern side of the site to allow for un-screened outlook; and

·       Improvement to cross ventilation required to the site and individual units.

 

Following the receipt of the DRP comments, the applicant, in May 2018, submitted amended plans for the City’s assessment. Whilst the amended plans received have not addressed the comments above regarding outlook, solar access, amenity and cross ventilation, they have resulted in a greater level of compliance with the R Codes. The amended plans are contained in Attachment 4.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       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 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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council in accordance with Clause 6.2(10) of the City’s Delegated Authority Register, as the proposed development incorporates more than three dwellings (multiple).

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Building Height

 

The application proposes a pitched roof development with a maximum wall height of 6.4 metres in lieu of the deemed to comply requirement of 6.0 metres. The proposal complies with the deemed to comply height of maximum height of 9.0 metres the top of the pitched roof.

 

The increase in height is attributed to the natural ground level of the site which has a gradual fall from the western to the eastern boundary. The wall height of the development as viewed from the street is 4.8 metres above natural ground level, with a 6.4 metre wall height located towards the centre of the lot on the northern and southern sides and a 6.1 metre height reached towards the eastern side (rear).

 

A variation of 0.4m to the building height has not impacted the development in terms of compliance with the R40 development standards as the development complies with plot ratio, street setback and lot boundary setbacks. As these aspects are compliant, the impact of building bulk as a result of the height variation is reduced and consistent with the development potential in the area.

 

The proposed development incorporates a range of materials including brickwork and render, which are featured in the locality. The development also incorporates two roof forms being concealed and pitched and provides articulation through varying setbacks when viewed from the street and adjoining properties. The materials and finishes address the character of the site context. The proposed height is consistent existing two storey dwellings to the north, south and east of the site.

 

Additionally, due to the vehicle entry point being located to the southern lot boundary, the overshadowing to the adjacent properties is approximately 24 percent, which is within the 35 percent permitted by the R Codes.

 

Given the above, the proposed building height is considered to meet the design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Parking and Access

 

The visitor parking is proposed to be located behind a security barrier and is not visible from the entry point of the development in lieu of deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes which require visitor bays to be close to the point of entry to the development and outside any security barrier. The location of the visitor parking is considered appropriate and will assist in allowing for a consistent streetscape which is open and landscaped and is not dominated by vehicle parking. A turning bay has been provided within the parking area which allows for visitors and residents to manoeuvre and exit the site in forward gear, should no parking bay be available. A parking management plan is recommended to be provided in order to ensure that all parking on site, including visitor parking is adequately maintained and accessible.

 

The application involves the provision of a single crossover, which is consistent with that existing on site and as such will not detract from the streetscape. The deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes require two way access where an on-site car parking space is located more than 15 metres from the street, as is the case with the current proposal. The paved access adjacent to the car parking bays provides an appropriate opportunity for passing, however, for enhanced ease of use, it is considered appropriate to require a small paved truncation area in front of the bin store.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the development incorporate an additional 2.2 metres x 1.2 metres paved truncation area and a parking management plan be provided to ensure visitors are able to utilise the parking on site.

 

Bicycle Parking

 

The proposal is required to provide for three bicycle parking bays. The submitted plans provide for eight bicycle bays alongside the southern external wall of Unit 4. The bays are proposed to be in a location that is 1.4 metres in width in lieu of 2.7 metres as prescribed by AS2890.3.

 

There is sufficient space on the subject site to provide for bicycle parking which complies with AS2890.3.  A condition has been recommended that at least three bicycle bays be provided on site in accordance with AS2890.3.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal complies with the landscaping requirements of the R Codes, with 48.1 percent of the street setback being hard stand with a maximum 50 percent permitted. However it is noted the development does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.14 of the City’s Built Form Policy. The Policy requires 15 percent of site area to be set aside as deep soil zones and 30 percent as canopy coverage. The proposal provides 11.6 percent deep soil zones and 10.19 percent canopy coverage. It should be noted that the above calculations exclude the area required to be occupied by the 2.2 metres x 1.2 metres paved truncation.

 

The proposed landscaping reduces the impact of the development to the streetscape as the majority of landscaping is contained within the front setback area. The landscaping area within the front setback will form part of the outdoor living area for unit 1, however the landscaping will still allow an appropriate area of open outdoor space.

 

The deep soil zones are identified as requiring a minimum area of three square metres and a minimum width of one metre, and although the development proposes a 3.4 percent variation to the required deep soil zone, there are other areas around the site which do not meet the deep soil zone requirements, but will contribute to additional landscaping areas on site and assist in reducing the impact of building bulk on the streetscape and surrounding properties.

The proposal also does not achieve the deemed to comply provisions for canopy coverage of the Built Form Policy, with 30 percent required and 10.19 percent proposed. It is considered that with appropriate tree species, the proposed deep soil areas on the subject site will be able to achieve 18.4 percent canopy coverage within the lot boundaries and 22 percent canopy coverage overall.

 

Although the proposal cannot achieve 30 percent canopy coverage, the proposed landscaping areas (including an arbour over the driveway entry) will assist in creating greater landscaping amenity for the residents and surrounding community. The two existing mature street trees will increase the streetscape amenity in regards to landscaping around the site and these trees combined with the overall landscaping provided on site will assist in mitigating the impact of urban heat island affect.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the development provide for 18.4 percent canopy coverage at maturity within the lot boundary of the subject site and 22 percent overall.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

The Built Form Policy sets out that environmentally sensitive design is a local housing objective which seeks to ensure that developments incorporate various environmental performance measures and achieve related environmental outcomes. The application does not contain any information regarding environmental performance and therefore does not meet the stated local housing objective. It should be noted however, that the developer is required to demonstrate a 5-star green star rating as part of the building permit process. As such, it is considered that this element can be satisfied through the imposition of an appropriate condition of planning approval.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development.

 

The impact of the proposed wall height of 6.4 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres has been sufficiently moderated through the incorporation of a range of materials and finishes consistent with the existing immediate streetscape, and landscaping area within the front setback. The visitor parking being behind the security barrier and the entry point to the dwelling will allow for additional landscaping within the front setback and reduce the amount of hard stand area visible from the street.

 

The proposal is compliant with the landscaping provisions of the R Codes and a canopy coverage of 18.4 percent can be achieved within the proposed landscaping areas. The proposed landscaping is considered to be to assist in mitigating the perception of building bulk as viewed from the street.

 

The submitted plans have been amended a number of times to ensure greater compliance with the R Codes and an improved urban outcome. 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, and therefore the current proposal is considered acceptable.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the development be approved subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.4          No. 33A (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth - Grouped Dwelling

TRIM Ref:                  D18/76967

Author:                     Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plans

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicant's Justification

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicant's Response to Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Administration's Response to Submissions

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for a Grouped Dwelling at No. 33a (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth in accordance with the plans in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) wall facing No. 31 Redfern Street and No. 35 Redfern Street, North Perth in a good and clean condition prior to occupation or use of the development. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

2.       External Fixtures

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

3.       Stormwater

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

4.       Schedule of External Finishes

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

5.       Landscape Plan

5.1     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 11 per cent of the site area as deep soil zones and 16 per cent canopy cover at maturity; and

5.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 5.1 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; and

6.       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 Grouped Dwelling at No. 33a Redfern Street, North Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a two storey grouped dwelling at No. 33a Redfern Street, North Perth, which fronts and proposes vehicular access solely from Macri Lane.

Background:

Landowner:

Chantel Concei and Jade Concei

Applicant:

Chantel Concei and Jade Concei

Date of Application:

06 February 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30/40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

223m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, sealed and owned by the City

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Redfern Street, North Perth, fronting onto a ROW. The site is adjoined either side by two-storey houses, one to the east and one to the west, and a single-storey house to the north. The abutting southern ROW is 6.0 metres in width. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

The subject site is impacted by two existing boundary walls being 8.9 metres and 11.8 metres in width on the western and eastern boundaries respectively. The subject site and surrounding area is zoned Residential with a dual coding of R30/40 under the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). In accordance with Clause 26(1) of LPS2 the proposal has been assessed in accordance with R40 provisions of the State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R Codes), as the northern adjoining single house has been retained through the previous subdivision. The subject site is located within the ‘Residential’ built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

The existing ROW is predominantly characterised by garages and fencing, with only two single houses fronting Macri Lane. The materials of the streetscape include exposed brick, face brick, red brick and rendered garages and street walls, and corrugated fibre cement, colorbond, limestone and wooden fences.

 

The application was originally proposed to be presented to Council’s 29 May 2018 Meeting with the recommendation of refusal. The applicant requested the item be withdrawn so as to amend the application with the intent to amend the plans to be compliant with the design principles of the R Codes and the Local Housing Objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy. The applicant’s amended development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s justification for the proposed departures from the deemed-to-comply standards and photographs of the site are included in Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, 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

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Front Fence

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Garage Width

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

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 Built Form Policy

 

Average of five adjoining properties. In this instance however, the existing dwellings on the five adjoining properties all address Redfern Street and therefore the deemed-to-comply street setback requirement does not apply to Macri Lane. Accordingly, the street setback has been assessed against the relevant design principles of the R Codes and Local Housing Objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

 

1.5m to dwelling

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3 of Built Form Policy and 5.13 of the R Codes

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 2: 3.5m

 

 

 

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 2: 3.4m

Western Boundary

 

Level 1: 1.5m

Level 2: 3.4m

Western Boundary

 

Level 1: 1.2m

Level 2: 1.2m

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.4 of the R Codes

 

45%

 

 

44.5%

Setback of Garages and Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.7 of Built Form Policy

 

Garages are to be setback a minimum 500mm behind the building line of the dwelling

 

 

Garage set forward 500mm in front of the building line of the dwelling

Garage Width

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.2.2 of the R Codes

 

Garage door and supporting structures facing the primary street not to occupy more than 50% of frontage

 

 

Garage door and supporting structures occupy 52% of frontage

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.14 of the Built Form Policy

 

Deep Soil Zone: 15%

Canopy Coverage: 30%

 

 

11%

3.2%

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.1 of the R Codes

 

Minimum dimension 4m

 

 

Courtyard and yard: Minimum dimension 3.419m

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes

 

Setback of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces (balconies and courtyards): 7.5m

 

Setback of major openings to habitable rooms other than bedrooms and studies (meals room): 6m

 

 

Setback of balcony to the western boundary: 1.2m

 

Setback of meals room to the northern boundary: 4.7m

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, from 1 March 2018 to 15 March 2018. The method of consultation being written notifications in the form or eight letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Seven submissions were received, six of which objected to the proposal.

 

The main concerns raised by the submissions are as follows:

 

·       Building bulk and design;

·       Setback variations;

·       Streetscape and impact on Macri Lane;

·       Open space provisions;

·       Outdoor living area;

·       Landscaping;

·       Disruption of views;

·       Solar access and overshadowing; and

·       Ventilation.

 

The applicant’s responses to each submission is contained in Attachment 4. The summary of submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is contained in Attachment 5.

 

Following withdrawal of the application from the May OMC Agenda, the applicant submitted amended plans to the City for consideration. As these plans did not propose any further departures from the deemed‑to‑comply criteria, they were not publically advertised through a community consultation period.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       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 Design WA but which have not been approved by Council. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to those deemed-to-comply landscaping approved by Council in the Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the City received six written objections during the consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Streetscape (Street Setback, Setback of Garages and Carports and Garage Width)

 

As detailed above, the street setback has been assessed against the relevant design principles of the R Codes and Local Housing Objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed garage is located 0.5 metres in front of the proposed dwelling line, in lieu of the deemed‑to‑comply setback of 0.5 metres behind the dwelling. The proposed garage width also does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards, comprising 52 percent of the street frontage in lieu of 50 percent.

 

Although the garage is in front of the proposed dwelling line, the impact of setting it back further would result in a longer driveway rather than any useable space that could either contribute to outdoor living area or landscaping. To ameliorate the impact of the garage being forward of the dwelling, the applicant proposes vegetation (Star Jasmine) along the garage which will assist in moderating the building bulk and improve the amenity of the dwelling when viewed from the street. In addition, the applicant has modified the landscaping within the street setback, to incorporate a larger tree species (Japanese Maple) which will soften the overall impact of the dwelling when viewed from the street or neighbouring properties. The proposed balcony above the garage lessens the overall building bulk and scale due to the use of glass and vegetation for the proposed roof.

 

The visually permeable front fence incorporates materials from the existing streetscape whilst still allowing for interaction between the public and private realms. The design of the proposed fence provides articulation and alternative materials incorporated in the frontage. In addition to the proposed vegetation and materials of the fence, the overall bulk of the dwelling will have a lesser impact with regard to the overall building bulk and scale when viewed from the street or neighbouring properties, in comparison to the previous application.

 

The changes made to the proposal have addressed previous concerns relating to bulk and scale, and dominance of the garage. The proposal satisfies the design principles relating to garage width of the R Codes and Local Housing Objectives relating to street setback and setback of garages and carports of the Built Form Policy, and is supported.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

North

 

A setback of 3.4 metres, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 3.5 metres is proposed to the area titled ‘void’ at the top of the staircase adjoining the upper floor meals area. The upper floor setback to bedroom 1 satisfies the deemed-to-comply standard as this portion of wall does not have a major opening.

 

The ‘void’ area is separated from the meals area by a balustrade which increases the distance from the habitable portion of the room to the boundary. As a result, there is a reduction in the amount of overlooking from the window to the northern property. In addition, the proposal includes landscaping along the northern lot boundary and vegetation canopy over the proposed outdoor living area, which will also contribute to the reduction of building bulk when viewed from the northern lot.

 

As a result of the above, the proposed articulated design results in a reduced impact of building bulk on the northern property, continues to provide adequate solar access and ventilation and minimises the extent of overlooking onto major openings to habitable rooms of the northern lot. Therefore, the northern lot boundary setback is consistent with the design principles of the R Codes, and is supported.

 

West

 

The development proposes an upper floor setback of 1.2 metres to the western boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 3.4 metres.

 

The proposed western upper floor incorporates a balcony with screening to 1.2 metres above floor height. This proposed balcony contributes to the reduction in the impact of building bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling when viewed from the adjoining western lot. The revised plans also include an obscure window which will provide filtered light to the staircase, and also assist in breaking up the bulk of the upper floor as viewed from the adjoining property and Macri Lane. These proposed windows incorporate a contrasting coloured frame, which further breaks up the bulk of the upper floor, and reduces the impact of the building bulk on the adjoining lot.

In addition, the western lot boundary has an existing outbuilding located on the shared lot boundary and the existing outdoor living area is located on the western lot. As a result, the proposed lot boundary setback will not have a detrimental impact on the use or amenity of the western adjoining lot. The proposed lot boundary setback does not result in overshadowing onto the western adjoining lot, or overlooking onto any habitable rooms or outdoor living areas.

 

As a result of the existing development adjoining the subject site and the design of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the proposed lot boundary setback satisfies the design principles of the R Codes, and is supported.

 

Open Space and Outdoor Living Areas

 

The revised plans provide an increase in open space due to the ground floor northern boundary setback increasing from 1.92 metres to 2.02 metres. The proposal now offers 44.5 percent open space in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 45 percent, and an outdoor living area with minimum dimension of 3.42 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply minimum dimension of 4 metres. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       The development provides two outdoor living areas, one being located at the rear of the dwelling and the other on the first floor balcony.

·       The proposed outdoor living area at the rear of the dwelling makes use of the winter sun by virtue of it being north facing.

·       Both outdoor living areas are directly accessible and useable from a habitable room.

·       The applicant also proposes a separate area dedicated for external fixtures (i.e. air conditioning units) and clothes drying areas. As a result, the proposed outdoor living areas are for the dedicated use of active and/or passive recreation.

·       The 0.5 percent variation to the open space requirement equates to only 1.12 square metres. The loss of that area is not considered to unreasonably restrict the use of the areas provided.

·       Notwithstanding the variation to the minimum dimension the outdoor living areas comply with the minimum area requirements.

 

Based on the above, the proposal is not considered likely to have a detrimental impact on the use of the land for recreational purposes or provision of landscaping. As a result, the proposed open space and outdoor living areas are supported.

 

Landscaping

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard of 15 percent deep soil zone and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity. These standards and relevant corresponding design principles are given due regard when assessing and determining this proposal. The development provides 11 percent deep soil zone and 3.2 percent canopy coverage in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively.

 

In considering the issue of canopy cover, it should be noted that the 3.2 percent calculation is based on the diagrammatic representation of the canopy cover provided within the submitted landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed to plant five Magnolia Grandiflora trees, three Ornamental Pears and a Japanese Maple, however, the plans do not accurately illustrate the canopy cover that these trees are likely to achieve, particularly given that the Magnolia is capable of providing a 28.27 metre square canopy and is capable of growing to a height of 4.0 metres and the Ornamental Pear is capable of providing a 12.56 metre square canopy. As such, the use of the stated species could reasonably achieve a canopy of at least 16 percent, even allowing for a reduced number of trees and after deducting any part of the canopy that overhangs into the adjoining lot. This outcome would still represent a departure from the deemed to comply standards but the variation is mitigated by the provision of vines along the garage (Star Jasmine) and a roof top garden adjacent the kitchen. These will serve to soften the appearance of the proposed dwelling and reduce the overall impact of the building bulk and scale when viewed from Macri Lane.

 

The applicant proposes alternative landscaping options to satisfy the design principles of the Built Form Policy. As a result, the proposal is considered to contribute to the reduction of the urban heat island effect, increase urban air quality, provide a greater landscape amenity for the locality and create a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed landscaping reflects the Local Housing Objectives of the Built Form Policy, and is supported, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping plan that provides for a minimum 16 per cent canopy cover within the bounds of the subject site.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The application proposes a 1.2 metre setback from the first-floor balcony in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 7.5 metres. The proposed balcony results in overlooking onto a garage, and not over any outdoor living areas or into major openings into habitable rooms and as a result is considered acceptable.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the street setback, lot boundary setbacks, setback of garages, garage width, open space, outdoor living areas, landscaping and visual privacy. The proposed development responds to these departures with landscaping that is integrated into the design of the building. As a result, the design of the proposed dwelling is considered to enhance to the streetscape of Macri Lane and provide a softened aesthetic (through the integrated landscaping) when viewed from neighbouring properties. In addition, the proposal makes good use of the available site area by providing habitable spaces with the ability to be used for active and/or passive outdoor pursuits. The articulated design of the proposed dwelling is considered to reduce the overall building bulk and scale of the design when viewed from neighbouring properties and the street. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the R Codes and the Local Housing Objectives of the Built Form Policy.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.5          No. 16 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1962) Howlett Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Office to Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/53776

Author:                     Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions with Administration Response

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant Comments

5.       Attachment 5 - Waste Management Plan

6.       Attachment 6 - Acoustic Report

7.       Attachment 7 - Parking Management Plan

8.       Attachment 8 - Transport Impact Statement  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the development application for a Change of Use from Office to Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care) at No. 16 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1962) Howlett Street, North Perth for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed use is inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial zone in the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 as it will be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining commercial properties and residential properties in the locality as a result of noise associated with the development; and

2.       The proposed use does not meet the requirements of Clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it is considered incompatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Office to Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care) at No. 16 Howlett Street, North Perth (subject site).

Proposal:

The application proposes a change of use from Office to Dog Day Care. The subject site has four parking bays and will offer day care services for up to 30 dogs, which will include day to day socialisation of dogs  as well as grooming and behavioural training.

 

The existing office building on site will be used as a front office, grooming area and inside play area, and will also provide bathroom and kitchen facilities for the staff. The proposal does not involve any internal modifications to the building. The application involves the provision of a chain link fence to separate the back yard into three play areas and a sign at the front of the property.

 

The proposed hours of operation are:

 

·       Monday – Friday: 7:00am – 5:30pm

·       Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays: Closed.


 

Background:

Landowner:

Flyleads.com Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Amanda Deurloo and Lucinda Cunningham

Date of Application:

23 March 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use Area

Existing Land Use:

Office

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care)

Lot Area:

637m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on Howlett Street North Perth, on the fringe of the Commercial zone near the intersection of Scarborough Beach Road and Charles Street. The subject site and surrounding properties immediately to the north, south, east and west are zoned ‘Commercial’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The area to the west, beyond the immediately adjoining western lot, is zoned Residential. The immediately abutting lot to the north and east accommodates an existing funeral parlour. The locality is characterised by a mix of developments including residential dwellings, offices, shops, eating houses and warehouses.

 

The proposed land use is not specifically identified in LPS2’s land use table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of one of the listed uses in LPS2. The use is considered an Unlisted Use under LPS2 and Council is required to consider if it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Commercial zone, following community consultation.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2.  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 Discretion of Council

Land Use (only where required)

 

ü

Car Parking

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

 

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

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

“P” Use

 

 

Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care)

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

No deemed to comply standard – parking management plan required.

 

 

 

4 car bays – parking management plan provided.


 

Bicycle Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

No deemed to comply standard – parking management plan required.

 

 

 

6 bicycle bays – parking management plan provided.

 

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:

The application was advertised for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 3 May 2018 to 23 May 2018. The method of consultation being a sign on site, a notice in the local newspaper and 232 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

A total of 25 submissions were received, of which 22 objected to the proposal and 3 supported the proposal. The main concerns raised by the submissions are as follows:

 

·       The lack of car parking and concerns regarding the proposal increasing traffic congestion and parking;

·       Concerns regarding increased noise;

·       Concerns regarding odour; and

·       The proposal having a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

 

The applicant has provided a response to the submissions and this is included as Attachment 4. A summary of submissions and the City’s comments are provided in Attachment 3.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy 2.2.11 – Waste Management;

·       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.

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

LPS2 includes the following objectives for the Commercial zone:

 

·       To facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development within the City.

 

·       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 maintain compatibility with the general streetscape, for all new buildings in terms of scale, height, style, materials, street alignment and design of facades.

 

·       To ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality.

 

In accordance with Clause 18(4) where a use class is not specifically referred to in the zoning table, the City is to:

 

(a)        Determine that the use is consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and is therefore a use that may be permitted in the zone subject to conditions imposed by the local government; or

 

(b)        Determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and give notice under clause 64 of the deemed provisions before considering an application for development approval for the use of the land; or

 

(c)        Determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives of a particular zone and is therefore not permitted in the zone.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council for determination as the City received more than five objections during the public consultation period.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The development proposes a day care centre for 30 dogs, with a maximum of four staff. Activities on site will include grooming, behavioural training and general day to day care of the dogs including playing, resting and feeding. The dogs will be distributed between the outside play area in the back yard, and the inside play area and rest room during the day. A maximum of 15 dogs will be in the back yard at any time, with the other 15 dogs kept inside during this time.

 

The subject site directly abuts a funeral parlour, and beyond this are residential homes and offices. A warehouse is immediately adjoining the site to the west, and beyond this is a Residential zone. There are residential properties three to twelve metres away from the subject site.  The surrounding commercial area is well tenanted and relatively quiet, with limited traffic and noise produced by the existing uses. The nearby residential area is also a quiet area, and site observations indicated some residents of the properties were at home on a weekday.

 


 

An objective of LPS2 for the commercial zone is ‘to ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality’. The addition of 30 dogs and four staff members within a relatively quiet commercial area in close proximity to residential dwellings would be out of character with the current development in the area, and have an adverse impact on its existing amenity.

 

The proposed use is considered incompatible with the surrounding commercial uses with an intensity far greater in comparison to the current uses surrounding the site. On this basis, the increased intensity of the use of the site is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial zone, and is therefore not supported.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

Car parking requirements on the site are required to be determined by the City on a site specific Parking Management Plan, in accordance with Policy No 7.1.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements.

 

Four car bays are provided on site at the front of the building, as shown on the site plan. The parking management plan states that two bays will be reserved for staff parking and two will be reserved for customers. However the applicant has since revised this plan and advised that the four parking bays will be for the exclusive use of customers for drop off and pick up, with all staff required to commute by public transport or cycling, or find alternative off-site parking arrangements.

 

The proposal is for up to thirty dogs to be cared for in the facility at any one time, meaning up to thirty drop offs and pick-ups could occur each day, with no staggered drop off or pick up times proposed. The parking management plan includes the use of 13 on-street car bays located on Howlett Street. These car bays have a time limit of one hour parking from 8:00am – 5:30pm, Monday to Friday.

 

The parking management plan includes six bicycle bays for the exclusive use of the business. These bicycle bays will be located under cover on the buildings porch area. As per the requirements of Policy No. 7.7.1, end of trip facilities are provided in the existing building in a bathroom that includes a shower and wash basin. The bicycle facilities are considered to be adequate, in that it will cater for all four staff members.

 

The subject site is located 150 metres from Charles Street and 200 metres from Scarborough Beach Road. However as dogs cannot be transported via public buses, public transport cannot be reasonably considered to alleviate the customer parking requirements on site.

 

A number of the submissions from the community consultation have noted traffic congestion and parking as an issue in the area. The proposed use of the site will see 30 customers visiting the site twice a day to drop off and pick up their dogs; increasing the intensity of traffic coming to and from the subject site at peak hour times of the morning and early evening.

 

Measures such as staggering drop off and pick up times for the dog owners, could be implemented to potentially decrease parking and traffic congestion, however in its current form the parking management plan provides no certainty that the nature of the business will not result in traffic congestion or illegal parking.

 

Waste Management Plan

 

The applicant provided a Waste Management Plan to demonstrate how they would manage dog faeces removal at the site. The management plan states that the applicant will be contracting Cleartech Waste Management for the dog faeces removal. The faeces would be collected on Tuesday and Friday, so as not to coincide with the waste and recycling collection that occurs on Wednesday.

 

The applicant is intending to immediately collect all faeces from the yard during the day using a plastic bag and store the faeces in bins. At the end of the day, the faeces will be moved into a large freezer, which will be used as a storage receptacle until the collection days. The freezing is intended to decrease any odour or disease that may otherwise be generated by the proposed amount of waste.

 

The applicant has provided a list of their hygiene and cleaning standards and requirements to ensure that odour is controlled and pests effectively managed.

 

It is considered that the Waste Management Plan will satisfactorily mitigate the potential for odour from the proposed business.

 


 

Noise

 

Many submitters expressed concern about the impact of barking dogs on the surrounding area. The applicant submitted an acoustic report which found that the development is unable to achieve compliance with the Noise Regulations. The report suggests a noise management plan be implemented to prevent group dog barking scenarios which may assist in aligning the noise levels more closely to the prevailing noise levels in the local area. The development is proposed on the fringe of a commercial zone in close proximity to a residential area both of which is generally quiet in nature. The surrounding commercial uses cannot be considered as high noise emitting uses. It is considered that the noise associated with the development will be detrimental to the surrounding residential properties and commercial uses (particularly the abutting funeral parlour) and is therefore contrary to the objectives of the ‘Commercial’ zone.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to exercise its discretion regards this development application for an Unlisted Use (Dog Day Care). The proposed land use is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed locality, due to its potential impact on the amenity of the surrounding area, by way of intensity, noise and traffic.

 

The evidence provided by the applicant does not provide certainty regarding their capacity to control the potential impact that 30 dogs in a confined area may have on the surrounding residential and commercial area.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed use at the subject site is inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial zone under LPS2, and the relevant sections of Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. As such, it is recommended that the application is refused.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

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

TRIM Ref:                  D18/23645

Author:                     Andrea Terni, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   Mount Hawthorn

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans (for 1 May 2018 OMC)

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 - Design Advisory Committee (now Design Review Panel) Minutes

8.       Attachment 8 - Amended Development Plans received 17 May 2018

9.       Attachment 9 - Justification for Amended Plans received 17 May 2018  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for five Dwellings (Grouped) at No. 48 (Lot: 66; D/P: 6049) Milton Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 8, 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 does not accommodate additional space for landscaping to reduce the impact of the development on Milton Street or the adjacent dwellings.

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.

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 involves excessive permanent roof cover which restricts access to direct sunlight and is located in a manner that reduces the privacy of the occupants.

4.       The cumulative impact of the variations represent overdevelopment of the site and results in an unacceptable built form outcome.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for five Dwellings (Grouped) 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 dwellings 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

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Grouped)

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 and two storey multiple 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 under 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 proposed development was presented to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 1 May 2018. The development plans that were presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 1 May 2018 are included as Attachment 2. 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.

 

The City’s Administration recommended the development proposal be refused due to the impact of building bulk to the street and adjoining properties and the lack of privacy to the outdoor living area of Unit B. At the applicant’s request, Council resolved to defer the application to allow it to be modified, prior to being formally determined.

 

Following Council’s deferral, the City’s Administration met with the applicant and in turn, on 17 May 2018, amended plans were submitted, and are included as Attachment 8. The main changes proposed include the introduction of feature slimline exposed face brick material to the eastern and northern elevations of the development and the provision of visually permeable, laser-cut feature panels to the perimeter of the outdoor living area of Unit B. The applicant’s supporting information of the amended plans is included as Attachment 9.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, 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

(upper floor)

Unit A

= 3.2m

 

 

 

 

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit A

= 1.213m

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit D

= 1.5m

 

Eastern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit D

= 1.244m

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit E

= 1.5m

 

Northern lot boundary

(ground floor)

Unit E

= 1.013m

Northern lot boundary

(upper floor)

Unit E

= 1.5m

Northern 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

 

63.75% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

 

Unit B

 

Minimum Dimension of 3.8m x 3.3m

 

A portion of the outdoor living area is within the front setback area

 

22.5% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

 

 

Unit C

 

Minimum Dimension of 4.0m x 3.5m

 

60% of dedicated outdoor living area is provided without permanent roof cover

 

 

Unit D

 

Minimum Dimension of 4.0m x 3.5m

 

65.62% 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. 4.1.5 – 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 Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with Clause 6.2(10) of the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development incorporates more than three 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 500 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

 

Two departures from the deemed-to-comply provisions which relate to the upper floor setback of Unit A and Unit D from the eastern lot boundary.

 

Unit A is proposed to have a 1.213 metre setback from the eastern lot boundary in lieu of a required 3.2 metre setback from the upper floor and Unit D is proposed to have a 1.244 metre upper floor setback in lieu of a 1.5 metre setback.

 


 

The amended plans received 17 May 2018 have incorporated slimline exposed face brick feature walls to a portion of each of the units facing the eastern lot boundary which is an additional and alternative material to the existing fully rendered brick work that was previously proposed. The additional material is considered to help minimise the perception of building bulk particularly to the adjacent single storey dwellings at Nos. 27 and 29 Brady Street.

 

The overall scale and perception of building bulk of the development is considered to pose an impact on the amenity of the two adjoining single storey dwellings, particularly given the location of the open space and outdoor living areas of those adjoining sites. In addition, the walls addressing the eastern lot boundary, particularly Unit A and E, propose minimal 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 which front 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 1.5 metre setback to the upper floor. The revised development plans received 17 May 2018 have provided some element of feature slimline exposed face brick material to the ground and upper floor walls of the Unit which provides an additional material to help minimise building bulk to the neighbouring property however, given the minimal setback provided and the lack of integration of landscaping between the building and the lot boundary, the proposal is not considered 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

 

The purposes of clarity, the following table outlines the elements of each outdoor living area that do not meet the deemed to comply standards.

 

 

Location

Min. Dimension

Coverage

Unit A

 

 

x

Unit B

x

x

x

Unit C

 

x

x

Unit D

 

x

x

 

Minimum Dimension (Units C and D)

 

Whilst the outdoor living areas do not meet the minimum length and width dimension of 4 metres in accordance with the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes, the variations are minor and are primarily due to the configuration of the subject site. Given the Outdoor Living Areas are larger than the minimum requirement, they are considered acceptable in terms of their dimensions.

Coverage (Units A, C and D)

 

The permanent roof cover of Units A, C and D do not meet the requirements of the R Codes however, the outdoor living areas are orientated toward the northern aspect of the site to capture winter sun. The Units provide other open areas within the site which assist in reducing building bulk and allow additional area for landscaping.

 

Unit B

 

The proposed outdoor living area associated with Unit B is partially located within the front setback area, however, it is acknowledged that it is effectively in line with the proposed street-front dwellings. In addition. It located adjacent the common property driveway which will result in a diminished amount of privacy for the occupants, by virtue of the visual permeable fencing proposed. That, combined with the variation to the minimum dimension and coverage requirements results in that area not being considered to meet the relevant Design Principles.

 

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 protrudes 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 is considered to represent over-development of the site. As such, it is recommended that Council refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the recommendation.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.7          North Perth Common - Concept Design

TRIM Ref:                  D18/71294

Author:                     Alice Harford, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Design Objectives - North Perth Common

2.       Attachment 2 - Concept Design - North Perth Common

3.       Attachment 3 - Perspectives - North Perth Common  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES the North Perth Common Concept Design included as Attachment 2; and

2.       NOTES that:

2.1     The saving of $42,380 made from the design, documentation and project management phase of the North Perth Common project will be listed to be carried forward and included within the 2018/19 budget for the construction phase of North Perth Common project;

2.2     Administration will notify North Perth Local and all residents, landowners and businesses within 500 metres of the North Perth Common site of Council’s decision; and

2.3     The North Perth Common project will now proceed to Stage Two, being Detailed Design and Tender Documentation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider approval of the Concept Design for North Perth Common (NPC) inorder to proceed to the detailed design and tender documentation stage.

Background:

On 26 July 2016, Council resolved (Item 10.1) to request that Administration develop and implement a plan and schedule to establish a new public space in the North Perth Town Centre in line with (then) Draft Corporate Business Plan Item 9.7, to include (but not be limited to) consideration of the following:

 

·       A location near Fitzgerald Street between Angove Street and Alma Road;

·       Potential to create an adjacent shared space for pedestrians, motorists and cyclists; and

·       Creation of a space that is safe, flexible and adaptable to encourage its use and enjoyment by the community for a variety of different purposes.

 

Following extensive public consultation and investigation, Council at its meeting on 25 July 2017 resolved (Item 9.2) to endorse the corner of View Street and Fitzgerald Street as the preferred location for the development of a new public open space in the North Perth Town Centre. It also resolved to establish a Working Group and adopt associated Terms of Reference for the Working Group.

 

The first meeting of the North Perth Common (NPC) Working Group was held on 22 September 2017, where Design Objectives for the project were developed and discussion occurred regarding the procurement documentation to be distributed to qualified design consultants.

 

On 24 November 2017, the tender (No. 546/17) for the Design, Documentation and Project Management of NPC was released and following review of the tender submissions received, the City appointed Emerge Associates (the Consultant) to undertake the Design, Documentation and Project Management of NPC.

 

The Consultant subsequently prepared a Concept Design in accordance with the design objectives previously agreed by the NPC Working Group. The Design Concept was discussed with the Working Group on two occasions in order for the Group to provide input and advice, and agree on a final Concept Design to be presented to Council.

 

The Working Groups final Concept Design was presented to a Council Workshop on 15 May 2018 for feedback and discussion. As a result of the feedback received from Council mmebers at this Workshop, the Consultant made the following modifications to the Concept Design:

 

·       Additional trees were added near the paved seating area; and

·       The supporting frame for the lighting installation was modified to be a round profile steel frame.

 

The modified NPC Concept Design is now presented for Council’s consideration.

Details:

The NPC Concept Design and the corresponding perspective drawings are included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.

 

The five key elements of the NPC Concept Design are outlined below.

 

1.       Public Art Lighting Installation

 

The Concept Design incorporates an interactive public art lighting installation suspended above the site. The lighting installation and the brick paving on the ground are both designed in a circular pattern to create an overall circular theme across the site. The lighting installation incorporates three rings of different sizes which are magenta, yellow and orange, with each ring able to emit light into the space. The light being emitted from these rings is proposed to be interactive in that the lighting can be configured in a way that it responds to pedestrian movement through the space below, turning on and off as a person passes through.

 

The lighting installation responds to the following Design Objectives for the project as identified by the NPC Working Group and included within Attachment 1:

 

·       Day and Night: the Town Square should be useable both day and night. The design must include high quality lighting.

·       Fun and Curiosity: the space must be fun and interesting. It should spark curiosity in the passing pedestrian. Consider integrating artistic elements into the design from the concept design stage. Consider how the space might be activated.

 

Feedback from the NPC Working Group indicated support for the vibrant colours and interactive elements of the light installation which works to create fun and curiosity to activate the space and draw visitors into the space.

 

2.       Seating, Shade and Soft Landscaping

 

The Concept Design incorporates a variety of informal and formal seating options, soft landscaping, a flat turfed area and 17 trees (14 additional and three replacing existing) located strategically across the site to provide a shaded, relaxed and comfortable space.

 

The inclusion of adequate seating, shade and soft landscaping were the three top design priorities identified through the community consultation stage of the project as follows:

 

·       57 percent of responses indicated shade/trees as a key design priority for the space;

·       54.1 percent of responses indicated seating as a key design priority for the space; and

·       48.8 percent of responses indicated soft landscaping as a key design priority for the space.

 

Furthermore it is considered that the proposed seating, shade and soft landscaping responds to the “Shade and Green” Design Objective as identified by the NPC Working Group.

 


 

3.       Modification of View Street

 

The concept design proposes a number of modifications to the operation of View Street as follows:

 

·       Increasing the width of the verge on the southern side of View Street and reducing the width of the road carriageway, whilst still maintaining two way access;

·       The removal of seven existing on-street car parking bays, five from the southern side of View Street and two from the northern side. The removal of these car parking bays results in the expansion of the public verge areas on both the northern and southern side of the street; and

·       Raising the View Street road carriageway to be flush with the verge areas to create a continuous and accessible floor surface.

 

The intent behind abovementioned modifications is to reduce both vehicle speed and the prevalence of vehicles moving through the site. This will create a safer environment for pedestrians and users of the site and ultimately make the space feel more inviting and comfortable.

 

The reduction in car dominance over the site also responds to the submissions received from the community during the consultation period which listed a focus on cars/car parking as one of the design elements that the community did not want to see.

 

Further to this, the proposed modifications to View Street respond to the following Design Objectives as identified by the NPC Working Group:

 

·       Defined Space:  the Town Square must feel like a human scaled outdoor room. The Town Square must utilise the surrounding buildings, other structures and trees to define the space. Two-way access on View Street must remain, although it is expected that the road pavement width would be significantly narrowed to what is there now, and be designed as more of a shared space. The design must consider the best arrangement for entry to and access from Fitzgerald Street.

·       Continuous Accessible Floor: the Town Square should have a continuous and accessible floor. Design features should be subtle and there must be adequate space for events and informal activation.

 

4.       A Place to Accommodate Events

 

The concept design incorporates a number of elements which create flexibility for the site to be used for various community events as follows:

 

·       Raising the View Street road carriageway to be flush with the verge areas to create a continuous paved area which will allow for events to spread across the street;

·       The site will be constructed with access to power to enable public events such as market stalls, music events, community events etc.; and

·       The slightly raised turf area will provide space for community events and informal seating opportunities.

 

The creation of an adaptable space with the potential to hold community events responds to the following Design Objectives for the project as identified by the NPC Working Group:

 

·       Continuous Accessible Floor (as above).

·       Plan for Adaptability: the Town Square should allow for events to spread across View Street (when the need arises), and include space/s that local business can use. The space should be able to be curated by the community, local business or the City as the need arises and include public access to power.

 

5.       Ficus Tree Removal

 

The delivery of the project in accordance with the Concept Design will require the removal of an existing Ficus Tree on the southern side of View Street. The current location of the tree would greatly restrict the ability for the site to be used for informal recreation and event spaces and the tree itself has been historically pruned below the existing power lines such that the low canopy encloses the space.

 

Investigations were undertaken into the different options for the Ficus Tree such as relocation, removal or retention, with those investigations determining that the most desirable outcome was for the Ficus Tree to be removed for the following reasons:

 

·       Information received from an Arborist estimated the total cost for relocation of the Ficus Tree to be approximately $40,000;

·       The Ficus Tree is currently located under the overhead power lines and as such, has undergone significant pruning for many years. Should the Ficus Tree be relocated it is highly unlikely that the tree would fully recover and it may not continue to grow due to the pruning undertaken in the past. There is also a high chance that the tree will not actually survive the replanting process; and

·       As noted above, should the Ficus Tree remain in its current location, it would greatly restrict the flexibility of the space to be designed and used in a way that caters for community events and informal recreation.

 

The Concept Design delivers an additional 14 trees throughout the site with a projected canopy coverage of 476 square metres, which represents a significant increase from the estimated 107 square metres that is currently in the site. As such, it is recommended that the existing Ficus Tree be removed.

Consultation/Advertising:

If approved, North Perth Local and all residents, landowners and businesses within 500m of the NPC site will be notified of Council’s decision.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks associated with the approval of the concept design for NPC. The approval of the concept design will enable Administration to continue with the project as specified in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2017/18 – 2020/21 and Annual Budget.

Strategic Implications:

The proposed concept design for NPC will contribute to a number of the 2017/18 Council priorities including:

 

·       Thriving and Creative Town Centres;

·       Supporting Liveable Neighbourhoods;

·       More Inviting Green and Open Spaces; and

·       Improving Community Connection and Inclusion.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The project has a total budget of $741,000, made up as follows:

 

·       $114,000 for Phase 1 which includes the design documentation and project management.

·       $627,000 for Phase 2 which incorporates the materials and labour for the construction.

 

The actual cost of Phase 1 of the project is $71,620 which is $42,380 under budget. On this basis, it has been recommended that the savings of $42,380 from Phase 1 of the project be carried forward to Phase 2 of the project. This will increase the budget for Phase 2 of the project from $627,000 to $669,380, The increase in the budget for Phase 2 will still allow the project to comply with the overall budget of $741,000.


 

Comments:

The NPC concept design as shown in Attachment 1 has undergone extensive review and refinement from the NPC Working Group and the City. It is considered that the proposed Concept Design meets the Design Objectives identified by the Working Group and will ensure that a functional, adaptable and interesting urban space is developed, which will be of great benefit to the community.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that Council approves the NPC concept design so that the project can proceed to Stage 2 (Detailed Designs and Tender Documentation), in accordance with the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2017/18 – 2020/21.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

5.8          Business Advisory Group - Key Priorities

TRIM Ref:                  D18/79270

Author:                     Alice Harford, Place Manager

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Business Advisory Group Key Priorities 14 November 2017 - 18 October 2019  

 

Recommendation:

That Council ENDORSES the Business Advisory Group’s Key Priorities included as Attachment 1 for the purposes of guiding the Group’s activities and advice, and informing the review of the City’s Economic Development Strategy.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the Business Advisory Group’s Key Priorities.

Background:

The City has an existing Business Advisory Group that was formed in 2011. The Group provides advice to the City on local business and economic development matters. The Group is made up of five business representatives (one from each of the City’s Town Teams), three Council Members and three community members with relevant local business experience. New members of the Business Advisory Group were appointed on 14 November 2017 until 18 October 2019.

 

On 26 April 2018, the Group agreed on three Key Priorities for the current term, so as to guide the City’s work on business and economic development related projects and initiatives, and to guide the Group’s advice to the City in relation to these matters.

 

It is now proposed that Council acknowledge and endorse the Key Priorities of the Group for the current term.

Details:

The Business Advisory Group has identified the below three Key Priorities. A summary of each Key Priority is provided below and the consolidated list is included as Attachment 1.

 

1.       People

 

The aim of this Priority is to encourage a culture of entrepreneurship within the City and provide the necessary support for this to occur. This may include supporting education, training and networking opportunities, improving communications with and between the business community and seeking opportunities for business clusters, hubs or shared workspaces.

 

2.       Place

 

The aim of this Priority is to continue effectively managing the City’s Town Centres through gathering and understanding data and using this to inform the City’s activities in those places. This may include festival and event collaboration, tenancy advocacy, place making and activation, wayfinding, promotion, marketing, branding, loyalty programs, group buying and partnerships.

 

3.       Policy

 

The aim of this Priority is to ensure that the City’s policy and decision-making framework is set up to support businesses and ensure they thrive. This may include investigating funding and resourcing opportunities, liaising and advocating on behalf of the business community, reducing red tape and better integrating planning policies with economic development outcomes, managing provision of social services and improving the physical environment through strategic policies and plans.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

The Business Advisory Group Key Priorities will inform the review of the City’s Economic Development Strategy and will be advertised as part of that project.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    It is considered low risk for Council to endorse Key Priorities for the City’s Advisory Groups.

Strategic Implications:

The endorsement of key priorities for the Business Advisory Group align with the following objectives within the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:

 

“2.1.1    Promote business development and the City of Vincent as place for investment appropriate to the vision for the City.

 

2.1.2     Develop and promote partnerships and alliances with key stakeholders.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

During the 2018/19 financial year, the City will be progressing two key business and economic development projects, being the review of the City’s Economic Development Strategy (Item 6.6 in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2017/18 – 2020/21) and the delivery of the Business Engagement Program. If endorsed by Council, the Business Advisory Group’s Key Priorities will inform both of these projects.

 

It is recommended that Council endorse the abovementioned Key Priorities to ensure a clear, strategic focus for the group in its current term to 18 October 2019.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

6            Engineering

6.1          Vincent Greening Plan - Review

TRIM Ref:                  D18/65531

Authors:                   Sarah Hill, Project Officer - Parks & Environment

Anita Marriott, Sustainability Officer

Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Draft Vincent Greening Plan 2018 - 2023  

 

Recommendation:

That Council APPROVES the draft Greening Plan 2018-2023 for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Purpose of Report:

The consider the draft revised Vincent Greening Plan as shown in Attachment 1, for the purpose of public comment.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) held on 20 December 2011, a Notice of Motion was put forward to investigate the development of a City wide “Greening Plan” in line with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2011-2021 and the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016.

 

The Vincent Greening Plan was subsequently developed and formally adopted at the OMC 8 July 2014. Comprising of six key objectives with specific targets and actions within each, the Greening Plan is a pathway for the City to deliver on our responsibility to protect, enhance and effectively manage our natural and built environment.

 

In addition to the Greening Plan document, a Five Year Implementation Plan was also adopted at the 8 July 2014 meeting. This plan outlined specific projects, initiatives and actions to meet the targets and actions outlined in the Greening Plan.

 

The City’s Corporate Business Plan 2016/17 – 2019/20 includes a review of the Vincent Greening Plan for the 2017/18 financial year.

Details:

Vincent Greening Plan Review Process

 

Reviewing Objectives, Targets and Actions

 

The Greening Plan adopted in 2014 contained six objectives with specific targets and actions related to each. In order to undertake the review, Administration first determined the progress and achievements towards each of the targets and actions. This provided a holistic overview of the Greening Plan’s success to date and allowed for informed changes to be made.

 

On 29 March 2018, an email was sent to elected members requesting feedback on Administration’s proposed changes to the targets and actions. Following on from this, Administration presented at the 10 April 2018 Council Workshop to discuss the proposed changes and to gain further input from Council.

 


 

Feedback received prior to and during the Council Workshop identified a number of key themes that required further development within the Greening Plan, specifically:

 

·       Ensure targets are measurable and meaningful and that actions align with targets;

·       The need to separate canopy cover on private land from that on public land to further address canopy loss on private land and not just in new developments;

·       The need to develop an overarching education campaign on the importance of trees;

·       The development of the new Public Open Space Strategy and the possible overlap of some objectives/targets/actions; and

·       Incorporation of the Tree Selection Tool into targets/actions.

 

Administration incorporated this feedback into the Greening Plan and developed a revised set of five key objectives which contain actions and targets that reflect the above key themes.

 

A further email was sent to elected members on 4 April 2018 to gain input/comments on the revised set of five objectives. Feedback received was mostly supportive with two new key items that required further development, specifically:

 

·       Further development of canopy cover targets for public and private land with specific targets for the next review period to be included; and

·       The need to advocate to State Government for greater protection of trees on privately owned land.

 

Canopy cover targets for private and public land, including specific targets for the next review period, have now been incorporated into the draft Greening Plan 2018. Based on total area of land, these two targets combine to equal the overall original target of 20% canopy cover by 2050. Town Centres are a mixture of both private and public land and as such, the original target of 20% canopy cover by 2050 has been used for this objective.

 

In addition to the above key items, there were also some minor suggestions and comments that, where appropriate, have been incorporated into the Five Year Implementation Plan.

 

Development and Inclusion of Appendices

 

In addition to the review of the Greening Plan contents, there is additional relevant information which is contained within in the draft Greening Plan Appendix. This includes the updated Five Year Implementation Plan, Street Tree Master Plan and Tree Selection Tool. Details on each are provided below.

 

Updated Five Year Implementation Plan

 

The current Five Year Implementation Plan extends until 2019. As part of the Greening Plan review, this plan has been updated for a further five years and includes some of the more specific items and actions to assist the City in delivering on the targets outlined within the draft Greening Plan.

 

Street Tree Master Plan

 

The Street Tree Master Plan assesses all of the streets within the City and rates them on a traffic light basis (i.e. red – tree planting required, orange – additional tree planting required, green – limited to no tree planting required). This plan acts as an informing document to assist in identifying and prioritising streets that require additional tree planting within the City.

 

Tree Selection Tool

 

The recently completed Tree Selection Tool assists in making the selection of street trees more objective, transparent and efficient. It also provides a list of suitable tree species for private developments.

 

Due to the interactive nature of this tool, and it’s intended use by Administration only, ‘snapshots’ of the tool will be included in the Appendix of the draft Vincent Greening Plan 2018–2023.

 


 

Vincent Greening Plan Design

 

The revised Greening Plan document will be designed in accordance with the City’s current strategic document design theme. Administration has provided the layout, selected images/maps and a completely designed introduction section of the document in Attachment 1. Detailed graphic design will take place following finalisation of the document content.

Consultation/Advertising:

The consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Community Consultation Policy and the results of the consultation will be reported back to Council following assessment by Administration.

 

Environmental Advisory Group Input

 

In addition to seeking Council’s input into the Greening Plan review, input has also been sought from the Environmental Advisory Group (EAG).

 

On 12 June 2017 a report was presented to the EAG to seek assistance and input into the review of the document’s content. The group was asked specifically to provide information and advice on updated scientific knowledge to support the objectives and targets and to provide any additional information that may influence the current targets. Information received from the group has been incorporated, as appropriate, into the draft Greening Plan 2018.

 

A further progress report on the Greening Plan review was presented to the EAG on the 16 April 2018 at which time Administration provided the group with a summary of input received to date, key themes that had emerged and the proposed direction of the review.

 

EAG members will have further opportunity to provide input into the document following Council’s endorsement of the draft Greening Plan 2018 for public comment.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       The Vincent Greening Plan has been successful in enhancing the design and cohesion of greening projects within the City. The pan assists and will continue to assist the City in taking steps towards environmentally sustainable practices and landscape installations. The revised plan represents a low risk to the City.

Strategic Implications:

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1.1 states:

 

“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.

 

1.1.4  Enhance and maintain the City’s infrastructure, assets and community facilities to provide a safe, sustainable and functional environment.

 

1.1.6  Enhance and maintain the City’s parks, landscaping and the natural environment”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

In accordance with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016, Objective 6 states:

 

“Re-establish, conserve and enhance floral and faunal biodiversity, native vegetation, green spaces and green linkages within the City”.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising and any further changes required to the Greening Plan will be met through the existing Greening Plan budget.

Comments:

The review of the Greening Plan has allowed for a holistic overview of its success since adoption in 2014. The review has identified that good progress has been made towards achieving some of the targets and action in the original document, but also that there are a number of areas that require further investigation and action.

 

These areas have now been identified and included in the draft Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023. In addition Administration has sought the expertise of the Environmental Advisory Group as well as the input of Elected Members on a number of occasions.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the draft Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023, as shown in Attachment 1, for public comment. 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

6.2          2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards

TRIM Ref:                  D18/64923

Author:                     Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES that Administration will arrange a “Greening Vincent Garden Awards” function to be held at the North Perth Town Hall on Wednesday 14 November 2018 commencing at 6pm with invitees including competition entrants/partners and sponsors; and:

2.       APPROVES a final judging panel comprising of Cr ……………………...., Cr …………….…….….., Cr ……………….….., Manager Parks and Urban Green, Project Officer – Parks and Environment, Adele Gismondi (Water Corporation) and Community Judge Caroline Cohen, (Winner 2017 - Catchment Friendly Garden).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the appointment of Council members for the final judging panel and to advise Council of the dates and format of the 2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards.

Background:

An annual spring garden competition has been held since the City’s inception and this event has proven to be very popular with in excess of 100 individual category entries received every year. The competition is open to all residential and business owner/occupiers that have lived or operated in the area for at least six months.

 

An awards function is held in November of each year and due to the increased numbers entering this competition, it is proposed to move the function from the Administration building to North Perth Town Hall in 2018.

Details:

The proposed format of the 2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards is as follows;

 

Categories:

 

The proposed categories for the 2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards are listed below and remain unchanged from 2017.

 

·      Best Residential Front Garden

·      Best Kept Verge

·      Catchment Friendly Garden

·      Best Courtyard or Balcony Garden

·      Best Business Garden

·      Best Residential Rear Garden

·      Best Vegetable or ‘Food’ Garden

 


 

Judging:

 

The preliminary judging of all categories will be undertaken by the City’s horticultural staff and final judging will be undertaken on the morning of Saturday 13 October 2018.  It is proposed that the final judging panel comprise of the following members:

 

·      Three Council Members (to be nominated) – City of Vincent

·      Manager Parks and Urban Green

·      Project Officer – Parks and Environment

·      Adel Gismondi (Water Corporation); and

·      Caroline Cohen (Winner - 2017 Catchment Friendly Garden)

 

Awards/Prize Money:

 

No changes are recommended to the prize money allocations or prizes presented over the categories listed below.

 

Best Residential Front garden

Catchment Friendly Garden

 

          First Prize              $500 + plaque

Second Prize         $300 + doormat

Third Prize             $200 + doormat

 

Best Residential Rear Garden

Best Courtyard or Balcony Garden

Best Vegetable or ‘Food’ Garden

Best Kept Verge

Best Business Garden

 

          First Prize              $250 + plaque

Second Prize         $150 + doormat

Third Prize            $100 + doormat

 

In addition to the above, the following two encouragement awards are proposed as was the case last year:

 

·       Mayor’s Encouragement Award

·       Verge Encouragement Award (Sponsored by John Carey MLA Member for Perth)

 

A pair of Swiss-made ‘Felco’ secateurs will again be provided for the above encouragement wards.

 

Awards Function:

 

The traditional sit down meal at the awards night works well, with persons able to move around to meet fellow gardening gurus and discuss their gardens and the like.

 

Due to the ongoing popularity of the competition, there have been some concerns raised in regard to the future use of the function room at the Administration Centre as it is becoming increasingly harder to accommodate the number of attendees.

 

It is therefore proposed to move the function to the North Perth Town Hall.

Consultation/Advertising:

An advertisement/entry form will be placed in the local community papers during August/September 2018 and a communication and marketing strategy will be prepared and implemented in conjunction with the City’s marketing team.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

Not applicable.

Strategic Implications:

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013- 2023, Objective 3.1 states:

 

“Enhance and promote community development and wellbeing”.

 

3.1.5  “Promote and provide arrange of community events to bring people together and to foster a community way of life”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

In keeping with the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability and water wise principles, all entries are evaluated in accordance with water wise criteria including the use of native plants, suitable mulch, water saving measures and demonstrated responsible use of fertilisers and chemicals.

Financial/Budget Implications:

An amount of $22,000 has been included in the draft budget to undertake the 2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards.

 

A grant of $1,250 will again be received from the Water Corporation for the Catchment Friendly Garden category prize money and trophies and it is expected that sponsorship donations will bring in an additional $2,000 for this event.

Comments:

This event continues to be very popular in the Vincent calendar based on past participation rates and attendance at the awards function.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council approves the format of the 2018 Greening Vincent Garden Awards as detailed within the report, with entries to close on Friday 5 October 2018.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

6.3          LATE REPORT: Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO BRIEFING  -  19 JUNE 2018

 

 

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

7            Corporate Services

7.1          Variation of Kiddies Learning Hub Pty Ltd's licence to use Banks Reserve Pavilion to include an additional 1 hour on Mondays and extend the licence term to 28 June 2019

TRIM Ref:                  D18/77797

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES the following variations (as shown in mark-up) to Kiddies Learning Hub Pty Ltd.’s licence to use the Banks Reserve Pavilion, located at Lot 500 (No. 60) Joel Terrace, Mt Lawley:

1.1     Term:                   5 March 2018 to 14 December 2018 (41 weeks) and 14 January 2019 to                                         28 June 2019 (65 weeks);

1.2     Hours of Use:       Monday 7am to 3pm; and

                                      Tuesday Monday to Friday 7.30am to 4.30pm;

1.3     Fees:                    $4,747 $4,847 per month paid in advance (inclusive of GST);

 

1.4     Redevelopment:    The Licensor may terminate the licence in order to undertake  works                        on the Banks Reserve Pavilion by providing six months’ notice in                   writing.

 

2.       SUBJECT to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services, to affix the common seal and execute the Deed of Variation of Licence in 1. above; and

3.       NOTES that the Banks Reserve Masterplan is scheduled to be presented to Council in July 2018 and therefore the extension and variation of this licence as set out in 1. will be subject to any actions or works that are recommended by the Banks Reserve Masterplan.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider varying Kiddies Learning Hub Pty Ltd’s (Kiddies) licence to use Banks Reserve Pavilion to enable use on Monday afternoons between 3pm and 4.30pm and extending the term by 24 weeks, following the Christmas closure (which ends on 14 January 2019), to provide Kiddies with security of tenure until 28 June 2019.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 6 February 2018 (Item 12.1) Council resolved as follows:

 

1.      That Council APPROVES a licence to Kiddies Learning Hub Pty Ltd to use Banks Reserve Pavilion, located at Lot 500 (No. 60) Joel terrace, Mt Lawley, on the following key terms:

 

1.1     Term:                    5 March 2018 to 14 December 2018 (41 weeks);

1.2     Hours of Use:        Monday 7am to 3pm; and

                                      Tuesday to Friday 7.30am to 4.30pm;

1.3     Permitted Use:      Early learning and child care service;

1.4     Fees:                    $4,747 monthly paid in advance (inclusive of GST);

1.5     Adherence to:

1.5.1  Council Policy No. 2.1.7 – Parks, Reserves and Hall facilities – Conditions of Hire and Use; and

          1.5.2  Provider / service approval from Department of Communities;

1.6     Storeroom Use:     Exclusive use of the storeroom (office) adjacent to the kitchen within the Pavilion for storage, throughout the term of the licence;

4.       Subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the licence above.”

 

The City and Kiddies entered into the licence on 4 April 2018.

 

On 22 April 2018 the ballet group which hired Banks Reserve Pavilion on Mondays between 3pm and 4.30pm notified Kiddies and the City that it would no longer be using the premises. Kiddies subsequently contacted the City to request that its times of use pursuant to the licence be varied to include Mondays between 3pm and 4.30pm, and that it commenced at 7.30am on Mondays, not 7am, which would make its operating hours consistent for the whole of each week.

 

Kiddies also requested that the term of the licence be extended following the Christmas closure, which ends on 14 January 2019, for 24 weeks, to 28 June 2019, so that it could organise its operations for the 2018/19 financial year. 

Details:

Administration confirms that it has had no other requests for the use of Banks Reserve Pavilion on Monday afternoons between 3pm and 4.30pm.  On this basis Administration supports Kiddies’ request to extend the operating hours on Mondays to align with the operating hours for the remainder of the week. The licence fee will be increased to reflect the additional 1 hour of use each week, making the monthly fee payable $4,847 (including GST).

 

In respect to the extension of the licence term, Administration notes that the Banks Reserve Masterplan is nearing completion and recommendations in respect to the future use of Banks Reserve are scheduled to be presented to Council in July 2018. The City is proposing to commence the implementation of the recommendations of the Banks Reserve Masterplan in the 2018/19 financial year, subject to Council approval, however, it is not anticipated that this will impact the use of Banks Reserve Pavilion prior to July 2019. On this basis an extension of the licence term to 28 June 2019, is deemed appropriate. This will provide Kiddies with sufficient security of tenure to organise its operations for the 2018/19 financial year.

 

While it is not anticipated that the recommendations of the Banks Reserve Masterplan will impact the use of Banks Reserve Pavilion prior to July 2019, Administration proposes to include a new clause in the licence which clarifies that the City may terminate the licence by providing six months’ notice, if Council decides to undertake works (which may include demolision or redevelopment) on the Banks Reserve Pavilion in response to the Banks Reserve Master Plan. Administration recommends that providing six months’ notice is reasonable as it would provide increased certainty for the licensee. It is noted that the termination of the licence would require Council approval. 

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration and Kiddies have discussed and reached consensus on the proposed terms of the extension of licence.

 

As the proposed licence is for only 65 weeks the City is not required to advertise or provide public notice of the proposal. 

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (Act) provides that a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to sell, lease or licence property) in accordance with section 3.58(3) unless the disposition falls within the scope of section 3.58(5), which includes:

 

“(d)       Any other disposition that is excluded by regulations from the application of this section.”

 

Regulation 30(2)(e) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides that a lease for a term less than two years and which does not give the lessee exclusive possession of the land at any time is an exempt disposition for the purposes of section 3.58(5) of the Act. Therefore as the proposed licence is for a term of less than two years the City is not required to comply with section 3.58. 

Risk Management Implications:

Low             Kiddies have demonstrated their ability to successfully operate the early learning and child care service over the last three months.

Strategic Implications:

The proposed licence aligns with the following objectives in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:

 

“2.1.3      Develop business strategies that reduce reliance on rates revenue

(c)        Continue to review leases and commercial contracts to ensure the best return for the City, whilst being cognisant of its community service obligations.

 

3.1.6       Build capacity within the community for individuals and groups to meet their needs and the needs of the broader community:

(a)        Build the capacity of individuals and groups within the community to initiate and manage programs and activities that benefit the broader community, such as the establishment of men’s sheds, community gardens, toy libraries and the like.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Council’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/18 includes the following rates:

 

Community Facilities – Category Four

(Banks Reserve Pavilion)

Community Rate

Commercial Rate

Off Peak (7am to 6pm)

$20.00 per hour

$40.00 per hour

Peak (6pm to 12am)

$25.00 per hour

$50.00 per hour

 

While a rate of $40.00 would normally be applicable for commercial use of the Banks Reserve Pavilion, a negotiated fee has been proposed for the purposes of this licence agreement in recognition that Kiddies will utilise the facility on a permanent basis between 7.30am and 4.30pm on weekdays until 28 June 2019.  Rather than utilising an arbitrary figure, Administration has applied the $25.00 per hour rate to maintain some alignment with the existing Schedule of Fees and Charges. Therefore the additional 1 hour of use equates to $4,847 per month.

 

For information, Administration notes that the proposed fees for the hire of Banks Reserve Pavilion in 2018/19 are as follows:

 

Community Facilities – Category Four

(Banks Reserve Pavilion)

Community Rate

Commercial Rate

Hourly hire fee (yet to be formally adopted)

$22.50 per hour

$45.00 per hour

Comments:

Administration recommends that a variation of the licence hours to remove Monday between 7am and 7.30am and include Mondays between 3pm and 4.30pm and an extension of the term by 24 weeks, from 14 January 2019 to 28 June 2019, be granted to Kiddies to maximise the use of Banks Reserve Pavilion and provide security of tenure for Kiddies for 2018/19. The variation of the licence will enable continuation of a service to the community from this location, maintain regular utilisation of a City asset during off peak periods, and maintain budgeted community buildings revenue. Including a new clause in respect to the termination of the licence in the event that the Banks Reserve Pavilion is to be demolished or redeveloped will also ensure the City has the power to implement the recommendations of the Banks Reserve Masterplan at its discretion.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

7.2          Acquisition of private rights of way as Crown Land and vesting in City - Right of way between London and Dunedin Streets, North Perth (Lot 60) and Colvin Lane, West Perth (Lot 67)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/74150

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Diagram 3798 depicting Lots 1 - 6 and 60

2.       Aerial Plan of Lot 60

3.       Plan 2931 showing Colvin Lane & Lot 67

4.       Aerial Plan of Colvin Lane & Lot 67  

 

 Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       REQUESTS the Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands to acquire as Crown Land the private right of way between London and Dunedin Streets, North Perth, identified as Lot 60 on Diagram 3798 (as shown in Attachment 1) and being the whole of the land comprised within Certificate of Title Volume 502 Folio 127,  pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997, subject to the City:

1.1     providing notice to the Lot 60 owner and / or his estate of the proposed acquisition;

1.2     providing notice to the owners and occupiers of 58 to 70 (Lots 1 – 6) Hobart Street, North Perth of the proposed acquisition;

1.3     advertising the proposed acquisition in the local paper;

1.4     advising all suppliers of public utility services to Lot 60 of the proposed acquisition;

1.5     stating in the notices sent out in 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 above that objections must be lodged within 31 days of the date of the notice;

1.6     considering and responding to any objections received; and

1.7     referring the proposed acquisition to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Planning division) for comment.

2.       REQUESTS the Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands to acquire as Crown Land the private right of way between Carr, Strathcona and Newcastle Streets, West Perth, known in part as Colvin Lane and identified as Lot 67 on Plan 2931 (as shown in Attachment 3) and being the whole of the land comprised within Certificate of Title Volume 1554 Folio 327, pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997, subject to the City:

2.1     providing notice to the Lot 67 owner (State of Western Australia) of the proposed acquisition;

2.2     providing notice to the owners and occupiers of the lots abutting Lot 67 of the proposed acquisition;

2.3     advertising the proposed acquisition in the local paper;

2.4     advising all suppliers of public utility services to Lot 67 of the proposed acquisition;

2.5     stating in the notices sent out in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 above that objections must be lodged within 31 days of the date of the notice;

2.6     considering and responding to any objections received; and

 

 

2.7     referring the proposed acquisition to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Planning division) for comment.

3.       NOTES that any objections received as outlined in 1. and 2. above will be considered by Administration and incorporated into the respective request to the Minister.

4.       NOTES that if the Minister grants the requests in 1. and 2. above, the Minister will reserve each parcel of land for the purpose of a public right of way and place the care, control and management of the reserve in the City, pursuant to sections 41 and 46(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the acquisition and subsequent vesting in the City of the following private rights of way pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1999:

 

1.         unsealed private right of way between London and Dunedin Streets, North Perth, known as Lot 60 on Diagram 3798 and being the whole of the land comprised within Certificate of Title Volume 502 Folio 127 (Lot 60); and

 

2.         sealed private right of way between Carr, Strathcona and Newcastle Streets, West Perth, known as Lot 67 on Plan 2931 and being the whole of the land comprised within Certificate of Title Volume 1554 Folio 327 (Lot 67). The northern section of Lot 67 is known as Colvin Lane.

Background:

Lot 60 – ROW between London and Dunedin Streets, North Perth

 

Lot 60 was created in 1913 when Lots 1 and 2 on Plan 167 were amalgamated and subdivided to create lots 1 – 6 and 60 on Diagram 3798. A copy of Diagram 3798 showing Lot 60 highlighted in green is attached at Attachment 1. Lots 1 - 6 (58 – 70 Hobart Street) have an implied right of access over Lot 60 pursuant to section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893. This right is noted as an easement benefit on the Certificate of Title for each of the lots. Lot 60 is not a public right of way and therefore only the owners, occupiers and visitors of Lots 1 – 6 may use it as a means of access. Lot 60 is owned in fee simple by Edwin Grundy, who is believed to be deceased as he acquired Lot 60 in 1913.

 

Lot 60 is currently sealed at the rear of Lot 6, with the remainder being sand and grass. A plan of Lot 60 showing its current condition is attached at Attachment 2. This plan also identifies which lots have access over Lot 60.

 

The request for acquisition of Lot 60 as Crown land comes as a result of a development application submitted on 22 March 2018 by the owner of 43 and 45 (lots 291 – 292) London Street, North Perth (adjacent to Lot 60). The application proposed the construction of six townhouses (Grouped Dwelling) with access from Lot 60. It was determined that Lot 291 does not have any access rights over Lot 60. As the owner of Lot 60 is believed to be deceased it is not possible for the owner of Lot 291 to be granted access rights over Lot 60 (only the registered proprietor as listed on the Certificate of Title can grant access rights).

 

Lot 67 – between Carr, Strathcona and Newcastle Streets, West Perth

 

Lot 67 was created on Plan 2931 (marked as a ROW) in 1910 and provided rear access to the adjacent lots facing Carr and Newcastle Streets. Lot 67 and the adjacent lots were all comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 458 Folio 1, which was privately owned by several independent parties. The adjacent lots created on plan 2931 all have an implied right of access over Lot 67 pursuant to section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893. Plan 2931 is attached at Attachment 3 and shows Lot 67 highlighted in blue. 

 

In 1980 Lot 67 was issued with a separate Certificate of Title (Volume 1554 Folio 327) and transferred to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The State of Western Australia is therefore the owner of Lot 67, however, this does not equate to Lot 67 being Crown land which is available for use by the public. Lot 67 is not a public right of way, and therefore only those lots with an express or implied right of access can use Lot 67 as an access way.

The Certificate of Title lists the easement burden for right of carriageway purposes pursuant to section 167A as an encumbrance. Lot 114 (No. 482-484) Newcastle Street (not created on Plan 2931) also has a right of access over Lot 67 pursuant to easement N056276, and this right is also noted on the Certificate of Title as an encumbrance. This easement will terminate when Lot 67 ceases to be a private right of way. 

 

Lot 67 is five metres wide, sealed and provides rear access to a number of lots in the industrial area of West Perth, as shown in the plan attached at Attachment 4.

 

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Department) has suggested that the City initiates the acquisition process to enable Lot 67 to be reserved and placed in the care, control and management of the City, as this will enable it to serve as a public access way. Pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997 the local authority (City) must make the request to the Minister, regardless of the ownership of the private right of way (the Department cannot request the Minister to acquire the land itself, as it is a local authority responsibility).

Details:

Acquisition and vesting process – Lot 60

 

Administration is proposing to request that the Minister acquires Lot 60 as Crown land and reserves it as a public right of way vested in the City, so that it can be accessed by the public. This will enable Lot 60 to serve as the means of access for the proposed Grouped Dwellings, and enable the other lots abutting Lot 60 to be redeveloped and use Lot 60 as a means of access.

 

The process for the Minister to acquire Lot 60 as Crown land is as follows:

 

·       Council resolves that Lot 60 should be acquired by the Minister as Crown land pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997, subject to Administration advertising its intention to make the request and considering any objections;

·       The City advertises its intention in the local paper and notifies the Lot 60 owner and / or his estate, the adjoining land owners and occupiers (58 – 70 Hobart Street, North Perth) and the relevant utility providers, and invites submissions / objections for a 31 days period from the date of the notice / advertisement;

·       The City considers and responds to any submissions / objections received;

·       The City makes a request to the Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands for Lot 60 to be acquired as Crown land, which includes the following details, as required by regulation 6 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998:

written confirmation that the City has resolved to make this required;

details of the reasons for the City making this request;

plan of Lot 60 (Diagram 3798 is sufficient);

written confirmation that the City has taken all reasonable steps to identify and notify the owner of Lot 60, the adjoining land owners and the utility providers, as specified in section 52(3)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997;

copies of any submissions / objections received in response to the public notice, and the City’s comments on these submissions / objections; and

written confirmation that the City has complied with section 52(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

·       The City pays the document lodgement costs, which are estimated to be $169. 

 

If the Minister grants the City’s request Lot 60 will become unallocated Crown land. Unallocated Crown land is not under the local authority’s care, control and management and does not have a particular purpose.

 

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has confirmed that if the Minister grants the request, the land would be reserved as Crown land for the purpose of a public right of way, pursuant to section 41 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Once the land is reserved, the Minister would place the care, control and management of the reserve with the City pursuant to section 46(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997. This means that Lot 60 would become Crown land vested in the City for the purpose of a public right of way.

 

Once Lot 60 is vested in the City as a public right of way the proposed Grouped Dwelling development could proceed as intended, with access over Lot 60. The developer would be required to upgrade and seal, at its cost, the portion of Lot 60 proposed to be used as the access way for the Grouped Dwellings.

 


 

Administration notes that the City is working towards increasing the width of rights of ways, where appropriate, to at least five metres so that vehicle and service access in both directions is possible, and upgrading the lighting, as set out in the City’s Policy No. 2.2.8 ‘Laneways and rights of way’ (Policy). The City achieves the widening of rights of ways upon the amalgamation, subdivision or development of the land abutting the right of way. In respect to the amalgamation or subdivision of the land, a portion of the land abutting the right of way can be ceded to the Crown as road as part of the subdivision or amalgamation process. In respect to development of land abutting the right of way, any development is required to be set back from the right of way to enable the future widening and potentially dedication of the right of way. There is no cost to the City associated with these processes. Administration notes that widening rights of way in this way can be a slow process as it relies on the development, subdivision or amalgamation of the adjoining lots.

 

Rights of way that are in the condition as specified in the Policy can then be dedicated as a public road pursuant to section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997. If Lot 60 is in future sealed and the width increased to five metres the City could relinquish its management and make a request for Lot 60 to be dedicated as a road pursuant to section 56(1)(a). Upon dedication Lot 60 would become a road which the City has care, control and management of pursuant to section 55(2) of the Land Administration Act 1997

 

Acquisition and vesting process – Lot 67

 

Administration is also proposing that Lot 67 is acquired as Crown land in accordance with the process set out above for Lot 60. If the Minister grants the City’s request Lot 67 will become unallocated Crown land. Pursuant to sections 41 and 46(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997 the Minister would subsequently reserve Lot 67 as a public right of way and place care, control and management in the City.

 

Administration notes that Lot 67 is sealed and five metres wide, however, it does not currently have lighting, and therefore in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 2.2.8 ‘Laneways and rights of way’ the City cannot yet make a request for Lot 67 to be dedicated as a road. Administration will continue to monitor the use of Lot 67 and when deemed appropriate install lighting so that the City can relinquish its management order and request that it be dedicated as a road pursuant to section 56(1)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Consultation/Advertising:

It is necessary for Administration to contact the owners of Lot 60 and Lot 67 (that is, Edwin Grundy and / or his estate and the State of Western Australia), the owners and occupiers of the adjoining lots and the relevant utility providers, and provide 31 days for submissions or objections to be received.  The City must demonstrate that it has made all reasonable efforts to contact the owners. In the case of Edwin Grundy, Administration will do this by writing to his last known address and obtaining a probate search. 

 

Administration will also advertise the proposed acquisitions in the local paper and on the City’s website, and allow 31 days for submissions or objections to be received. Once the advertising and consideration of submissions has been completed, Administration will be in a position to make the requests to the Minister.

 

Administration notes that it has liaised with the Department to clarify what the relevant processes and requirements are. In respect to Lot 67, the Department has confirmed, on behalf of the owner, State of Western Australia, that it supports the acquisition of Lot 67 as Crown land.

Legal/Policy:

Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (Act) sets out the process for requesting the Minister to acquire as Crown land Lot 60 and Lot 67:

 

52. Local government may ask Minister to acquire as Crown land certain land in district

(1)      Subject to this section, a local government may request the Minister to acquire as Crown land -

(a)     any alienated land designated for a public purpose on a plan of survey or sketch plan lodged with the Registrar; or

(b)      any private road; or

(c)      any alienated land in a townsite which the Minister proposes to abolish under section 26, within the district of the local government (in this section called the subject land).

(2)      A request made under subsection (1) is to be accompanied by —

(a)     a plan of survey or sketch plan —

(i)       showing the subject land; and

(ii)      approved by the Planning Commission; and

(b)     copies of all objections lodged with the local government during the period referred to in subsection (3)(b)(i) or (ii), as the case requires.

(3) Before making a request under subsection (1), a local government must —

(a)     take all reasonable steps to give notice of that request to —

(i)       the holder of the freehold in the subject land unless the local government holds that freehold; and

(ii)      the holders of the freehold in land adjoining the subject land unless the local government holds that freehold; and

(iii)     all suppliers of public utility services to the subject land; and

(b)     in the case of —

(i)       alienated land referred to in subsection (1)(a) or a private road referred to in subsection (1)(b), state in the notice a period of not less than 30 days from the day of that notice during which period persons may lodge objections with it against the making of that request; or

(ii)      any land referred to in subsection (1)(c), advertise or take such steps as may be prescribed to notify interested persons of an intention to make the request and state in the notification a period of not less than 30 days from the day of that notification during which period persons may lodge objections with it against the making of that request.

(4)      The Minister may, on receiving a request made under subsection (1), the accompanying plan of survey or sketch plan referred to in subsection (2)(a) and copies of all objections referred to in subsection (2)(b) —

(a)     by order grant that request; or

(b)     direct the local government to reconsider that request, having regard to such matters as he or she thinks fit to mention in that direction; or

(c)      refuse to grant that request.

(5)      On the registration of an order made under subsection (4)(a), the subject land —

(a)     ceases to belong to the holder of its freehold; and

(b)     is freed from all encumbrances; and

(c)      becomes Crown land.”

 

Regulation 6 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998 sets out the requirements for a local government to make a request pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Act:

 

(a)     must give to the Minister written confirmation that the local government has resolved to make the request, details of the date when the relevant resolution was passed and any other information relating to that resolution that the Minister may require; and

(b)      must give to the Minister written reasons as to why the local government proposes to request the Minister to acquire the subject land; and

(c)      must give to the Minister and to the persons given notice under section 52(3)(a) of the Act a sketch plan showing the proposed future disposition of the subject land after it has been acquired; and

(d)      must give to the Minister written advice that the local government has taken all reasonable steps to identify the persons who are required to be given notice under section 52(3)(a) of the Act; and

(e)      must give to the Minister

(i)       copies of any submissions (other than objections given under section 52(2)(b) of the Act) relating to the proposed request to acquire the subject land that, after complying with the requirements to give notice and advertise under section 52(3) of the Act, the local government has received; and

(ii)      the local governments comments on those submissions; and

(f)       must give to the Minister written confirmation that the local government has complied with section 52(3) of the Act.”

 

Section 41 of the Act provides that the Minister may be order reserve Crown land to the Crown for one or more purposes in the public interest. Section 46(1) provides that the Minister may vest a reserve:

 

(1)    The Minister may by order place with any one person or jointly with any 2 or more persons the care, control and management of a reserve for the same purpose as that for which the relevant Crown land is reserved under section 41 and for purposes ancillary or beneficial to that purpose and may in that order subject that care, control and management to such conditions as the Minister specifies.”

 

The City’s Policy No. 2.2.8 ‘Laneways and rights of way’ governs the requirements for dedicating a right of way, which include:

 

“3.3    The preferred width for a Laneway/Rights of Way proposed for dedication is a minimum of 6 metres. However, in certain cases approval may be granted to dedicate a Laneway/Rights of Way which is less than 6 metres wide. It should be noted that the minimum allowable width for a Laneway/Rights of Way proposed to be dedicated under this clause is 5 metres. All existing and future garages perpendicular to the Laneway/Rights of Way are to be set back at least one (1) metre from the property boundary to achieve the required manoeuvring space. Therefore, in some cases dedication of a Laneway/Rights of Way which is less than 6 metres wide but not less than 5 metres wide will be permitted.

 

3.4     If lighting is not already in place in the Laneway/Rights of Way this must be installed prior to dedication, at the expense of the applicant.”

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:      Lot 60 and Lot 67 are both private rights of way and therefore the City is not responsible for repairs, maintenance or upgrades. The owner of Lot 60 is deceased and therefore it is possible that Lot 60 is not being repaired or maintained. It is in the interests of the City to ensure all rights of way within the City of Vincent are appropriately maintained and upgraded, and therefore these lots should be acquired as Crown land and vested in the City.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2017 includes the following as strategic objectives:

 

1.1.4           Enhance and maintain the City’s infrastructure, assets and community facilities to provide a safe, sustainable and functional environment.

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

N/A

Financial/Budget Implications:

Administration will manage the acquisition process and therefore the only costs the City will be liable to pay are those associated with providing local public notice (newspaper advertisements) and the document lodgement fee of approximately $169 per acquisition. 

 

No compensation is payable to the Lot 60 or Lot 67 owners or the adjoining land owners. 

Comments:

Lots 60 and 67 are private rights of way which can only be accessed by the adjoining lots which have an implied or express right of access. As the owner of Lot 60 is now deceased it is not possible for access rights over Lot 60 to be granted to other parties. This inhibits the ability of the adjoining land (particularly 43 & 45 London Street) to be developed consistent with the City’s Residential R-40 zoning. The private ownership of these rights of way also means repair and maintenance is not the responsibility of the City, and therefore the right of ways may not be kept in a suitable condition.

 

On this basis Administration recommends that the City request the Minister to acquire Lot 60 and Lot 67 as Crown land and subsequently reserve both lots as public rights of way and place care, control and management in the City, as that will enable the land to function as public rights of way. This outcome is consistent with Administration’s approach of formalising management and upgrade of laneways and rights of way through acquisition as Crown land and reserving or dedicating as appropriate. Administration notes that there is no requirement for Lot 60 to be immediately sealed if it is vested in the City as a public right of way, however, if it is required to be used as a means of access for a development the developer will be required to upgrade it to the City’s satisfaction.

 

The long term proposal is for the rights of way to be dedicated as road, however, this should only occur when the right of way is in an appropriate condition (sealed), of an appropriate width (at least five metres wide) and has appropriate lighting, as set out in the City’s Policy No. 2.2.8 ‘Laneways and rights of ways’


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018

 

 



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

7.3          Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 May 2018 to
31 May 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/77636

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT May 18

2.       Payments by Cheque May 18

3.       Payments by Credit Card May 18  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 May 2018 to 31 May 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 82278 - 82348

 

$115,577.48

Cancelled cheques 80085, 80931, 82267, 82310 ,82333 and 82341

 

-$4,250.90

EFT Documents 2244 - 2256

 

$4,254,361.02

Payroll       

 

$1,831,766.34

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$385.00

 

·      Loan Repayments

$148,531.77

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$50,009.33

 

·      Credit Cards

$12,802.01

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$211,728.11

Total Accounts Paid

 

$6,409,182.05

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 1 May 2018 to 31 May 2018.

Background:

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 May 2018 to 31 May 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

82278 - 82348

$115,577.48

Cancelled Cheques

80085, 80931, 82267, 82310 ,82333 and 82341

-$4,250.90

EFT Payments

2244 - 2256

$4,254,361.02

Sub Total

 

$4,365,687.60

 

 

 

Transfer of Payroll by EFT

01/05/18

$609,580.22

 

01/05/18 Ad hoc

$1,932.79

 

10/05/18 Ad hoc

$526.04

 

10/05/18 Ad hoc

$284.36

 

15/05/18

$614,035.47

 

22/05/18 Ad hoc

$3253.03

 

29/05/18

$602,154.43

 

May 2018

$1,831,766.34

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$385.00

Loan Repayments

 

$148,531.77

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$50,009.33

Credit Cards

 

$12,802.01

 

 

 

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$211,728.11

 

 

Total Payments

 

$6,409,182.05

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

13.     Lists of Accounts

 

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

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

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

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                            19 June 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

7.4          Investment Report as at 31 May 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/80501

Author:                     Sheryl Teoh, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 May 2018 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

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

Background:

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

 

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several financial Institutions in accordance with the Investment Policy.

Details:

Total funds held for the period ended 31 May 2018 including on call in the City’s operating account were $30,338,407; compared to $27,412,051 for the period ending 31 May 2017.

 

Total Investments for the period ended 31 May 2018 were $28,712,736 compared to $31,177,278 for the prior month end, and $25,718,292 for the period ending 31 May 2017.

 

Investment comparison table:

 

Month

2016/17

2017/18

Ended

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

July

$19,683,412

$18,420,252

$23,433,728

$21,212,649

August

$26,167,645

$22,573,297

$30,161,860

$27,714,651

September

$36,754,571

$34,302,896

$40,305,364

$37,944,911

October

$37,581,885

$34,521,542

$41,087,462

$38,947,823

November

$37,034,885

$35,775,011

$41,716,473

$39,482,047

December

$33,692,431

$31,165,443

$38,768,084

$37,065,389

January

$34,645,041

$33,201,749

$39,498,741

$36,147,499

February

$34,028,716

$32,316,251

$39,217,278

$36,665,928

March

$32,070,200

$31,424,409

$36,377,700

$34,622,001

April

$30,661,122

$26,206,328

$33,647,074

$31,177,278

May

$27,412,051

$25,718,292

$30,338,407

$28,712,736

June

$24,670,461

$23,533,279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 31 May 2018:

 

 

Revised Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$423,000

$412,909

$471,500

114.19%

Reserve

$220,000

$204,803

$220,255

107.54%

Sub-total

$643,000

$617,712

$691,755

111.99%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$128,521

0.00%

Total

$643,000

$617,712

$820,276

132.79%

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

6.14.     Power to invest

 

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

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

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

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

[(b)   deleted]

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

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

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

 

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

 

19.       Investments, control procedures for

 

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

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

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

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

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

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

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

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

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

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

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

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

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

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

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.

 

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

 

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including the following ratings table:

 

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

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

A1+

30%

32.7%

30%

Nil

90%

57.9%

A1

25%

0.0%

30%

Nil

80%

0.0%

A2

20%

20.2%

n/a

Nil

60%

42.1%

 

*As per subtotals on Attachment 1

Risk Management Implications:

Moderate:      Funds are invested with various financial institutions with high long term and short term ratings (Standard & Poor’s or equivalent), after obtaining three quotations for each investment. Investment funds are spread across various institutions and invested as term deposits of between one and twelve months, to reduce risk.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

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

 

In relation to direct investments with any one institution, total funds invested with Westpac Banking Corporation exceed 30% by 2.7% at the end of May 2018. This is due to a decrease in total invested funds after the investments maturing with banks in A2 category have progressively been withdrawn for cash flow purposes.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.57% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.64% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for March 2018 is 1.96%.

 

As at 31 May 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income exceed the year to date budget estimate by $74,043 (11.99%).

 

The City’s Investment Policy states that preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”. The City uses Marketforce.com to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investment in fossil fuel related entities. 42.05% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforce.com as at 31 May 2018.

 

The investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment Performance & Policy Compliance Charts;

·       Investment Portfolio;

·       Investment Interest Earnings; and

·       Current Investment Holding.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             19 June 2018


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                           19 June 2018

7.5          Financial Statements as at 31 May 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/81345

Author:                     Sheryl Teoh, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statement as at 31 May 2018  

 

 Recommendation:

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the Financial Statements for the period ended 31 May 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 May 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

6-67

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

68-82

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

83

7.

Rating Information and Graph

84-85

8.

Debtor Report

86

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 May 2018

 

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Variance

Variance

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

$

$

$

$

%

REVENUE

22,352,642

20,596,547

20,235,383

(361,164)

-2%

EXPENDITURE

(58,084,120)

(52,097,386)

(50,826,245)

1,271,141

-2%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES

(35,731,478)

(31,500,839)

(30,590,861)

909,978

-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

9,401,653

9,427,275

25,622

0%

(Profit)/loss on asset disposals

(415,015)

(415,015)

(139,766)

275,249

-66%

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

0

0

0

0

0%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES

9,831,045

8,986,638

9,296,746

310,108

3%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Non-Operating grants, subsidies and contributions

2,733,778

2,136,000

1,662,343

(473,657)

-22%

Capital expenditure

(12,736,797)

(9,630,497)

(6,657,744)

2,972,753

-31%

Proceeds from joint venture operations

333,333

333,333

166,667

(166,666)

-50%

Proceeds from disposal of assets

202,321

202,321

326,173

123,852

61%

(9,467,365)

(6,958,843)

(4,502,561)

2,456,282

-35%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Repayments loan capital

(881,398)

(805,798)

(805,397)

401

0%

Transfers from Reserves

1,194,291

674,291

594,439

(79,852)

-12%

Transfers to Reserves

(2,401,835)

(1,902,510)

(500,669)

1,401,841

-74%

(2,088,942)

(2,034,017)

(711,627)

1,322,390

-65%

Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) brought forward 1 July 2017

4,475,026

4,475,026

4,475,026

1

0%

Surplus/(Deficiency) before General Rates

(32,981,714)

(27,032,035)

(22,033,277)

4,998,759

-18%

Total amount raised from General Rates

32,976,983

32,976,983

33,018,172

41,189

0%

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

(4,731)

5,944,948

10,984,895

5,039,948

85%

 

 

 

 

 

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% ($361k). This is due to lower revenue in “Other Recreation and Culture” of $345k ($285k Beatty Park Leisure Centre, $70k Park Services), “Other Property and Services” $275k (asset disposals), and “Community Amenities” of $110k.

 

Operating Revenue as presented on the ‘Nature and Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing 0.1% variance.

 

Operating Expenditure

 

Expenditure by Program is showing a positive variance of 2% ($1.27m). This is due to:

 

·       Transport – underspend of $511k;

·       Recreation and Culture – underspend of $437k;

·       Community Amenities – underspend of $329k;

·       Health – underspend of $100k;

·       Other Property and Services – overspend of $241k.

 

Similarly, the operating expenditure listed under the Nature and Type report reflects a corresponding favourable variance of 2%, with the largest variances in:

 

·       Materials and Contracts ($909k favourable), where the variance is due to timing on waste collection and tipping costs $348k, consultants $245k, legal costs $93k and contractors $59k;

·       Utilities Charges ($181k favourable) mainly due to timing variance on electricity bills;

·       Insurance Expenses ($146k favourable), where the variance is due to potential savings on workers compensation premium due to actual over forecast outcomes, and property insurance premium.

 

Transfer from Reserves

 

Transfer from Reserves is aligned with the timing of capital works projects that are reserve funded. Most of these projects are work in progress or to be carried forward to 2018/19 financial year.

 

Capital expenditure

 

The variance is attributed to timing on commencement of projects. Administration has confirmed to Finance that a carry forward of capital projects into 2018-19 will be $3,609,772 (as at 7 June 2018). 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 $10,984,895 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $5,944,948. This variance is substantially attributed to anticipated operating and capital expenditure for the remainder of 2017/18 (i.e., timing differences to budget) and the known issue of 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 May 2018 is $10,984,895.

 

4.         Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 67)

 

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

 

5.         Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 68 - 82)

 

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.

                  

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Land and Buildings

        2,018,358

        1,599,658

           783,099

61%

Infrastructure Assets

        8,194,846

        6,327,746