AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

14 August 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 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                                                                                      14 August 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. 148-158 (Lot: 600; D/P: 47025) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Office/Retail to Educational Establishment 8

5.2             No. 1/226 (Lot: 1; D/P: 956) Oxford Street, Leederville Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Cafe (Unauthorised Existing Use) 27

5.3             No. 7 (Lot 1; STR: 43011) Galwey Street, Leederville - Proposed Extension to the period of approval: Proposed Alterations and Three Storey Addition to Single House. 44

5.4             No. 498 (Lot: 29; D/P: 2355) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Existing Multiple Dwellings (Removal of Landscaping to include Car Bay) 72

5.5             No. 266 (Lot: 18; D/P: 583) Lord Street, Perth - Additions (two car stackers) to Existing Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales. 107

5.6             No. 559 (Lot: 4; D/P: 1477) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley - Change of Use from Shop to Small Bar 149

5.7             No. 209 (Lot: 213; D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West Perth - S.31 Reconsideration - Proposed Four grouped dwellings. 219

5.8             Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form.. 266

6          Engineering. 673

6.1             Tender No. 550/18 - Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms. 673

6.2             Axford Park Upgrade - Concept Design & Implementation of Quick Win Works Items. 676

6.3             LATE REPORT:  Revised Engineering Policies Relating to Verge Treatments and Street Trees  713

7          Corporate Services. 714

7.1             Licence to use Axford Park for Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market - Heart Inspired Events. 714

7.2             Report from Audit Committee meeting of 17 July 2018. 720

7.3             LATE REPORT:  Investment Report as at 30 July 2018. 756

7.4             LATE REPORT:  Financial Statements as at 31 July 2018. 757

7.5             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 26 June 2018 to  24 July 2018. 758

8          Community Engagement 781

8.1             Turf Wicket Agreement - Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. 781

8.2             City of Vincent Art Development Action Plan 2018–2020. 787

9          Chief Executive Officer 810

9.1             Information Bulletin. 810

10        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 876

10.1           Notice of Motion - Cr Dan Loden - Transparency of rates spend in the Budget 876

11        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 877


 

12        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 878

12.1           Agreement to Undertake the Care, Control and Management of the Rosemount Hotel Car Park - 459 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 878

13        Closure. 878

 

 


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 Fotakis - Apology

3            Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

4            Declarations of Interest


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5            Development Services

5.1          No. 148-158 (Lot: 600; D/P: 47025) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn - Change of Use from Office/Retail to Educational Establishment

TRIM Ref:                  D18/100019

Author:                     Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Summary of Application

3.       Attachment 3 - Parking Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions - Officer Comments

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 application for the proposed Change of Use from Office/Retail to Educational Establishment at No. 148-158 (Lot: 600; D/P: 47025) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1     The area shown as ‘Educational Establishment’ on the approved plans shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Educational Establishment’ as defined by the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

1.2     The maximum number of persons attending the Educational Establishment at any one time shall be limited to 31 persons; and

1.3     The hours of operation for the Educational Establishment shall be limited to the following times:

Class time:

Monday, Thursday and Friday: 3:00pm to 6:30pm

Saturdays: 9:00am to Midday

Administration time (staff only, no students in attendance):

Monday – Friday: 9:00am to 5:00pm;

2.       Car Parking and Access

The Parking Management Plan approved as part of this application shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development;

3.       Signage

Any new signage that does not comply with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising shall be subject to a separate Planning Application and all signage shall be subject to a Building Permit application, being submitted and approved prior to the erection of the signage; and

 

 

 

4.       General

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Office/Retail to Educational Establishment at Shop 32, Nos. 148-158 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn (The Mezz Shopping Centre).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the use of the subject tenancy as a Kumon Tuition Services Centre, offering tutoring in English and mathematics programs for children aged from three years to high school students. The use will accommodate 25 students and six staff members.

 

The proposed hours of operation are as follows:

 

Class time:

 

·       Monday, Thursday and Friday: 3:00pm to 6:30pm

·       Saturdays: 9:00am to Midday.

 

Administration time (staff only, no students in attendance):

 

·       Monday – Friday: 9:00am to 5:00pm.

 

The proposal does not involve any internal modifications to the building. The application includes the provision of signage in the form of opaque and frosted decals overlaid with Kumon branding on the glass panel wall of Shop 32, as displayed in Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:

Hyde Park Management Ltd

Applicant:

Lucy Leng

Date of Application:

14 June 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    District Centre     R Code: Not Applicable

Built Form Area:

Town Centre/Residential

Existing Land Use:

Office/Retail

Proposed Use Class:

Educational Establishment

Lot Area:

12,740m2

Right of Way (ROW):

Not Applicable

Heritage List:

Not Applicable

 

The subject tenancy is 61.2 square metres and is located within The Mezz Shopping Centre, which accommodates 280 customer bays and 18 bicycle bays. The tenancy was previously occupied by short term pop up style shops, including a boutique pet supply store and a tax accountant.

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).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Car Parking

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

 

ü

Signage

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

 

 

Educational Establishment – “D” use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Car bays

 

No deemed to comply standard – parking management plan required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

280 car parking spaces available for customers at The Mezz Shopping Centre.

Bicycle Facilities

 

No deemed to comply standard – parking management plan required.

 

 

18 bicycle bays available for customers at The Mezz Shopping Centre.

 

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 required to be advertised as it is a Discretionary use within the District Centre zone, and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 Community Consultation requires that Discretionary uses are advertised for a period of 14 days. The application was advertised from 3 July 2018 to 16 July 2018, with the method of consultation being letters mailed to surrounding owners and occupiers, the extent of which is shown on Attachment 1.

 

A total of two submissions were received, of which one objected to the proposal and one conditionally supported the proposal. The main concerns raised by the submission is that the parents of the students will use the parking at other tenancies along Scarborough Beach Road rather than the parking available at The Mezz Shopping Centre.

 

The applicant was not invited to comment on the submission, as the Parking Management Plan submitted by the applicant was considered to adequately address the submitter’s concerns.

 

A summary of submissions and officer’s comments can be found at Attachment 5.

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;

·       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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

 

In accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register approved at Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 June 2018, this application for development is being referred to Council as it involves an ‘Educational Establishment’, which is a use listed under the City’s Delegation Register as a use to be determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The subject site is zoned District Centre under the City’s LPS2. The subject site is located within The Mezz Shopping Centre, which is characterised by a range of commercial uses. The locality immediately surrounding The Mezz Shopping Centre is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses.

 

The change of use application proposes a Kumon Education Centre, which will provide English and mathematics tutoring for children aged from three years to high school students. Children enrolled in the program physically attend the centre twice a week for 30 to 45 minute periods at pre-assigned session times.

 

The students will attend the centre at the following times:

 

·       Monday, Thursday and Friday: 3:00pm to 6:30pm

·       Saturdays: 9:00am to 12:00pm

 

Multiple sessions will run during the above time periods and up to 25 students will be in attendance at any one time, with up to six employees on site at a time. During non-formal tutoring hours, up to two employees will attend the Educational Establishment for planning, preparation and administration activities. A maximum of 31 people, being 25 students and six employees, will be at the tenancy at any time.

 

There is no provision for a waiting area in Shop 32, and therefore parents will not be encouraged to remain during class time.

 


 

The proposed Educational Establishment is consistent with the commercial nature of The Mezz Shopping Centre and is considered appropriate for the locality due to its low impact nature. The locality is central with close proximity to local schools and well serviced by public transport. Given the context of the subject site and the proposed use, the Educational Establishment is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the District Centre zone, which requires development to be a community focus point for people, services, employment and leisure that are highly accessible, and to ensure levels of activity, accessibility and diversity of uses and density is sufficient to sustain public transport.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

Car parking requirements for an Educational Establishment 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. The submitted Parking Management Plan is included as Attachment 4.

 

The Parking Management Plan proposes to utilise the customer parking at The Mezz Shopping Centre. As the proposed Educational Establishment will be located within a tenancy within The Mezz, there is no opportunity to provide further parking bays, and it is expected that the existing 280 customer bays and 18 bicycle bays associated with the whole Shopping Centre will be used, as required. In a broader sense, it is accepted that the nature of the uses within a shopping centre will evolve over time and the number of bays available at The Mezz Shopping Centre is considered sufficient given the suite of uses that are likely to be accommodated by such a centre.

 

In any event, the applicant has indicated that they expect many students to walk or catch the bus from nearby schools, with Mount Hawthorn Primary School located 750 metres and Aranmore Catholic College 800 metres away from the Mezz. Transperth bus numbers 15, 990 and 402 stop at the Mezz and also service Glendalough and Leederville train stations, providing public transport options for students and parents travelling to and from the Educational Establishment.

 

In light of the customer parking available at The Mezz Shopping Centre, the proximity of local schools and availability of public transport, the Parking Management Plan is considered to be acceptable.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to exercise its discretion regards this development application for an Educational Establishment. Due to the reasons outlined in the above report, the proposed land use is considered to be appropriate for the subject site, and will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

As such, it is recommended that the application is approved.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.2          No. 1/226 (Lot: 1; D/P: 956) Oxford Street, Leederville Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Cafe (Unauthorised Existing Use)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/105583

Author:                     Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans and Written Submission

3.       Attachment 3 - Parking Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - 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 development approval for a Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Café at Unit 1/226 (Lot: 1; D/P: 956) Oxford Street, Leederville, in accordance with the plans shown as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 4:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1     This approval only relates to the Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Café as shown on the plans dated 10 July 2018. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2     The use of the premises shall conform with the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 definition of Restaurant/Café which states:

“means premises primarily used for the preparation, sale and service of food and drinks for consumption on the premises by customers for whom seating is provided, including premises that are licensed under the Liquor Control Act 1988”;

1.3     The hours of operation for the ‘Restaurant/café’ shall be limited to the following times:

·      11:00am to 9:00pm Tuesday to Thursday;

·      11:00am to 10:00pm Friday to Saturday;

·      11:00am to 9:00pm Sunday;

·      Closed Anzac Day;

1.4     The maximum number of patrons for the Restaurant/café shall be 25;

2.       Active Frontage

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

3.       Bicycle Facilities

Prior to occupancy or use of the development a minimum of four short term bicycle parking bays (in the form of two Class 3 bicycle parking facilities) shall be provided in the Oxford Street verge, in a location to the City’s satisfaction. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and all works shall be undertaken to the City’s specification and satisfaction; and

4.       General

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Shop to Restaurant/Café at Unit 1, 226 Oxford Street, Leederville.

PROPOSAL:

The application involves the use of the subject site as a Restaurant, accommodating up to five employees and 25 patrons. The operating hours are proposed to be from 11:00am to 9:00pm, Tuesday to Sunday. There will be no external changes to the building. The development plans are included as Attachment 2. The subject tenancy is allocated two car parking bays. The applicant intends to obtain a Liquor Licence from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

Background:

Landowner:

Firestar Enterprises

Applicant:

Maria Victoria Roman

Date of Application:

10 July 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: District Centre     R Code: N/A

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Shop

Proposed Use Class:

Restaurant/Café

Lot Area:

62.2m²

Right of Way (ROW):

N/A

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Oxford Street and Richmond Street, Leederville, as shown in Attachment 1. The subject site has been developed with five commercial tenancies. All tenancies are occupied, with a mix of café, fast food outlet, shop and hair dressing salon. Adjoining the site, to the north and east is a club use building and vacant, fenced land. To the south is the Tafe campus and to the west is a mix of restaurant/cafés.  The locality has a mix of shops, offices, restaurant/café, educational establishments and residential land uses.

 

The subject tenancy has been operating as a restaurant/café without development approval from the City since mid-2017, previously as Pranziamo and more recently as La Fuente. As the unit has previously been used as a restaurant/café with no recorded complaints, the operations have been allowed to continue whilst the development application is considered.

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. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Parking and Access

 

ü

Operating Hours

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking requirements

 

Car bays

 

0.22 bays per person

25 patrons + 6 employees = 7 bays (rounded up from 6.82 bays)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 vehicle bays

Bicycle bays

 

0.019 short term bicycle bays per person and 0.042 long term bicycle bays per person

25 patrons + 6 employees =

·      1 short terms bay (rounded up from 0.589); and

·      2 long term bays (rounded up from 1.302)

1.  

 

 

0 bicycle bays

 

The above elements of the proposal do 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 Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, from 20 July 2018 to 2 August 2018. The method of consultation being 17 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, and the application being published on the City’s webpage.

 

In response to the advertising, the City did receive any submissions.

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;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises; and

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the applicant is requesting the parking management plan be considered and approved in lieu of a requirement to pay cash-in-lieu.

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:

Approval of the parking management plan will result in the specified cash-in-lieu amount being waived.

Comments:

Parking and Access

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements sets a deemed-to-comply standard of 6.82 (7) car parking bays for the subject tenancy, one long-term bicycle bay and two short-term bicycle bays, based on the maximum number of patrons on site at any one given time. The commercial development incorporates a private car parking facility with two bays for the exclusive use of the subject tenancy, equating to a shortfall of five bays.

 

In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       A restaurant use has been operating within this unit since circa April 2017. There have been no complaints made to the City with regard to parking regarding any tenancy within this commercial development during this timeframe. This indicates to the City that there are no concerns with parking as a result of any tenancies within this commercial development.

·       This shortfall equates to a total cash-in-lieu amount of $26,028.

·       The applicant has provided written justification, which is included in Attachment 2, to justify the request to waive the required cash-in-lieu amount.

·       There is a significant amount of parking facilities and alternative transport options surrounding the development, which is listed in the Parking Management Plan, contained as Attachment 3, including the two designated bays on-site for exclusive use by this tenancy and on-street parking along both Oxford Street and Richmond Street.

·       The public transport network includes a bus route along Oxford Road, and the unit is within 1 kilometre of the Leederville Train Station. There is one bicycle rack directly adjacent to the tenancy and another on the corner of Oxford Street and Richmond Street. These bicycle racks provide four short-term bicycle bays. Surrounding land uses include residential uses, and there is a comprehensive footpath network to allow patrons to arrive on-foot.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the payment of cash-in-lieu would not benefit the specific locality or tenancy and therefore, it is recommended that the cash-in-lieu amount is waived.

 

In terms of the required bicycle facilities, as the site is highly developed and the footpath incorporates alfresco seating, it is considered that there is inadequate space to reasonably accommodate any bicycle facilities directly adjacent to the restaurant. There is, however, the ability to accommodate such facilities in close proximity to the subject tenancy, which will enable use by visitors to the restaurant.  Whilst Council’s Policy requires the provision of one short-term facility and two long-term facilities, and a condition could be imposed to that effect, given the nature of the use, visitors and employees are not likely to visit the site for extended periods of time and therefore, long-term bays are unlikely to be utilised for that purpose. It is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to require the provision of four short term bays so as to provide short term alternative transport option. Whilst the bays only accommodate short-term parking, the provision of two facilities will provide parking for up to four bicycles; which will provide a greater capacity that the standard Policy requirement.

 


 

Based on the surrounding car and bicycle parking facilities (including the installation of a new short term bicycle racks), and the small scale nature of the development, the proposed use is considered to adequately meet the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non‑Residential Development Parking Requirements by encouraging more active and sustainable transport modes and encourages reduction on the dependence on single person private vehicle trips. Given the above justification, it is not considered that the proposal will have any negative impact on car parking in the area and is supported.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed restaurant/café is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Commercial zone outlined in the LPS2. The proposal is located within an area that has a variety of parking and alternative transport options. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the objectives of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements and is considered that the proposal will be able to adequately operate with minimal impact on the surrounding area. It is recommended that the proposal be approved, subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.3          No. 7 (Lot 1; STR: 43011) Galwey Street, Leederville - Proposed Extension to the period of approval: Proposed Alterations and Three Storey Addition to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/82331

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Previous Approval and Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Application Submission

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions  

 

 

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 to extend the period in which the development must be substantially commenced at No. 7 (Lot 1; STR: 40311) Galwey Street, Leederville, for development approval 5.2015.396.1 granted by Council on 9 February 2016 for Proposed Alterations and Three Storey Addition to Existing Single Dwelling subject to the following conditions:

1.         The extension of time is granted for a period of two years, being to 9 February 2020; and

2.         All other conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on the development approval 5.2015.356.1 granted on 9 February 2016 continue to apply to this approval.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval to extend the period within which the development must be substantially commenced for planning approval 5.2015.396.1, granted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 9 February 2016 for proposed alterations and three storey addition to the existing single house at No. 7 Galwey Street, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

This application proposes an extension of time to substantially commence alterations to the existing single house and a three storey addition to the rear of the subject site. The alterations and additions were approved by Council on 9 February 2016.

Background:

Landowner:

Nicola Limond

Applicant:

Derek Limond

Date of Application:

9 May 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Dwelling (Single House)

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Single House)

Lot Area:

313m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not Applicable

Heritage List:

Not Applicable

 

The subject site is bound by Galwey Street to the north and residential dwellings to the south, east and west. The adjacent property to the west (rear) of the development forms part of a survey strata with the subject site. The locality predominantly consists of single houses ranging from one to two storeys, however there are also three storey developments under construction within the vicinity particularly at the intersections of Loftus and Galwey Streets. The existing dwelling incorporates a mixture of render and red facebrick, with these elements and weatherboard common within the locality and immediate streetscape. The subject site and surrounding lots are zoned Residential, and fall within the Residential Built Form Area of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. The area has a density of R40 pursuant to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), which has not altered from Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1). A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 9 February 2016, Council approved subject to conditions, alterations and a three storey addition to the existing single house at the subject site. A copy of the approval notice and approved plans are included as Attachment 2 and the plans subject to this application are included as Attachment 3. In accordance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the applicant had two years to substantially commence the development, however the development has not commenced. The applicant has advised that the inability to substantially commence the development was a result of renovations within the property taking longer than initially expected. The current application seeks a two year extension to the approval period to enable the commencement of the previously approved development. The application does not seek to amend the plans or any other part of the development approval. The applicant’s justification for the proposed extension of time is included as Attachment 4.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  It notes in each instance where Council previously approved a planning element that required discretion to be exercised, as well as each instance where further discretion is proposed. The elements which previously required the discretion of Council are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Deemed-to-Comply

Council previously exercised its discretion and approved

Street Setback

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Privacy

 

ü

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.1.3

 

Eastern Boundary

Ground Floor requires a setback of 1.7 metres

 

Western Boundary

Ground Floor requires a setback of 2.0 metres

 

 

 

1.1 metres

 

 

1.4 metres

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Clause 5.6

 

Maximum Height - 2 storeys

Wall height of 6.0 metres

 

 

Maximum Height - 3 storeys

Wall height of 7.0 metres

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.4.1

 

Living and dining rooms to be setback 6.0 metres from the lot boundary

 

 

3.5 metres from the southern lot boundary

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1

 

Minimum dimension of 4.0 metres

 

 

Minimum dimension of 3.7 metres

 

The application was presented to Council, and at its Ordinary Meeting on 9 February 2016, Council considered the following departures:

 

·       Three storey development with a wall height of 7.0 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres;

·       Setback variation of 1.1 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres to the eastern boundary;

·       Setback variation of 1.4 metres in lieu of 3.0 metres to the western boundary;

·       Upper floor living and dining rooms setback 3.5 metres from the southern boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres; and

·       Outdoor living area having a minimum dimension of 3.7 metres.

 

It is noted that Administration has identified that there were inaccuracies in lot boundary setback requirements for the ground floor of the development to the eastern and western lot boundaries in the assessment of the previous approval. This is discussed in further detail in the Comments section.

 

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements previously approved by Council have been assessed in accordance with the Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The variations identified above have not altered as part of the subject application.

 

The above variations are further 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 22 June 2018 and concluding on 5 July 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.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, two submissions were received comprising of one in objection and one raising concerns. After the closure of the community consultation period, the City received an additional submission objecting to the proposed development. A summary of the submissions is included as Attachment 5.

 

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

 

·       The three storey development will increase overshadowing and inhibit access to winter sun to habitable areas of adjoining dwellings;

·       Additions are not in line with the existing dwelling and heritage homes within the locality; and

·       Large windows in the middle storey of the development result in overlooking to adjoining dwellings.

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.

 

The application to amend an approval can be considered in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 77(1)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Clause 77(2)(b) allows the application to be made during or after the period within which the development must be substantially commenced. Clause 77(4) provides the local government the ability approve the application with or without conditions or refuse the application.

 

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

 

Delegation to Determine Applications:

 

This matter is being referred to Council as Council determined the previous application and the proposal incorporates a three storey component.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 enable the period within which a development approved must be substantially commence to be extended. Whilst no guidance is provided in the Regulations as to how discretion can be exercised in this regard, the SAT has published several decisions that relate to the issue, which identify relevant considerations, as follows.

 

1.         Whether there have been any changes in the planning framework since the approval was granted;

 

2.         Whether development is likely to receive approval now; and

 

3.         If the applicant has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development approval.

 


 

Each relevant matter is to be considered on balance in the exercise of discretion and is discussed below.

 

1.         Changes in Planning Framework

 

The initial application for the subject site was assessed in accordance with the local planning framework applicable to the site at the time. This included TPS1, and the City’s local planning policies providing guidance to the assessment under this scheme, specifically Policy No. 7.2.1 – Residential Design Elements for residential developments. The subject site has not altered in density with the zoning remaining Residential R40.

 

The local planning policies applicable to the site have changed since the application was determined, with Council revoking a number of local planning policies and adopting the Built Form Policy on 13 December 2016. The previously approved development incorporated some departures to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the City’s previous local planning policies and the R Codes. These departures were considered to satisfy the relevant design principles at the time. The current application does not seek to alter any part of the development and the application has been reassessed using the City’s current Built Form Policy, taking into consideration any changes to the context of the subject site.

 

The changes to the planning framework, and in particular the introduction of the Built Form Policy do not affect the site context and do not affect the previous assessment undertaken as the requirements for building height, lot boundary setbacks, privacy and outdoor living area requirements have not altered.

 

2.         Whether the development is likely to receive approval now

 

There are no changes from the plans approved by Council in February 2016 and the plans submitted as part of this application.

 

Each departure to the Built Form Policy and R Codes is discussed individually below.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

In its assessment of the application, Administration has identified discrepancies in the lot boundary setback requirements for the ground floor to the eastern and western lot boundaries. The assessment undertaken as part of the previous approval identified the eastern ground floor wall requiring a setback of 1.5 metres with 1.1 metres proposed, rather the setback requirement is in fact 1.7 metres. Also, the previous assessment outlined the requirement of a 3.0 metres setback to the western boundary ground floor, with 1.4 metres proposed. The required setback is in fact 2.0 metres.

 

The setback for the ground floor of the development to the eastern boundary is required to be greater than that identified by Administration and that previously considered by Council. However, the building envelope has not altered from the plans previously advertised for comment nor those approved by Council. The comments raised as part of the advertising period for the application did not relate to the setback departures proposed. The setback departure of 0.6 metres (incorrectly identified as 0.4 metres that was advertised and approved) is considered to be minor and does not create any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties given the overshadow is compliant with the R Codes and the development includes various materials such as facebrick, render and weatherboard to assist in mitigating the perception of building bulk.

 

Similarly, as the plans and building envelope have not altered from that previously approved by Council, the setback departure to the western boundary is still considered to be acceptable. The setback departure to the western boundary as part of this application is lesser than that previously identified and does not result in additional adverse impact on the adjoining properties.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the setback departures do not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining residents and can be supported in accordance with the current planning framework. As such further consideration of the lot boundary setback departures is not required.

 

Building Height

 

The development proposes a three storey addition with a wall height of 7.0 metres and a pitched roof height to 8.9 metres, and is contrary to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Built Form Policy which allows for a two storey development with a maximum wall height of 6.0 metres and a pitched roof height of 9.0 metres.

 

The increase in wall height of 1.0 metre will have minimal visual impact on the existing and desired streetscape with the dwelling appearing as two storey as viewed from the street, and the overall building height measured to the pitch of the roof being compliant with the deemed-to-comply requirements. The three storey element is predominately to the rear of the development site, and the basement level is significantly below ground level which assists in mitigating the impact of bulk to the adjoining property. The development also incorporates a range of materials and finishes such as render, facebrick and weatherboard which are consistent with the existing single house and sympathetic to the locality.

 

The increase in overshadowing as a result of the proposed height was raised during consultation period, however the development does not propose any departures to the overshadowing requirements of the R Codes. Furthermore, the proposed height will have little impact on access to views of significance for adjoining properties, particularly those to the north given the natural ground level on site, and as the development presents as two storeys as viewed from the street.

 

The inclusion of an appropriate visual privacy condition ensures there is no overlooking to adjoining properties and as will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding developments.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the building height departure satisfies the local housing objectives and design principles of the Built Form Policy and R Codes as the 1.0 metre increase to the proposed height does not result in any adverse overshadowing and does not detract from the desired streetscape. As a result, the building height is acceptable under the current planning and policy framework.

 

Privacy

 

The visual privacy concerns raised in the submissions are mitigated in accordance with Condition 4.1.1 of the previous development approval, which requires all openings on the first and second floors to comply with the privacy requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes.  The development plans also indicate obscure glazing to 1.6 metres above finished floor level for those openings which are more than 0.5 metres above natural ground level as well as portions of clear openings above 1.6 metres. Therefore and in light of this, privacy is considered to be acceptable.

 

Landscaping

 

The R Codes do not require landscaping for single house developments, however the City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard for additions and alterations to all buildings. This requires 30 percent of the front setback area to be provided as canopy coverage within 5 years of development approval, unless an existing mature tree with equivalent coverage is retained anywhere on the subject site. The proposal does not comply with this requirement as an existing tree does not provide 30 percent canopy coverage, and 30 percent of the front setback is not provided as canopy coverage.

 

Although the proposal does not satisfy the abovementioned requirement, the proposed development does not result in the need to remove the existing vegetation on the subject site. At present there is a wide variety of trees species such as frangipanis, olive trees, paperbark and callistemon located within the front setback area of the property and towards the rear of the site. The existing tree species provide in excess of 39 precent canopy coverage across the site, and as such is considered to meet the intent of the landscaping provision of achieving 30 percent canopy coverage across the site.

 

The Built Form Policy requires new developments on lots of this size to provide 15 percent deep soil and 30 percent canopy coverage. This provision does not directly relate to the subject site as the development proposes additions to a dwelling. Notwithstanding this, the site provides for approximately 12.8 percent deep soil area and 39 percent canopy coverage. As discussed above, the proposed landscaping on site and in particular the canopy coverage is considered to assist in reducing the impact of the development on the adjoining developments and creating greater landscaping amenity for both the occupants and the community.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the existing landscaping and canopy coverage is acceptable as there is sufficient landscaping on site to achieve and maintain in excess of 30 percent canopy coverage at the subject site.

 

Outdoor living areas

 

The development proposes a minimum dimension of 3.7 metres to the outdoor living area (OLA) of the site in lieu of the required 4.0 metres as per the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes.

 

The reduced minimum dimension is not considered to adversely impact on the usability of the outdoor living area as it is capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling and allows for an area external of the dwelling for the residents. The area of the OLA is also greater than deemed to comply requirement. Although the OLA is located to the south of the site, there is no covered portion and as such the area has sufficient access to winter sun and ventilation.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the departure to the minimum dimension of the OLA meets the design principles of the R Codes as it does not limit the functionality of the area and allows for residents to have a usable space external of the dwelling. The proposed departure is therefore supported and is in accordance with the current planning requirements.

 

3.         Implementation of the development

 

As set out in Attachment 4, the applicant is seeking a time extension to commence works due to unforeseen delays with the project. The applicant advised that the initial renovation works which were required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the subject application took longer than expected, on that basis that the owner works away from Perth. The following works on site have been completed in order to progress with the proposal:

 

·       The renovation and relocation of the bathroom and kitchen into the existing house; and

·       The renovation of the hallway which included a bookcase.

 

Although the above internal works did not require development approval, they were shown on the previously approved development plans. Ultimately, the applicant has undertaken some works to progress the broader project, it is just that the works completed to date are exempt from requirement to obtain development approval.

 

Conclusion

 

The applicant is seeking an amendment to a development approval in order to extend the period of time in which to substantially commence development. The applicant has indicated that they have endeavoured to pursue the development with other works being completed at the subject site. The planning framework applicable to the subject site has not significantly changed since the previous approval was issued, particularly as the zoning and density remains the same. The proposed alterations and additions have been assessed in accordance with the current planning framework and as the development is consistent with the requirements of the Built Form Policy and R Codes. It is considered that departures from deemed to comply standards satisfy the local housing objectives and design principles of the Built Form Policy and R Codes respectively.

 

Given the above, and as the proposal has not changed since it was previously approved by Council, it is recommended that the application to extend the period of time within which the development must be substantially commenced be approved subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.4          No. 498 (Lot: 29; D/P: 2355) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Existing Multiple Dwellings (Removal of Landscaping to include Car Bay)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/100113

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Previous Minutes and Approved Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant Justification and Response to Submissions  

 

 

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 Alterations and Additions to Existing Multiple Dwellings (Removal of Landscaping to Include Car Bay) at No. 498 (Lot 29; D/P 2355) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed car bay does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 6.3.4 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as it is does not comply with AS2890.1 relating to vehicle manoeuvring and does not allow for safe access and egress from the site;

2.       The proposed amount of hardstand in the front setback area does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 6.3.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes or the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 4.10 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the increase in hardstand does not positively contribute to the streetscape and does not contribute to the appearance and amenity of the development; and

3.       The proposed landscaping does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 4.10 of the City’s Built Form Policy as the landscaping has not been designed to reduce the impact of development on adjoining public spaces.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for alterations to the three storey multiple dwellings granted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 8 March 2016 at No. 498 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the removal of the approved landscaping located within the street setback of the development and the inclusion of an additional visitor car bay to the existing seven multiple dwellings development at the subject site.

Background:

Landowner:

498 Fitzgerald Street Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Daniel Cassettai Design

Date of Application:

16 November 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60 – R100

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Dwellings (Multiple)

Proposed Use Class:

Not Applicable

Lot Area:

1067.37m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not Applicable

Heritage List:

Not Applicable

The subject site is bound by Fitzgerald Street to the west and residential properties to the north, south and eastern boundaries as shown in Attachment 1. There are seven multiple dwellings located on the subject site, which were approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 8 March 2016.  The Minutes of Council and the previously approved plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

The site is adjacent to single residential dwellings to the north, grouped dwellings to the east and multiple dwellings to the south. The subject site and the adjoining properties along Fitzgerald Street are zoned R60‑R100 and identified as being within the Transit Corridor Built Form Area in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining properties to the rear and partially to the north of the subject site are zoned R40 and within the Residential Built Form Area.

 

The portion of Fitzgerald Street abutting the subject site is a Category 2 Other Regional Road and is in the control of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. The subject site requires 1.5 metres of land as measured from the street boundary to be ceded for Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) road widening.

 

The City received an application on 16 November 2017 for the removal of landscaping and inclusion of a visitor car bay at the subject site. Following an assessment of the proposal, the application was advertised for a period of 14 days. At the conclusion of the advertising period, the City’s officers attended a meeting with the applicant, owners, and planning consultant on 28 March 2018 to discuss the concerns with the proposal and the concerns raised as part of the advertising period. The applicant subsequently provided amended plans and justification for the City’s assessment on 26 April 2018.

 

Following further discussions, the applicant requested via email to the City on 25 May 2018 that they wished to withdraw their application. The City subsequently notified the applicant that the application had been withdrawn via email on 5 June 2018. After further consideration from the applicant, the City was advised on 8 June 2018 that the owners wished to pursue with determination of the application and as such the City recommended its assessment of the application in order to issue a determination.  The plans subject to this application 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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Landscaping

 

ü

Parking & Access

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.3.4

 

Car parking spaces and manoeuvring spaces are to comply with AS2890.1.

 

 

The proposed car parking space and manoeuvring is not in accordance with AS2890.1.


 

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.3.2

 

Maximum 50 percent hard surface of open space areas within the front setback area.

 

 

12.1 percent landscaped area and 87.9 precent hard surface areas.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 12 March 2018 and concluding on 25 March 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners within a 100 metre radius of the site, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

During the consultation period, eight submissions were received comprising of four in support and four in objection. The submissions received in support of the application did not provide specific comments on the proposal.

 

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

 

·       The additional car bay is not a necessary requirement and the parking bay will drastically reduce the landscaping requirements;

·       There is adequate parking available in the surrounding area;

·       Sufficient parking (for residents and visitors) exists on-site and as such an additional bay is not required;

·       The proposal removes large trees from the development which provides shade and assists in privacy; and

·       Development results in little greenery for residents.

 

A summary of the submissions received in objection to the development and Administration’s response is included as Attachment 4, and the applicant’s response to submissions is contained as Attachment 5.

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 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 of a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in the WAPC’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 as Council determined the previous application.

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:

Parking and Access

 

The application proposes an additional car bay for visitor purposes at the subject site and intends to replace an existing visitor bay as a dedicated residential bay. The car bay is proposed abutting the area allocated for MRS road widening. The proposed nil setback of this bay from the future road reserve boundary will not allow for safe access into the car bay and is non-compliant with the applicable Australian Standard that relates to car parking design specifications (AS2890.1).

 

The traffic engineering advice provided by the applicant (included within Attachment 5) identifies the proposed car bay as having adequate access and manoeuvring from Fitzgerald Street in accordance with AS2890.1. This is because there is a 3.1 metre distance between the adjoining garage wall and the future property boundary after road widening area, and a 5.7 metre driveway aisle is provided.

 

Administration has assessed the application and has identified that the proposed car bay is not in accordance with AS2890.1, as entering vehicles would be required to cross the footpath at an acute angle. The vehicle swept path that will result from parking in the proposed car bay cannot be fully contained within the lot boundary and will result in encroachment within road reserve area. Additionally, a parked vehicle within the proposed car bay is likely to result in the vehicle door on the driver side encroaching within the road reserve and future footpath if it is opened fully. The non-compliance with the Australian Standards is deemed to be unsafe for pedestrians and does not allow for vehicles accessing and egressing the proposed car bay.

 

The applicant’s justification identifies the inclusion of the new car bay as being necessary to allow for convenient use by visitors to the subject site. The location of the existing approved visitor bays is behind the visible entry point to the dwelling and behind the allocated car bay for Units 1 and 2. At present there are 14 car bays on-site with two allocated for visitor parking and the remaining car bays allocated to the seven units on-site. The number of bays on-site are consistent with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes which requires one bay per unit and two for visitor use, and as such an additional bay is not a necessary requirement. Furthermore, Council have previously determined the application and deemed the location of the visitor bays as acceptable.

 

Given the above, the proposed additional car bay is not supported as it is surplus to the car parking requirement and its location and design does not facilitate safe manoeuvring of a vehicle.

 

Landscaping

 

Clause 6.3.2 of the R Codes requires the street setback area to be developed without car parking, except for visitors’ bays, and with a maximum of 50 percent hard surface. The application proposes 12.1 percent landscaped area and 87.9 precent hard surface areas in lieu of 50 percent hardstand area within the street setback area to allow for the inclusion of an additional car bay on-site.

The inclusion of the additional hardstand area results in the removal of 25.71 square metres of landscaping and deep soil area on the subject site. The removal of the landscaping and resultant additional hardstand area within the street setback area is not considered to positively contribute to the streetscape and results in a further departure to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes.

 

The proposal results in small shrubbery within this area which will be impacted by the manoeuvring into the proposed car bay and will be limited in growth. The reduction in landscaped area and removal of the two Chinese Tallow trees as approved to accommodate the proposed car bay will also have an impact in terms of building bulk as viewed from the street with the blank garage wall at ground level to Unit 1 facing the street no longer being screened. The development also proposes a 1.8 metre high and 2.45 metre wide green wall on the garage façade facing the street, however the majority of the wall will remain visible. Furthermore, this form of landscaping can often be hard to maintain due to the confined area the plant is required to grow in.  Whilst the proposed plans identify landscaping and deep soil area along the front lot boundary, this is predominantly within the 1.5 metre road widening area and as such is not included in the lot area and is not calculated as part of the deep soil area on-site. The 1.5 metre road widening area is to be ceded at the time of strata subdivision.

 

It is noted that the previous approval for the site was issued prior to the implementation of the City’s Built Form Policy. Notwithstanding this, the Built Form Policy sets out standards to increase deep soil areas and canopy coverage within development sites. The proposed removal of landscaping within the front setback area to facilitate an additional car bay will reduce the amount of consolidated area for deep soil area and canopy coverage on the site. The landscaping plan identifies 1.1 percent deep soil area and minimal canopy coverage within these deep soil areas. Although the development proposes to relocate trees to other areas on the subject site, these areas do not provide for additional deep soil areas which are required to be a minimum area of 3 square metres. Trees that have been proposed to be relocated are in areas such as the courtyard of Unit 1 where it would result in reduced usability outdoor living areas, and along the northern boundary abutting the internal driveway which will impact on vehicle manoeuvring. It is also noted that the landscaping plan proposes the relocation of trees along the eastern boundary to the rear of the site that will result in a further loss of a tree.

 

Given the above, the proposed landscaping is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R Codes as the removal of the consolidated landscaping area will result in a detrimental impact to the streetscape, particularly as the development results in additional paved areas within the street setback area.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development. For the reasons outlined in the body of the report, the departures from the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy are not considered to address the Design Principles and Local Housing Objectives.

 

The proposed car bay requires vehicles to access the bay at an angle that will negatively impact on pedestrian safety and is not in accordance with AS2890.1. The proposed car bay also results in the removal of landscaping areas on the subject site and in turn increases the amount of hardstand area within the street setback area. The removal of the landscaping does not positively contribute to the desired streetscape and results in reduced landscaping areas and deep soil area on the site.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the development be refused.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.5          No. 266 (Lot: 18; D/P: 583) Lord Street, Perth - Additions (two car stackers) to Existing Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales

TRIM Ref:                  D18/100418

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Application Report

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

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

6.       Attachment 6 - Design Review Panel Massing Diagram  

 

 

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 an Additions (Two Car Stackers) to Existing Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales at No. 266 (Lot: 18; D/P: 583) Lord Street, Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed height does not meet the Design Principles of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the building has not been designed to minimise amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and does not positively contribute to the neighbourhood context of the locality;

2.       The proposed lot boundary setbacks do not meet the Design Principles of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the building mass and form has not been designed to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties and the proposed setbacks do not facilitate the provision of landscaping;

3.       The proposed landscaping does not meet the Design Principles of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the landscaping has not been designed to increase landscaping amenity for occupants and the community; and

4.       Having due consideration of subclauses 67(m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposed development is not considered compatible with its setting due to the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale and appearance of the development on the character of the locality.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two car stackers to an existing Motor Vehicle Sales at No. 266 Lord Street, Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the construction of two car stacking structures in the existing car parking area at the rear of the subject site, with the stackers to be primarily used to store vehicles being sold by Fabcar (the business operating from the site).The application involves the removal of three existing car parking bays from the rear car parking, however, to offset the loss of those car bays, the car stackers will be available for use by staff and customers as car parking. The car stackers will be accessed via Lord Street through an existing internal thoroughfare.

 

The application proposes two different types of car stackers, referred to as a ‘rotary system’ and a 'DFS system’, as follows:

 

·      The rotary system has a height of 14.4 metres and a dimension of 6.2 metres by 5.6 metres. The ‘rotary system’ car stacker operates in a ferris-wheel format with cars entering the stacker at the ground level and being rotated in a circular format.

·      The DFS system has an overall height of 22.2 metres, a wall height of 21.0 metres and a dimension of 5.8 metres by 5.2 metres. The ‘DFS system’ operates as a tower with a moveable platform that collects cars from the ground level and places the car within the stacker.

 

The operation of the car stackers will occur at an ad-hoc basis during business hours (Monday – Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm and Saturdays 8:30 to 1:00pm). The car stackers will allow for vehicle sales stock to be stored/rotated and facilitate customer and staff car parking.

 

A four metre high aluminium screen is proposed along the eastern boundary, which will incorporate a landscaped element to provide some screening to the adjoining multiple dwelling. Dividing fences are governed by the City’s Fencing Local Law 2008. The proposed aluminium screen on the property boundary is over 1.8 metres in height and therefore requires the consent of the adjoining neighbour and separate approval from the City under the Fencing Local Law 2008. Therefore, the overheight boundary fence cannot be considered or approved as part of this development application.

Background:

Landowner:

Auto Design and Services

Applicant:

Urbanista Town Planning

Date of Application:

9 April 2018 – time extension agreed to 21 August 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Motor Vehicle Sales

Proposed Use Class:

Not Applicable

Lot Area:

961m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not Applicable

Heritage List:

Not Applicable

 

The subject site is located on the east side of Lord Street, as shown in Attachment 1 and comprises of an existing Motor Vehicle Sales business (Fabcar). The site adjoins a two-storey office/warehouse to the north (No. 268 Lord Street) and a two-storey multiple dwelling to the east (No. 138 Summers Street). Four separate lots are located to the south, which comprise of vacant land (No. 264 Lord Street), workshop (No. 146 Summers Street), single house (No. 144 Summers Street) and office/warehouse (No. 142 Summers Street).

 

The subject site and the surrounding area are zoned ‘Commercial’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The area surrounding the subject site is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential development, including multiple dwellings, shops, offices, warehouses and recreational facilities. The existing building height along this section of Lord Street ranges from one to six storeys.

 

The site was originally approved for the ‘sale and servicing of motorcycles’ in 1974 by the City of Perth. A subsequent approval was issued by the City of Vincent Council for a ‘motorcycle showroom and workshop’ on 28 April 1995. This approval included the construction of a 370 square metre building and nine car bays, six of which are located at the rear of the site.

 

A landscaping plan formed part of the approval issued on 28 April 1995 as a condition. A site inspection undertaken by Administration confirmed that the approved landscaping has not been implemented on site. The subject site’s non-compliance with the approved landscaping plan does not fall within the scope of this development application. However, the matter has been referred to the City’s Compliance Services for review and investigation.

 

The applicant has operated the subject site as a car sales premises since 2016. The approved land use for the site (sale and servicing of motorcycles) is considered a ‘Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales’ land use under the LPS2, which is defined as follows:

 

‘Motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales means premises used to sell or hire motor vehicles, boats or caravans.’

 

The application does not propose any changes to the existing approved land use on the site. The application seeks development approval for additions (two car stackers) to the existing Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales. The development plans and the applicant’s planning report are included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 respectively.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2 and Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. 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

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Landscaping

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Building Setbacks and Walls Built on Boundary

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

North – Boundary Wall

 

No deemed-to-comply requirements. The proposal will be assessed based on the Design Principles of the Built Form Policy – Clause 4.3 – Setbacks.

North – Boundary Wall

 

5.9m in length (equal to 11 percent of the lot boundary behind the front setback line), maximum height of 21.0m and average height of 21.0m

 

South

 

No deemed-to-comply requirements. The proposal will be assessed based on the Design Principles of the Built Form Policy - Clause 4.3 – Setbacks

 

South

 

3.0m

East (rear)

 

First two levels: 4.5m

Third level and above: 6.5m

East (rear)

 

First two levels: 5.5m

Third level and above: 5.5m

Building Height/Storeys

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Wall height: 19.5m

Wall height: 21.0m

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Deep soil

 

15%

50% soft landscaping within the front setback area

Deep soil

 

1.87% deep soil

10.9% soft landscaping within the front setback area

 

Canopy cover (site)

 

30%

 

Canopy cover (site)

 

1.2%

Car park

 

80% canopy cover

1.5m landscaping strip

Car park

 

11.4% canopy cover

1.5m landscaping strip provided on the northern boundary only

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation on the proposal was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 21 days from 25 May 2018 to 14 June 2018. The method of consultation included 810 letters being mailed to the owners and occupiers of the properties within a 150 metre radius of the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1, a sign on site and a notice in the local newspaper, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received six submissions in support of the proposal and 50 submissions objecting to the proposal during the community consultation period. The submissions objecting to the proposal raised the following key issues:

 

·       Building height, bulk and scale;

·       Impact on residential amenity and streetscape character; and

·       Noise generated by the development.

 

It is noted that the submissions received in support of the proposal did not provide specific comments on the proposal.

 

Administration’s response to each issue raised during the community consultation period is contained in Attachment 4 and the applicant’s response to the summary of submissions is contained in Attachment 5.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development was referred to the Chair of the Design Review Panel for comment. The Chair provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

‘From a mass and scale, one could say it is in keeping with the intended built form outcomes. The issue here is the nature of the building (vertical stacker) with an open structure and without any detail to assess visual impact.

 

If this same structure was encapsulated by, louvres, perforated metal screens, or an articulated facade it may be able to comply with the built form objectives. As currently presented or depicted it would be difficult to support the applicant’s proposal.’

 

The Chair has provided a massing image of the proposed which is contained in Attachment 6.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       Fencing Local Law 2008;

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy (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.

 

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development application received more than five submissions during community consultation, 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:

Building Height

 

Deemed-to-Comply Requirement

 

The subject site is located within the Transit Corridor under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form, which designates a six-storey deemed-to-comply building height. This includes a 19.5 metre deemed-to-comply wall height for the developments with roofs above. The proposal incorporates a wall height of 21.0 metres.

 

Applicant’s Justification

 

The applicant has provided the following justification against the Design Principles for building height under Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form:

 

·       ‘The proposed car stackers are located to the rear of the approximately 58m from the front boundary. The car stackers will not be immediately visible from the primary street of Lord Street. The car stackers will be screened by the high rise development at No. 280 Lord Street, Perth for traffic travelling southbound on Lord Street. The stackers will also be concealed from view for northbound traffic due to the high rise development at No. 262 Lord Street.

 

·       The adjoining properties to the north and south of the subject site have two and three storey boundary walls to the subject site. These two sites are also commercial in nature. As such, there is no amenity impact on these two sites as the development will not be visible.


 

·       No. 138 Summers Street, Perth is occupied by multiple dwellings that appear to be in single ownership. The subject site abuts the pathway and non-habitable rooms to the multiple dwellings. The habitable areas of the multiple dwellings is along the eastern boundary and will not be affected by the proposal. The car stackers have a width of 3.4m and 5.2m respectively, and are not overly bulky with the exception of the height, the proposed rear setback and screen fence will assist in ameliorating any perceived bulk on the adjoining property. Given it adjoins the non-habitable portion of the residential development the proposal is considered not to unduly impact the adjoining property.’

 

Administration’s Comments

 

During the consultation period, a number of submissions were received objecting to the proposed height of the development. The subject site is located adjoining two-storey developments to the north (No. 268 Lord Street), south (No. 142 Summers Street) and east (No. 138 Summers Street). There are currently some existing buildings within the locality that are up to six storeys in height. However, these buildings relate to mixed-use development, which incorporates design elements such as articulation and varying colours and materials. Elements such as these are considered to reduce the impact of building bulk and positively contribute to the development context of the street.

 

The subject site is adjoining two-storey development to the north, east and south. This means the visibility of the 22.2 metre car stacker will extend further along Lord Street, Summers Street and the surrounding area (refer to massing image included as Attachment 6). It is acknowledged that the development has limited ability for articulation however, there is an opportunity for the addition of screening, materials, colours and/or landscaping, which would assist in reducing the visual impact and mechanical nature of the development.

 

The car stackers are proposed to be constructed from metal and a 4.0 metre high landscaping screen has been included on the eastern boundary. The car stacker located on the boundary has a maximum height of 22.2 metres and a wall height of 21.0 metres, meaning it will be visible from the adjoining properties and the nearby properties along Lord Street and Summers Street. The development does not incorporate design measures to screen the development above the 4.0 metre landscaped screening. It is highlighted that the proposed 4.0 metre landscape screen is not subject to this development approval and requires separate approval under the City’s Fencing Local Law 2008 via the building approvals process.

 

The development is not considered to be designed to reduce the impact of building bulk on the surrounding landowners as well as the residential buildings located along Lord Street and Summers Street. The car stackers are not considered to be visually appealing and will not enhance the character of the area. The additional building height proposed will have a significant impact on the adjoining properties in terms of building bulk and scale. Most specifically, the adjoining multiple dwelling to the east. The development is not considered to satisfy the Design Principles of the Built Form Policy in regards to building height and is therefore not supported.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

Deemed-to-Comply Requirement

 

The development incorporates a nil boundary setback to the north and a 3.0 metre setback to the south. The City’s Built Form Policy sets out that the deemed-to-comply side boundary setbacks for single houses, grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings to be in accordance with either Clause 5.1.3 or Clause 6.1.4 of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes).

 

The development does not contain a residential component and the Built Form Policy is silent on which deemed-to-comply setback requirements of the R Codes applies for commercial developments when assessing lot boundary setbacks. As such, the development has been assessed against the Design Principles of the Built Form Policy.

 

The Built Form Policy does, however, provide a deemed-to-comply rear boundary setback requirement of 6.5 metres for the third storey and above. The development incorporates a 5.5 metre setback to the east in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement.

 

Applicant’s Justification

 

The applicant has provided the following justification against the Design Principles for setbacks under Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form:

 

·       ‘A 4.0 metre high aluminium screen fence is proposed which will include a landscaped creeper to reduce the impact of building bulk. This will provide a greater level of amenity than what is currently afforded to the site from the buildings at No. 146 Summers Street and No. 268 Lord Street.

 

·       The proposed stackers do not overshadow the residential multiple dwellings at No. 138 Summers Street, Perth.

 

·       A setback of 5.5m is proposed to the rear. As part of this setback, a creeper will be planted and will grow over and along the 4m high aluminium screen fence.’

 

Administration’s Comments

 

A number of submissions were received during the community consultation which objected to the proposed lot boundary setbacks. The submissions raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the development from the adjoining and nearby dwellings. Most specifically, the balconies and outdoor living areas of the nearby residential properties at Nos. 262 Lord Street and 280 Lord Street

 

The car stackers are proposed to be located at the rear of the subject site. This section of the subject site is located adjacent to an office (north at No. 268 Lord Street) and an office/warehouse (south at No. 142 Summers Street). Both of the adjoining properties to the north and south incorporate two-storey boundary walls. Given the adjoining properties are one to two-storeys in height, the proposed car stackers are an equivalent height to a six-storey building and will be visible from the adjoining properties, as well as from the six-storey multiple dwellings located at Nos. 262 and 280 Lord Street.

 

The northern boundary has a proposed boundary wall height of 21.0 metres. As previously discussed, there are no deemed-to-comply requirements for boundary walls for this development. However, for the purpose of comparison, the R Codes provides a maximum boundary wall height of 7.0 metres for residential/mixed use developments on land coded R80 and above. The development proposes a significant increase of three times the maximum boundary wall height prescribed by the R Codes.

 

The proposed boundary wall is to be constructed from metal and does not incorporate any other materials or colours to reduce the impact of building bulk. The boundary wall is considered to be of a height and appearance that will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties, which incorporate boundary walls of a two-storey equivalent on the north and south.

 

The upper level façade has not been stepped in and does not provide any articulation to reduce the impact of building bulk. The development does not incorporate any screening to the northern and southern boundaries and the 4.0 metre screening proposed to the eastern boundary is considered inadequate to mitigate the 21.0 metre wall height. The reduced lot boundary setback limits the ability of the subject site to accommodate landscaping in accordance with landscaping requirements of the Built Form Policy. This is considered to add to the perception of building bulk and impact on amenity to the adjoining and nearby properties.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed lot boundary setbacks and boundary wall do not align with the Local Housing Objectives of the Built Form Policy and will detrimentally impact the amenity of the surrounding properties.

 

Landscaping

 

The development proposes 1.87 percent deep soil and 1.2 percent canopy cover in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement for 15 percent deep soil and 30 percent canopy cover. The development also does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements for landscaping in the open-air car parking area. The development proposes a 1.5 metre landscaping strip on the northern boundary in lieu of providing a 1.5 metre landscaping strip on the primary street boundary and both lot boundaries. The development provides 11.4 percent canopy cover in lieu of the requirement for 80 percent canopy cover in the car parking area.

 

Additional landscaping would have the potential to provide for greater landscaping amenity for the site, streetscape and nearby properties. The site is capable of providing a greater canopy coverage than the proposed 1.2 percent. The reduced lot boundary setbacks are considered to have a significant impact on the ability for the development to facilitate for landscaping and trees to soften the development’s presentation to the adjoining properties. The lack of trees proposed on the subject site is considered to add to the perception of building bulk and does not contribute towards screening the development from adjoining properties.

 

The development proposes a 4.0m high landscaped screen wall on the eastern property boundary. The City’s Parks Technical Officer has reviewed the proposed planting and noted that on-building landscaping can often be hard to maintain due to the confined area the plant is growing in.

 

In light of the above, the proposed landscaping is not consistent with Design Principles and Local Housing objective of the Built Form Policy, which requires development to integrate sustainable landscaping to increase the amenity for residents, occupants and the community.

 

Noise

 

Submissions were received during the community consultation which raised concerns relating to the noise impact of the development on nearby properties. In response to the submissions, Administration requested the applicant to provide an acoustic. However, the applicant has not provided an acoustic report or any technical information confirming the noise levels that will be generated by the car stackers. Given the noise impact of the development is unknown, Administration cannot confirm if the development is capable of complying with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

Parking

 

The development will remove three approved car bays from the rear of the subject site. The applicant has outlined that the proposed car stackers will be available for staff and visitor parking in addition to the predominant use for vehicle storage/stock rotation. This means that there will be no car parking shortfall for the proposed development when compared to the previous approval.

 

Conclusion

 

On 9 April 2018, the applicant lodge a development application for additions (two car stackers) to the existing Motor Vehicle Sales premises. The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to lot boundary setback, wall height and landscaping. The proposed 22.2 metre high car stacking structure on the boundary is 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 wall height further contribute to the impact of building bulk and scale on the adjoining and nearby properties. The cumulative impact of the reduced lot boundary setback, additional wall height and lack of landscaping is considered to result in an undesirable built form outcome. The development does not satisfy the Design Principles Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. As such, it is recommended that Council refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the recommendation.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.6          No. 559 (Lot: 4; D/P: 1477) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley - Change of Use from Shop to Small Bar

TRIM Ref:                  D18/93286

Author:                     Kylie Harrison, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Applicant Submission and Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions and Administration Response

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions and Applicants Response

5.       Attachment 5 - Parking Management Plan & Supporting Justification

6.       Attachment 6 - Management Plan (Revised)  

 

 

Recommendation:

That the Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for a change of use from Shop to Small Bar at No. 559 (Lot: 4; D/P: 1477) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, for the following reason:

1.       The proposal does not comply with the car parking requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements, and the proposed variation is not considered to meet the objectives of the Policy as appropriate parking will not be provided to meet the needs of users.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from ‘Shop’ to ‘Small Bar’ at No. 559 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley.

PROPOSAL:

This application seeks approval for a change of use from ‘Shop’ to ‘Small Bar’ for one of the two tenancies at No. 559 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley. The application involves the following:

 

·       The front portion of the tenancy building, which has a floor area of 19 square metres, will be retained as a Shop and will be used as a Barber Shop, comprising of four seats.

·       Removal of the existing roof at the rear of the site and replacement with a canopy over a proposed alfresco area.

·       Internal alterations, include the provision of three toilets, a cool room, a kitchen area, a bar area, a seating area, an internal lift and an office.

·       Access to the property is proposed to be from the Beaufort Street entrance, however, the application involves an emergency egress to the Right of Way to the rear of the property.

·       The entire premises is proposed to be licensed for up to 100 people, although the licensing is subject to a separate process.

·       The application does not involve any on-site car parking.

·       The abutting tenancy (which currently occupied by Method clothing shop) will remain unchanged.

 

The applicant’s submission and development plans (including technical reports) are included as Attachment 2.


 

Background:

Landowner:

D Antoniazzi, W Antoniazzi, J Antoniazzi and K Debijl

Applicant:

AJCD

Date of Application:

12 April 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Shop

Proposed Use Class:

Shop – “P” Use

Small Bar – “A” Use

Lot Area:

310m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on Beaufort Street, south of the Vincent Street and Beaufort Street intersection. The site is zoned ‘Commercial’ and is located within the City’s Activity Corridor Built Form Area. The location of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

 

The locality consists of a mix of residential and commercial properties.  The commercial properties predominantly front Beaufort Street, and comprise a variety of retail uses. The premises subject of this proposal previously accommodated a retail store (Kartique), and comprises one of two tenancies that exist at the same property address.  The building associated with this proposal is single storey with a shopfront façade consisting of shopfront windows. The property abuts a Right of Way on the rear boundary that runs between Vincent Street to the north and Harold Street to the south.

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 of Vincent Policy Nos. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements, 7.5.7 – Licenced Premises, 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation, and 7.1.1 ‑ Built Form.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Car Parking

 

ü

Licensed Premises

ü

 

Built Form

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

 

 

Small Bar ‘A’ Use


 

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Shop : 4.5 bays per 100m2 NLA

0.23 car bays (for 19m2 NLA proposed)

 

Small Bar: 0.22 spaces per persons

22 car bays (based on 100 persons)

 

The application requires 27 bays (rounded up from 26.23). It should be acknowledged that the tenancy already has a 5 bay shortfall, based on the approved Shop land use.

 

 

 

 

The application does not involve the provision of any car parking or bicycle parking bays on site

Bicycle Parking

 

Shop:               1 (0.3) bike bays (short term)

1 (0.17) bike bays (long term)

 

Small Bar:         2 (1.9) bike bays (short term)

5 (4.2) bike bays (long term)

 

 

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) Regulation 2015, for a period of 21 days commencing on 31 May 2018 and concluding on 22 June 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of a sign being erected on site, notice in the local newspaper ‘The Voice’, written notice sent to landowners within a 150 metres radius of the subject site as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, 11 submissions were received by the City. The submissions comprised five submissions supporting the proposal, five submissions objecting to the proposal and one submission expressing concern but neither objecting nor supporting.

 

A summary of the key issues raised in the objections were:

 

·       Car Parking Shortfall will have a direct impact on the surrounding area and will exacerbate the existing car parking issues in the area;

·       Proposed use of a “Small Bar” will result in an intensification of use not considered desirable in this location;

·       Misrepresentation of facts submitted about the proposed use being unique to the area;

·       Access to the property is via two entrances, which is cause for concern and will be difficult to Police.

 

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

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;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises;

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

In accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register approved at OMC 26 June 2018, this application for development is being referred to Council for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes to introduce a proposed land use of ‘small bar’ which is a use listed under the City’s Delegation Register as a use to be determined by Council;

·       The application proposes a car parking shortfall greater than five car parking bays under the minimum parking requirements of Table 1 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements; and

·       Cash-in-lieu of parking or a reciprocal parking arrangement is required for all of the shortfall in onsite parking under the minimum parking requirements of Table 1 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non‑Residential Development Parking Requirements.

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.”

 

Economic Development

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The application has been assessed against the provisions of LPS2, the various applicable policies. The key issues identified in the assessment of the application requiring discretion by Council are discussed in detail below.

 

Land Use

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Commercial’ and is situated just outside the Mount Lawley ‘District Centre’ zone.  It is located within the Activity Corridor Built Form Area of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Built Form.  The surrounding land uses within this locality comprise ‘Small Bars’, ‘Shops’ and ‘Restaurants’ and ‘Showroom Warehouses’. The application proposes the retention of a ‘Shop’ use to the front of the property facing Beaufort Street, with the front portion of the property proposed to be operate as a Barber Shop.  No alterations are proposed to the front of the building and the shopfront façade will be retained as a part of this proposed change of use.

 

The proposed land use of ‘Small Bar’, which will relate to the rear portion of the subject site, is classed as an ‘A’ use under LPS2 – Zoning Table. As such, the proposed ‘Small Bar’ use is noted as a use that is not permitted unless the City exercises its discretion by granting development approval after giving special notice in accordance in Clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.

 

In considering the appropriateness of the use, Council shall have regard to the objectives for the Commercial zone, as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed ‘Small Bar’ is considered to meet the majority of the objectives of the Commercial zone as described above in that the mix of bar and shop is considered compatible with the existing commercial uses within the area.

 

The proposed use is similar to other land uses immediately opposite and nearby the subject site. The proposed change of use will also not have any impact on the streetscape pattern or building façade, which is considered a favourable and a desired outcome for this location and this subject property in particular.  The objections received relating to the land use are noted, but it is also noted that a number of these submitters were from businesses who offer a similar or like service and do not relate to specific planning considerations.

 

Car Parking

 

The proposal involves an 18 shortfall, when compared to the current, approved Shop use. The applicant provided justification for the parking shortfall and a Parking Management Plan to demonstrate how the car parking shortfall could be considered. Refer Attachment 5.

 

In considering the significant variation, the following is relevant:

 

·       City staff have suggested that the applicant potentially reduce the number of patrons, so as to reduce the extent of the variation. The applicant responded that a lesser number would make the proposed business unviable;

 

·       The objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 are as follows:

 

1.      To support a shift toward more active and sustainable transport modes that will reduce the dependence on single person private vehicle trips.

2.       To ensure that parking facilities do not prejudice the environmental and amenity objectives of the City’s Local Planning Scheme.

3.       To ensure appropriate parking and access is provided in non-residential development to meet the needs of its users.”

 

·       The operating hours of ‘Small Bar’ extends beyond “normal business” hours which means that available car parking will exist in nearby locations, including the public car parks within walking distance of the subject site.

 

·       The subject site is located in close proximity to the Mount Lawley Town Centre which accommodates visitors who will be using alternative modes of transport, such as buses, taxis, walking and cycling.

 

·       The proposed use of a ‘Small Bar’ by the very nature of its operation will generally see some of the patrons choosing to use alternative means of transport to attend the premises, including the high frequency public transport route for buses directly from the City along Beaufort Street, ride sharing (taxi, Uber or car-pooling), walking or cycling.

·       There are similar land uses within the locality that will potentially attract the same patrons, who may choose to attend a number of the venues in a single visit to the area.

 

·       As submitted by the application, the proposed shortfall would be reflective of and supportive of the City’s Policy objective of facilitating “a shift towards more active and sustainable transport modes that will result in a lesser dependence on single person private vehicle trips”.

 

·       There is already significant pre-existing demand and pressure on parking in the area, which has been reinforced by several the submissions received from nearby venues and local residents. The resultant impact of no car parking being provided on site is not considered to comply with the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 as it will not meet the needs of users.

 

·       There is no opportunity for a reciprocal parking arrangement.

 

·       A cash-in-lieu contribution would amount to a payment of $97,200 (at a rate of $5,400 per bay). The applicant has stated it would be prepared to make a $35,000 contribution, which equates to 6.48 bays.

 

·       The City has reviewed the Car Parking Management submitted by the applicant and whilst the measures proposed to support the car parking shortfall are considered to be reasonable, the variation is significant.

 

Based on the above, even accounting for the cash-in-lieu contribution, it is considered that the proposed variation is excessive in the context of the objectives of Policy No. 7.7.1. The application is therefore not supported from a car parking perspective.

 

Residential Amenity

 

The application was also advertised to all adjoining neighbours and properties within a 150 metre radius of the subject site.  No objections were received from immediately adjoining neighbours, or any residential properties within close proximity to the subject site with the exception of one property that is just within the 150 metre radius consultation area.

 

In accordance with Council Policies No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises and No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation, the applicant submitted an acoustic report to support the proposal. The acoustic report concludes that if the venue contains amplified music to the internal areas only with the alfresco area restricted to patron noise only with music at background levels only then the development is capable of complying with the acceptable noise levels. The application proposes a 3.5 metre high wall surrounding the rear alfresco area which will have a significant effect on the predicted noise levels. The rear emergency door will be used in emergencies only and at all other times will mitigate potential noise impacts.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is considered to be an acceptable use of the site, however, given the significant variation to the car parking requirements, the application is not supported. It is therefore recommended that it be refused for the reasons outlined in the staff recommendation.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.7          No. 209 (Lot: 213; D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West Perth - S.31 Reconsideration - Proposed Four grouped dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D18/83728

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - 4 April 2018 Council Meeting Minutes and refused Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Current (amended) Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant Justification

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That the Council, in accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme SETS ASIDE its decision of 4 April 2018 and APPROVES the application for Four Grouped Dwellings at No. 209 (Lot: 213, D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West 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.       Boundary Walls

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

2.       External Fixtures

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;

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.       Clothes Drying Facilities

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;

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 the occupation or use of the development;

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

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

6.       Right of Way Widening

6.1       A 1.0 metre right of way setback area shall be maintained free of any buildings and structures for the length of the property that adjoins the right of way at all times to enable future right of way widening; and

6.2       The 1.0 metre right of way setback area shall be sealed drained and graded to match into the level of the existing Right of Way;

7.       Acoustic Report

An Acoustic Report in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning is to form part of the application for a Building Permit and shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. All recommended measures in the report shall be undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

8.       Landscaping

8.1       A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge to the City’s satisfaction is 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:

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

8.1.2     Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

8.1.3     The provision of 15.4 percent Deep Soil Zone and at least 30 percent Canopy Coverage, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

8.2       All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 8.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

9.       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

10.     General

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To reconsider an application for Four Grouped Dwellings at No. 209 Vincent Street, West Perth, at the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

PROPOSAL:

The application involves the development of four two-storey dwellings, with all vehicular access from the right of way to the rear of the subject site. The proposal includes a central pedestrian access from Vincent Street that services the four dwellings.

 

The development plans are contained as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Kenwin Projects Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Averna Pty Ltd T/A Averna Homes

Date of Application:

9 May 2018 – Appeal lodged at the State Administrative Tribunal

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

643m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Florence Place (3 metres wide)

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Vincent Street to the north and a ROW (Florence Place) to the south, as shown in Attachment 1. Vincent Street is a Category 2 Other Regional Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is currently vacant with the original house having been demolished earlier this year. The site is adjacent to two-storey grouped dwellings to the east, and two single storey dwellings to the west. The subject site and the immediate adjoining properties are zoned R80 and have been identified as a Residential Built Form Area in accordance with Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 4 April 2018, Council resolved to refuse the development application for four grouped dwellings at the subject site for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed street setback to Vincent Street does not meet the Design Principles of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes or the Local Housing Objectives or Clause 5.2 of Local Planning Policy 7.1.1 – Built Form as the setback is not an appropriate distance to accommodate adequate space for landscaping to reduce the impact of the development on Vincent Street or the adjacent dwellings;

 

2.         The proposed amount of hard stand in the front setback area does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.3.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes or the Local Housing Objectives or Clause 5.14 of Local Planning Policy 7.1.1 – Built Form as the increase in hard stand does not positively contribute to the streetscape and does not contribute to the amenity of the development;

 

3.         The proposed access to Vincent Street does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.3.5 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as it does not provide reduced impact of access points on the streetscape, minimal crossovers or high quality landscaping features given the access to the site could be provided from the rear right-of-way, which would remove the access point from Vincent Street and allow an increased landscape treatment;

 

4.         The proposed setbacks to the adjoining properties do not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.3 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as the development does not reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties; and

 

5.         The proposed outdoor living areas do not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.3.1 of State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes as these spaces do not provide adequate access to winter sunlight and ventilation or provide adequate amenity for residents.

 

The previous determination and plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

Following Council’s refusal, the applicant submitted an application for review with the SAT. Administration attended a Directions Hearing and Mediation Session on 25 May 2018, with further mediation on 11 June 2018. At mediation, City Officers advised the applicant that the City accepted reconsideration of the application, subject to amended plans being provided that addressed Council’s various reasons for refusal.

 

Following mediation, the applicant submitted amended plans for reconsideration, which are included as Attachment 3. The main changes from the original plans are summarised as follows:

 

·       All vehicle access is via Florence Place, with no vehicular access from Vincent Street.

·       The street setback has been decreased from 4.6 metres to 4.0 metres;

·       A central walkway has been included for pedestrian access from Vincent Street. This results in the common property area within the street setback being hard stand, however there is additional landscaping included within the front setback area;

·       The design of the dwellings has been altered and the lot boundary setbacks to Units 1, 3 and 4 are now compliant with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes);

·       The upper floor wall of Unit 2 on the eastern boundary, whilst still setback 1.2m, has been shortened to the extent that it is required to be setback 1.6m, as opposed to the 2.1m setback previously required. As such, the proposed wall represents a lesser departure from the deemed-to comply standards than that previously considered by Council.

·       The maximum and average boundary wall heights to the eastern and western boundaries have increased with the inclusion of two storey boundary walls to Units 1, 3 and 4;

·       The maximum boundary wall height to Unit 2 reduced to 3.7 metres, and average boundary wall height has been reduced to 3.55 metres, with both previously considered at 3.8 metres;

·       The building height of Unit 1 has been reduced to comply with the requirements of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), however the inclusion of a pitched roof results in a 600mm variation to the permitted wall height of Unit 2; and

·       The outdoor living areas meet the required areas and dimensions under the R Codes and have been located so as to optimise the northern aspect of the subject site, with the outdoor living areas of Units 1 and 4 now located within the front setback area.

 

Council is now required to reconsider the proposal pursuant to Section 31 (S.31) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

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 Western Australian Planning Commission’s State Planning Policy No. 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

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

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

 

ü

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Setback to Right of Way

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

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2

 

Average of five adjoining properties: 4.92 metres

 

 

4.0 metres

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.3

 

Upper Floor wall of Unit 2 is to be setback 1.6m from the eastern boundary

 

 

Boundary walls permitted to a maximum height of 3.5m and an average of 3.0m

 

 

Upper Floor wall of Unit 2 is setback 1.2m from the eastern boundary

 

 

Eastern Boundary

Unit 1 boundary wall – overall height of 6.1m.

 

Unit 1 boundary wall – average height of 4.7m.

 

Unit 2 boundary wall – overall height of 3.7m.

 

Unit 2 boundary wall – average height of 3.55m.

 

Western Boundary

Unit 3 boundary wall – overall height of 5.8m.

 

Unit 3 boundary wall – average height of 4.45m.

 

Unit 4 boundary wall – overall height of 5.8.

 

Unit 4 boundary wall – average height of 4.35m.

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.6

 

Maximum wall height of 6.0m

 

 

Wall height of Unit 2 is 6.6m

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1

 

Outdoor living areas are to be located behind the street setback area

 

 

The outdoor living areas for Units 1 and 4 are located within the street setback area

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.2

 

Common property within the street setback area to be a maximum 50% hard surface

 

 

100% of common property within the front setback area is hard surface

Site Works / Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.7 and Clause 5.3.8

 

Fill and retaining walls up to 0.5m above natural ground level

 

 

Fill and retaining walls up to 0.6m above natural ground level on the eastern boundary

 

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 proposal submitted for the reconsideration required additional community consultation as the development plans had significantly changed from those previously considered by Council and actually involve further departures from the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 18 June 2018 and concluding on 1 July 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners within a 75 metre radius of the site, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

In response, eight submissions were received comprising of six in objection, one in support and one raising concerns. A summary of the submissions received is included as Attachment 4. The applicant’s justification addressing the departures from the City’s Built Form Policy and the R Codes are included as Attachment 5.

 

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

 

·       Lot boundary setback (including boundary walls) variations resulting in overlooking and overshadowing that will impact on the existing streetscape and surrounding homes;

·       The development appears to be quite dense and the site overdeveloped;

·       There is a poor design outcome as the orientation of the development decreases the living environment and the outdoor living spaces lead to dark unusable spaces;

·       Limited landscaping is not consistent with the streetscape; and

·       Concerns regarding increase in traffic as a result of the development and the impact on the existing narrow right of way.

 

Referral Authority responsible for Vincent Street - Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage:

 

The application was required to be referred to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (the Department) as the subject lot abuts Vincent Street which is a Category 2 Other Regional Road under the MRS.  The City referred the original plans to the Department for comment, with the Department advising it did not object to the development in principle, but did not support vehicle access from Vincent Street. As the current development plans do not provide for vehicle access from Vincent Street, further referral to the Department was not considered necessary.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

The applicant has exercised their right to have Council’s initial decision to refuse the application reviewed by the SAT in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The SAT has invited Council to reconsider the application based on a revised proposal. In accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, Council in reconsidering the proposal may:

 

1.         Affirm its decision;

2.         Vary its decision;

3.         Set aside the decision and substitute a new decision.

 

Should Council approve the application, the applicant may withdraw the application or alternatively, continue with the application for review in relation to one or more of the conditions imposed. If Council refuses the application, the applicant may request that the matter be determined by the SAT at a full hearing.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the proposal relates to a matter previously determined by Council, and as the development incorporates four grouped dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Should the matter proceed to a full SAT hearing, the City may need to engage a consultant to assist. Such engagement would incur a cost for the City.

Comments:

The applicant has submitted amended plans to address the reasons for refusal. Though some aspects of the proposal results in compliance with some applicable standards, the proposal also results in some new and further departures to the requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Street Setback

 

The average street setback of the five adjoining properties to either side of the development results in the subject site requiring a 4.92 metres setback from the primary street. The development proposes a 4.0 metre setback to the primary street and is a further departure to the deemed-to-comply standard set by the Built Form Policy, with the application previously proposing a 4.6 metre street setback.

 

The justification provided by the applicant acknowledges the variation and suggests that it is a result of the angle of the front lot boundary and that the street setback meets an average of 4.92 metres. The development includes design articulation within the front façade and has been positioned to be located behind the existing adjoining properties immediately to the east and west of the subject site.

 

The reduced street setback is considered appropriate as the departure is the result of the columns and feature wall, with the development at ground level setback the required 4.92 metres and the upper floor at a minimum of 4.3 metres. Given the angle of the front lot boundary, the ground and upper floor setbacks increase to be setback 5.5 metres from the front lot boundary and provides for articulation within the front façade. The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes including facebrick and render. These elements are consistent with the existing developments within the streetscape.

 

Although a further departure from the previous plans determined by Council, the setback is considered to allow for adequate landscaping to reduce the impact of the development to Vincent Street and the surrounding dwellings particularly with the inclusion of two Jacaranda trees central to the front setback area which are capable of growing to a height of 10 metres. The development provides for deep soil landscaping areas along the front and side lot boundaries which will further assist in reducing the impact of the development on the street.

Furthermore, the setback is considered appropriate as the development is located alongside properties that have a lesser setback to the primary street, with the adjoining property to the east setback 2 metres from the front lot boundary, and the property to the west having a carport structure at 1 metre from the front lot boundary. The adjoining developments are located in closer proximity to the street and do not provide for landscaped areas between the dwelling and the street.

 

Given the above, the proposed street setback is considered to meet the design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy. However, should Council have concerns regarding the street setback, Administration notes there is the opportunity to push the development towards the rear of the subject site by 0.92 metres in order to achieve a compliant street setback. As such, should Council resolve to approve the application, it is also open to Council to impose a condition requiring the development to comply with the required 4.92 metre street setback.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks and Boundary Walls

 

Eastern Boundary (Unit 1)

 

The proposed boundary wall to Unit 1 exceeds the maximum permitted height by 2.6 metres and the average permitted height by 1.7 metres. In considering this, the following is relevant:

 

·       The proposed boundary wall of Unit 1 abuts an adjacent boundary wall at ground level of similar length and height. The proposed portion of boundary wall at the upper floor does not affect any major openings or active habitable spaces of the adjoining dwelling.

·       The walls will not result in significant overshadowing onto the adjoining properties due to the subject site being orientated north-south and therefore the shadow cast by the development will mainly fall onto the subject site itself.

·       There are no openings within the proposed boundary wall and there will be no potential for overlooking or any loss of privacy.

·       In terms of the dwellings themselves, the boundary wall does not compromise the solar access to the outdoor living area, which is open to direct sun and ventilation.

·       The inclusion of trees (including Jacarandas) and shrubbery within the dedicated deep soil area along the eastern boundary within the front setback area will assist in mitigating the impact of bulk as viewed from the street.

 

Given the above, the proposed height of boundary wall 1 is considered to meet the design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Eastern Boundary (Unit 2)

 

The first floor of Unit 2 involves a 1.2 metre setback to the eastern boundary in lieu of the required 1.6 metres. The proposed setback is a lesser departure than that previously considered by Council, with the previous proposal requiring a 2.1 metre setback due to the length of wall, which has decreased in length from 14.5 metres to 11.1 metres. The setback area adjoins two adjacent two-storey grouped dwellings to the east, with the reduced setback aligning with existing boundary walls, side setback and outdoor living areas associated with the abutting dwellings. The wall does not include any major openings and therefore will not result in any overlooking into the adjoining properties. The proposed length of wall incorporates facebrick, render and minor openings which are considered to reduce the perception of building bulk to the adjoining landowners. The orientation of the site ensures that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements relating to solar access.

 

Given the above, the proposed setback to the upper floor of Unit 2 is considered to meet the design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed boundary wall to Unit 2 exceeds the maximum permitted height by 0.2 metres and the average permitted height by 0.55 metres. In considering this, the following is relevant:

 

·       The variations are relatively minor.

·       The walls will not result in significant overshadowing onto the adjoining properties due to the subject site being orientated north-south and therefore the shadow cast by the development will mainly fall onto the subject site itself.

·       There are no openings within the proposed boundary wall and there will be no potential for overlooking or any loss of privacy.

·       Although the boundary wall abuts the outdoor living areas of the two adjoining properties to the east, the proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes to the external walls which will assist in reducing the visual impact of the proposed wall.

·       The extent of the boundary wall abutting the outdoor living areas of the adjacent dwellings is not considered to have an adverse impact on those areas as the height does not restrict access to direct sun and ventilation, with the shadow cast from the development mainly falling within the subject site.

·       In terms of the dwellings themselves, the boundary wall does not compromise the solar access to the outdoor living area, which is open to direct sun and ventilation.

·       The inclusion of trees (including Jacarandas) and shrubbery within the dedicated deep soil area along the eastern boundary within the front setback area will assist in mitigating the impact of bulk as viewed from the street.

 

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

 

Western Boundary (Units 3 and 4)

 

The proposed boundary wall to Unit 3 exceeds the maximum permitted height by 2.3 metres and the average permitted height by 1.45 metres, and the proposed boundary wall to Unit 4 exceeds the maximum permitted height by 2.3 metres and the average permitted height by 1.35 metres. The proposed boundary walls are located so as to have minimal impact on the active habitable spaces of the adjoining properties and also incorporate a range of materials and finishes to the external walls which will also assist in reducing the visual impact on the adjoining property. The boundary walls will not result in significant overshadowing onto the adjoining properties as the north-south orientation of the site will mainly see the shadow cast onto the subject site. Furthermore, there are no openings within the proposed boundary walls and therefore will not result in overlooking and loss of privacy.

 

In terms of the dwellings themselves, the boundary walls do not compromise the solar access to the outdoor living areas, which are open to direct sun and ventilation.

 

It should be noted that during the consultation period, the adjoining residents to the west did not raise any concerns regarding the proposed boundary walls. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed boundary walls to Units 3 and 4 meet the relevant design principles of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Building Height and Site Works

 

The development proposes an overall wall height of 6.6 metres for Unit 2 in lieu of the deemed‑to‑comply standard of 6.0 metres, as set out by the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The 0.6 metre variation is a result of the natural ground level of the subject site which gradually falls approximately 0.6 metres from the western to eastern boundary, and approximately 1.5 metres from the southern to northern boundaries. The subject portion of wall is located towards the middle of the subject site on the eastern boundary and will have no impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, Unit 2 is located behind Unit 1 and setback in excess of 19 metres from the Vincent Street frontage.

 

The proposal does not result in any overshadowing into adjacent properties. The orientation of the site ensures that the shadow cast from the properties is contained within the subject site. Furthermore, the proposal does not result in any overlooking with all major openings setback in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes.

 

The proposed development incorporates a range of materials that include brickwork and render, which are considered to appropriately address the character of the site and is complimentary to the existing developments within the streetscape. The adjacent developments to the east of the subject site are two storeys in height, and as the height increase is on the eastern elevation, therefore it is considered the development is consistent with the both the established streetscapes of Vincent Street. Furthermore, as the height increase is located towards the centre of the subject site, there will be little to no impact on the desired streetscape of Florence Place.

 

The development proposes fill and associated retaining to a maximum height of 0.6 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres which has not altered from the proposal previously determined by Council. The 0.1 metre variation is the result of cut and fill works for a section of the site to account for the current slope of the property. The proposed site works are considered to be minor in nature and to not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining dwellings.

 

Given the above, the proposed increase in building height and site works and retaining is considered to meet the respective design principles and local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and R Codes.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

The outdoor living areas of Units 1 and 4 are located within the street setback area. As the outdoor areas are located to the north of the subject site and there is no covered portion, the outdoor living areas will have adequate access to northern sun and be open to winter sun and ventilation. The outdoor areas are capable of use with habitable rooms of the dwellings, which allow the function of these spaces to be extended and are larger than the 16 square metres minimum requirement, having areas of 17.1 square metres and 17.4 square metres, respectively.

 

The landscaping areas along the front lot boundary will incorporate a range of trees (including Jacarandas) and shrubbery and will assist in providing privacy for the occupants using the outdoor living area.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the design principles of the R Codes.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposed landscaping is contrary to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes with the common property area within the front setback area not accommodating any landscaping. This is a result of this area being for pedestrian access to and from Vincent Street. Despite none of the common property area being landscaped, the overall landscaping provided within the street setback area is 62.3 percent and as such will positively contribute to the appearance and amenity of the development for the residents in the area and to the streetscape.

 

The application has also been assessed against the deemed-to-comply standards of the City’s Built Form Policy. The Built Form Policy requires 15 percent of the site to be provided as deep soil zone, with the development proposing 15.4 percent. The inclusion of two Jacaranda trees and four Chinese Tallows creates 25.3 percent canopy coverage across the site in lieu of the required 30 percent. Although the proposal does not achieve 30 percent canopy coverage across the site, it is considered that the addition of more trees such within the deep soil areas will allow for 30 percent canopy coverage to be achieved.

 

Given the above, should Council resolve to approve the development, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the provision of 30 percent canopy coverage across the site.

 

Right of Way Widening

 

The existing right of way is 3.0 metres wide and it has been determined necessary for it to be widened so as to be 5.0 metres wide, with 1.0 metre widening to occur on each side of the laneway. This area is to be ceded free of cost to the City upon subdivision of the land. The widening area is shown on the development plans contained in Attachment 3 and the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

Acoustic Report

 

The subject site abuts a portion of Vincent Street which is a major road that accommodates over 25,000 vehicles per day. In accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4), developments in such locations are to be designed and constructed so as to mitigate the impact of noise.

 

Whilst the application was not supported by an acoustic report, it is considered acceptable in this instance to require the provision of such a report prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

 

In light of the above, should Council resolve to approve the development, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submission on an acoustic report in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4, with any recommendations of the report to be implemented to the City’s satisfaction.

 


 

Conclusion

 

The previous reasons for refusal relate to street setback, hard stand in the front setback area, access to Vincent Street, lot boundary setbacks and amenity of outdoor living areas. The amended proposal, which removes the vehicle access from the primary street, allows for an increase in landscaping features within the street setback area and reduces the amount of hard stand in this area. The proposal also allows for more usable outdoor living areas which have appropriate access to northern sun and ventilation.

 

Although the setback to the upper floor of Unit 2 remains as previously proposed, the decrease in length of wall and incorporation of various finishes is considered to reduce the impact of building bulk to the adjoining properties. Additionally, the setbacks to the upper floor of the remaining units have been amended to comply. The two storey boundary walls have been located so as to have minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the amended plans appropriately address the previous reasons for refusal. It is therefore recommended that Council set aside its previous decision and resolve to approve the application subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

5.8          Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

TRIM Ref:                  D18/107299

Author:                     Tim Elliott, Strategic Planning Officer

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

2.       WA Planning Commission Determination

3.       Schedule of Modifications

4.       Draft Amended Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

5.       Draft Amended Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form (Clean)

6.       Draft Amended Appendix No. 16 - Design Guidelines for Perth

7.       Draft Amended Appendix No. 18 - Design Guidelines for William Street  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       PREPARES:

1.1     Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form included as Attachment 4 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment;

1.2     An amendment to Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth included as Attachment 6 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment;

1.3     An amendment to Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street included as Attachment 7 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment; and

2.       NOTES:

2.1     That the amendments to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth and Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street will be advertised for a period of 28 days pursuant to Clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Item 4.2 of Appendix 3 of Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

2.2     That Administration will give notice of the proposed amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider preparing Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

The Built Form Policy was adopted by Council on 13 December 2016 (Item 9.1.11) and came into effect on 21 January 2017. A copy of the current Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 1.

 


 

As part of the December 2016 resolution, Council noted that Administration would forward a number of provisions relating to landscaping and setbacks to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval pursuant to Clause 7.3.2 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes). On 8 January 2018, the WAPC resolved to approve the City’s provisions, subject to the City making a number of modifications to the provisions to better align with the provisions of the State Government’s draft Apartment Design Policy. A copy of the WAPC’s decision is included as Attachment 2.

 

As the City is not required, or able, to make the modifications recommended by the WAPC without an amendment to the Built Form Policy, it is now proposed to broadly address the WAPC’s recommendation through Amendment 1.

 

In addition, since being adopted by Council, the current Built Form Policy continues to be used to determine development applications. As a result of the implementation of the Built Form Policy, Administration has identified a number of opportunities to clarify the intent of several policy provisions and make a number of administrative modifications to improve the operation of the Policy. Administration is now proposing Amendment 1 to the Built Form Policy to address both the decision of the WAPC and the improvements that have been identified in implementing the Policy.

Details:

1.       Canopy Cover

 

The current Built Form Policy Deemed to Comply Clause C1.7.3 requires 80 percent of rear and side setback areas to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity and Deemed to Comply Clauses C4.10.4 and C5.14.3 require 30 percent of the site area to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity.

 

The City applied for approval of these requirements from the WAPC under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes. The WAPC proposed a modification that the provision be reworded to require Deep Soil Area to be located to enable canopy coverage over the site to be maximised at maturity. The justification for this was that the change is more consistent with draft Design WA, which does not have canopy cover requirements, but focuses on a minimum Deep Soil Area being provided.

 

This modification is not supported, as it does not add any value to the existing requirement for 15 percent Deep Soil Zone over the site, and it does not directly link to the City’s canopy cover targets. It is important that the original intent of the Built Form Policy is maintained to ensure that new developments have an appropriate amount of canopy coverage to screen large scale development, provide a high amenity environment for neighbouring properties and residents and contribute to broader greening aspirations.

 

Through implementing the Built Form Policy, Administration has identified a number of improvements that are recommended to be made to the policy provisions including:

 

·       C1.7.3 should apply to lot boundary setback areas at the ground level only. Lot boundary setbacks can be stepped back at higher levels and it would be impractical to require those higher levels to provide canopy coverage due to the difficulty of maintaining appropriate soil depth/quality.

·       All percentage canopy cover requirements should be a minimum, whereas currently they are written as an exact requirement.

 

2.       Deep Soil Areas

 

The definition of Deep Soil Zone in the current Built Form Policy does not align with the definition of Deep Soil Area in draft Design WA. The City’s definition specifies a minimum depth of 1m whereas the definition in draft Design WA requires there to be no development above or below. Under the definition in draft Design WA, planting on structures would not contribute to the required Deep Soil Area.

 

Despite this difference it is considered appropriate, for the sake of consistency, to align the definition of Deep Soil Zone with draft Design WA’s definition of Deep Soil Area.

 

As the new definition of Deep Soil Area does not consider on-structure planting and there may be instances where on-structure planting is desirable, it is recommended that a new definition and provision be introduced to account for this outcome.

 


 

Deemed to Comply Clauses C1.7.1, C4.10.1 and C5.14.1 require all properties to provide 15 percent of the development site as Deep Soil Zone. The City applied for approval of this requirement from the WAPC under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes. The WAPC proposed a modification to this provision to require 12 percent Deep Soil Area and to require a minimum number of trees within that Deep Soil Area depending on the lot size. The justification for this was that the change is more consistent with draft Design WA, which does not have canopy cover requirements, but focuses on a minimum number of trees being provided.

 

Administration does not support this as it would result in a reduced canopy coverage requirement compared to the Built Form Policy. The extent of the variance depends on the size of the lot and the tree types selected. In addition, the method of calculation is significantly more complex than the Built Form Policy’s canopy coverage percentage requirement and does not directly link to the City’s intent of achieving a measurable canopy cover target.

 

The resulting canopy coverage depends on the specific tree selection and lot size, so the impact of replacing the City’s canopy coverage requirements with requirements for tree planting will differ in each development application. In addition, there is no requirement for the trees to be planted in such a way to maximise canopy coverage of the site so trees may be planted with their canopies overlapping, therefore reducing the overall canopy coverage of the site. This is not an issue with the current percentage-based canopy coverage requirement.

 

Administration recommends maintaining the percentage-based canopy cover provisions as they have been successfully implemented, will achieve the desired canopy coverage and represents a simpler method of calculation and assessment than the proposed draft Design WA provisions.

 

Administration also identified that the new definition of Deep Soil Area is more onerous than the definition of Deep Soil Zone. As such, it was considered that the Deep Soil Area requirement (and associated incentive) should be reduced and a Planting Area requirement be introduced. It was also identified that, if a development meets the Deep Soil Area and Planting Area requirements, there is no need for it to also satisfy a minimum individual area requirement. A minimum linear dimension is more appropriate to ensure sufficient space for a medium to large tree.

 

3.       Tree Retention

 

While there are existing requirements for providing canopy coverage and incentives for retaining trees, there is no requirement in the Deemed to Comply provisions to retain existing mature trees.

 

A Deemed to Comply requirement would provide the ability for the City to require the retention of existing trees, and this would provide a beneficial outcome in line with the City’s targets and objectives of the Policy.

 

4.       Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

Deemed to Comply Clauses C1.2.5 and C4.3.6 require the following lot boundary setbacks where development is within the non-residential built form areas and adjoins a property which is within the Residential Built Form Area and coded R50 and below:

 

·       6.5 metres for the ground floor, second and third storey; and

·       12.5 metres setback for the fourth storey and above.

 

Deemed to Comply Clause C5.3.3 requires the following rear boundary setbacks where development is within the residential built form area and adjoins a property coded R50 and below:

 

·       6.5 metres for the ground floor, second and third storey; and

·       12.5 metres setback for the fourth storey and above.

 

The City applied to the WAPC for approval of these clauses under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes, with the WAPC proposing to modify this provision to base the required setback on the height of the proposed development, the type of room in the proposed development and the type of room on the adjacent property.

 


 

The difference between the current setback requirement and the WAPC’s proposed setback requirement depends on the specific development proposed. As an example, a four-storey development in a Town Centre adjoining an R60 property would require a ground, second and third storey setback of 4.5 metres and the fourth storey setback would be 6.5 metres. Under the WAPC’s proposed provision the setback requirement would range from between 6 metres and 9 metres depending on the type of room it faces on the adjoining property. The modification states that it applies where adjoining properties are coded “R50 and below or R60 and above”. Since there is no R-Code between R50 and R60 this requirement will apply to every property that abuts a residential site, rather than providing specific requirements according to the code of the adjoining property. This approach is not supported as it considered that an R80 development next to an R60 site requires a different setback to an R100 development next to an R40 site.

 

The proposed approach for determining the setback requirement is more complex than the current Built Form Policy as it relies on knowing what sort of room is in the building/s adjoining the development site. In some cases, this information may be unavailable or difficult to obtain. It would also result in a disparity in setbacks based on which site is developed first and the manner in which it is developed. The WAPC’s proposed setback methodology appears to be based on the building separation distances in draft Design WA rather than the setback distances in draft Design WA. Building separation is measured from the wall of the building on an adjoining lot whereas a setback distance is measures from the lot boundary. The result of this is that the proposed setbacks are approximately double those required in draft Design WA, and in most instances greater than those proposed by the City.

 

The City also identified that where a subject site is a lower or equal coding to an adjoining site the large setback distances apply. It is considered unnecessary for large setback distances to apply as it reduces the development potential of the subject site in order to protect the adjoining site which may be of a higher coding. This would result in a large building separation for the subject site whilst the adjoining site has greater density potential and may impact the lower density subject site. It is recommended that the setback assessment be simplified into a table to clearly convey the applicable setbacks and remove the unintended consequence of large setback distances for similarly coded land.

 

5.       Built Form Area Objectives

 

The Built Form Policy contains five built form areas, with each area having specific Design Principles and Local Housing Objectives to guide development elements. However, there are no overall objectives for each built form area that explain the intended development outcomes for each area. It is important to guide the overall style of development, as well as providing advice for applicants and the determining authority when using the policy and making design principle assessments. It is recommended that new objectives for each Built Form Area be introduced into the Policy.

 

6.       Building Design, Materials & Finishes

 

Design Principles P1.6.1, P1.6.2 and P1.6.3 contain guidance on building design and architectural elements for developments and Deemed to Comply Clauses C1.6.1, C1.6.2, C1.6.3 and C1.6.4 require certain materials and architectural standards to be met. Administration, on advice of the Design Review Panel, identified that these Design Principles and Deemed to Comply requirements do not clearly articulate the outcome that is being sought. It was determined that Deemed to Comply requirements may not achieve the preferred outcome in all circumstances without specific local context being identified.

 

To resolve this issue, it is considered appropriate to require that certain information and detail be provided with an application for development approval. This additional information would consist of an Urban Design Study that identifies characteristics of existing development and recommends the incorporation of those characteristics by using a variety of materials, finishes and architectural elements to reduce its impact on adjoining properties and appropriately complement the local area. This method enables the City to conduct a more informed assessment of the building design, rather than simply assessing compliance with Deemed to Comply criteria. It also places a greater onus on applicants to provide sufficient information and to justify the quality of building design, which is considered likely to deliver improved built form outcomes.

 


 

In accordance with Clause 7.3.1(b) of the R Codes, the proposed Clauses augment the R Codes by providing a local housing objective for an aspect of development that is not provided for in the R Codes. It is not considered appropriate to form the clause as a deemed to comply requirement as such requirements should be limited to less subjective outcomes such as façade depth, and fire booster and mailbox locations.

 

In addition to the abovementioned technical changes to the Built Form Policy there are also a number of minor editorial and administrative changes proposed. A tracked change version of the draft Built Form Policy showing all of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 4 and a clean version of the draft Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 5.

 

Design Guidelines

 

The City has a suite of Design Guidelines that outline specific, location-based requirements for development in nine separate planning cells. Where there is an inconsistency between the Design Guidelines and the Policy, the ‘Relationship to Other Documents’ section states that the Design Guidelines prevail. This means that the building heights stated within the Design Guidelines are deemed to comply in these areas and override the building heights stated in the Policy.

 

Of the nine Design Guidelines, there are two where the heights are inconsistent with the Policy; William Street and Perth. In the remaining seven, the building heights are consistent.

 

The building height requirement in the William Street Design Guidelines is four storeys and the building height requirement in the Policy is six storeys. There is also an inconsistency within the Policy itself between Figure 2 (the building heights map), which refers back to the Design Guidelines, and Table 1 (the table describing the building heights), which prescribes a maximum height of six storeys.

 

The building height requirement in the Perth Design Guidelines is three storeys (six storeys where a site has dual frontage) and the building height requirement in the Policy is six storeys. There is also an inconsistency within the Policy itself between Figure 2 (the building heights map), which refers to the Design Guidelines, and Table 1 (the table describing the building heights), which prescribes a maximum height of six storeys for development along the Fitzgerald Street Activity Corridor and Mixed Use Area.

 

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) came into effect in May 2018, effectively rezoning a number of properties within the two Design Guidelines areas. Primarily, the William Street area was rezoned from Commercial to District Centre. Due to the inconsistencies between the Policy and the Design Guidelines, and the rezoning, it is considered suitable to review the heights in these areas to align with surrounding properties and similarly-zoned land.

 

For the remaining seven Design Guideline areas, it is proposed to remove reference to ‘Design Guideline Areas’ in Figure 2 and prescribe the same building heights as contained within the Design Guidelines. This will consolidate all building heights for the City of Vincent within the Policy.

Consultation/Advertising:

The formal advertising period is pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations). The Regulations outlines a minimum period of advertising of 21 days. The City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation outlines a comment period of 28 days. To satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and the City’s Policy the advertising period will be 28 days and include:

 

·       Written notification to:

o   Surrounding local governments;

o   Relevant State Government agencies;

o   Previous submitters on the City’s Built Form Policy;

o   Key industry organisations;

·       Written notification to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Planning; Lands; and Heritage regarding the specific departures from the R Codes in accordance with the Regulations;

·       Notice in the Perth Voice and Guardian Express once per week for four weeks;

·       Notice on the City’s website and social media; and

·       Referral to the City’s Design Review Panel.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes (R Codes);

·       Draft Apartment Design State Planning Policy;

·       Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

Risk Management Implications:

It is considered a lot risk to propose an amendment to the local planning policy for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Strategic Implications:

Council Priorities 2018/19:

 

Sensitive Design – Design that ‘fits in’ to our neighbourhoods is important to us. We want to see unique, high quality developments that respect our character and identity and respond to specific local circumstances.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

The proposed amendment provides clarity in the policy provisions and resolves issues identified during implementation. Further to this, the draft amendment proposes landscaping and setback provisions which align closer to Design WA whilst maintaining Council’s intent and are considered suitable for the endorsement of the WAPC. Administration recommends that Council adopts the draft amended Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

6            Engineering

6.1          Tender No. 550/18 - Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms

TRIM Ref:                  D18/74625

Author:                     Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Pricing Schedule and Evaluation - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS Tender No. 550/18 from Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd for the Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms as per the pricing schedule (Confidential Attachment 1) in the tender submission and general conditions of tendering.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider awarding of Tender 550/18 – Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms for the City of Vincent.

Background:

The majority of work outlined within this contract involves the pruning of street trees located under Western Power’s low voltage overhead cables, using five metre elevated work platforms. Street tree pruning is undertaken annually, commencing in July and clearance works are undertaken in accordance with Western Power’s clearance profiles.

 

Contract staff have to undertake specific training and accreditation to work in close proximity to power lines.  Taking into account the work requirements and the areas in which the work is undertaken (around suburban streets where vehicular and pedestrian access must be maintained), safety is of paramount importance.

 

The contract also comprises of the pruning of street trees off property lines, crown lifting and general safety pruning.

 

The current contract for the pruning of trees using elevated platforms has been provided by Beaver Tree Services and Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons and expires on 1 September 2018.

Details:

Tenders Received:

 

At the close of the tender advertising period three tenders were received from the following companies:

 

·       Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd

·       Trees Need Tree Surgeons

·       Beaver Tree Services Australia Pty Ltd

 


 

Tender Assessment:

 

Under delegation 1.19, the Procurement Plan was executed by the Director Engineering with the Evaluation Criteria being approved on 8 May 2018 as below.

 

CRITERIA

WEIGHTING

Financial offer

40%

Demonstrated experience, qualifications, capacity and resources to undertake the requirements of this contract.

30%

Demonstrated ability to supply and deliver services within the nominated timeframes

20%

History and viability of the company

10%

Total

100%

 

The tenders were assessed by members of the Tender Evaluation Panel (below) and each tender was assessed using the above evaluation criteria, with a scoring system being used as part of the assessment process. The aggregate score of each response was used in assessing the submissions.

 

Tender Evaluation Panel:

 

·       Manager Parks and Urban Green

·       Supervisor Parks and Urban Green

·       Technical Officer Parks and Urban Green

·       Asset Officer - Maintenance

 

Tender Evaluation Ranking:

 

Tender rankings are shown in the following table. Of the three tenders received, all three were deemed compliant and were therefore evaluated. Full details and submitted prices are shown in Confidential Attachment 1.

 

Criteria

Weighting

Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd

Trees Need Tree Surgeons

Beaver Tree Services Australia Pty Ltd

Financial offer

40%

38.3

40

22.8

Demonstrated experience, qualifications, capacity and resources to undertake the requirements of this contract.

30%

24.4

21.4

26.3

Demonstrated ability to supply and deliver services within the nominated timeframes

20%

16.0

15.5

16.5

History and viability of the company

10%

7.0 

7.0

9.3

Total

100%

85.7

83.9

74.8

Ranking

 

1st

2nd

3rd

 


 

Consultation/Advertising:

Tender No. 550/18 – Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms was advertised on 9 May 2018 and closed on Friday 25 May 2018.

 

Contract Type

Schedule of rates contract

Contract term:

Three years

Commencement date:

On awarding of contract

Expiry date:

Three years from awarding of contract

Legal/Policy:

The tender was advertised and assessed in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, and the City’s Purchasing Policy 1.1.3

Risk Management Implications:

Medium – High      This tender comprises of works that provide an important service to the City. It involves annual tree pruning of street trees of which a majority are located under Western Power’s infrastructure, therefore work must be undertaken in accordance with Section 54 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Costs associated with this contract are charged to the street tree maintenance budget and amount to approximately $650,000 per annum. 

Comments:

A Tender Evaluation Summary is included in the Confidential Attachment 1 and contains further information on the evaluation.

 

The submission from Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd satisfactorily complies with all the tender requirements, they have performed in similar roles and their tender submission provides good value for money.

 

As such the evaluation panel was satisfied that Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd demonstrated that they have the capacity, experience and personnel required to undertake the works outlined in the specification and will provide the City with the best value for money outcome.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council accepts Tender No. 550/18 from Tree Amigos Tree Surgeons Pty Ltd for the Pruning of Street Trees using Elevated Work Platforms.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

6.2          Axford Park Upgrade - Concept Design & Implementation of Quick Win Works Items

TRIM Ref:                  D18/110206

Authors:                   Georgia Lawrence, Place Manager

Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Background Analysis & Summary of Engagement Report

2.       Attachment 2 - Design Objectives - Axford Park Upgrade

3.       Attachment 3 - Phase 2 (Quick Win) Works Items - Axford Park Upgrade

4.       Attachment 4 - Concept Design - Axford Park Upgrade

5.       Attachment 5 - Construction Estimate - Axford Park Upgrade  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APROVES the implementation of the Axford Park Upgrade Phase 2 Works Items outlined in Attachment 3;

2.       ADOPTS the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design included as Attachment 4;

3.       NOTES the Construction Estimate associated with Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design included as Attachment 5; and

4.       NOTES that:

4.1     Administration will undertake the following notification of Council’s decision:

4.1.1  Notification in writing to Mount Hawthorn Sub-branch of the Returned Services League (WA), Mount Hawthorn Hub, Transition Town Vincent, Scouts WA, Mt Hawthorn Baptist Church, Pisconeri Fine Foods & Wine, the operator of Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market and all residents, landowners and businesses within 500 metres of Axford Park;

4.1.2  Notification on the City’s website and social media pages to the broader City of Vincent community; and

4.1.3  The Axford Park Concept Design will guide the future redevelopment of Axford Park.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider approval of the Axford Park Upgrade Phase 2 Works Items and adoption of the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design to guide the future redevelopment of Axford Park.

Background:

On 5 April 2016, Council resolved (Item 10.1) to request that Administration:

 

“1.        Develop a plan for Axford Park in consultation with the local community, the Mt Hawthorn Hub and the Mt Hawthorn Sub-Branch of the Returned Services League (WA), to enhance the precinct for greater community use, to create more usable open space and to protect and enhance the existing war memorial; and

 

2.         Report back to Council by July 2016 on the progress of developing the plan referred to in 1. above.”

 

On 26 July 2016, Council resolved (Item 9.2.2 and Item 9.5.1) to adopt the Axford Park Upgrade Project Plan and the City’s Draft Corporate Business Plan (CBP) 2016/17-2019/20 which included Item 9.4 ‘Upgrade Axford Park’.

 

In line with the adopted Axford Park Upgrade Project Plan, comprehensive background analysis and community engagement were undertaken in 2016 and 2017. This engagement is documented in the Axford Park Upgrade Background Analysis and Summary of Engagement Report included as Attachment 1. The stakeholder and community workshops undertaken as part of this engagement, coupled with the 2016/17 Council Priorities informed the development of the Axford Park Upgrade Design Objectives included as Attachment 2.

 

On 6 June 2017, the background analysis, engagement outcomes and draft concept plan implementation options, were presented to Council Members at a Council Workshop. At the workshop it was proposed that a professional design consultant be engaged to prepare a Concept Design for the upgrade of Axford Park, for Council Members consideration, prior to the implementation of any upgrade works.

 

On 11 January 2018, a Request for Quote (No. 21/18) for the Concept Design and Construction Estimate of Axford Park Upgrade was released and following review of the submissions received, the City appointed Place Laboratory (the Consultant) to deliver the Concept Design and Construction Estimate for the Axford Park Upgrade.

 

On 10 April 2018, the Consultant developed high level design solutions and concepts for the upgrade of Axford Park in accordance with the Design Objectives. These were presented to Council Members at a Council Workshop for discussion and the feedback. The feedback informed the review of the Phase 2 Works Items and guided the development of two concept options (a ‘front yard’ concept and ‘Transition’ concept) which were discussed at a Council Workshop on the 5 June 2018.

 

The 5 June 2018 Council Workshop was split into two parts including the presentation of the proposed Phase 2 Works Items and presentation of two concept options for consideration. It was noted that the proposed Phase 2 Works would prepare the site for any future upgrades without compromising the implementation of either concept option for the long term redevelopment of the park.

 

The Phase 2 Works Items presented at the 5 June 2018 Workshop included:

 

1.   Planting improvements and turf area extension;

2.   Palm tree removal and tree pruning;

3.   Hobart Street one-way entrance closure and paving;

4.   Footpath widening adjacent to Scarborough Beach Road and Fairfield Street corner;

5.   Fairfield Street raised plateau;

6.   Hobart Street path extension;

7.   Toilet block relocation;

8.   40km/hr zone extension;

9.   Oxford Street/Scarborough Beach Road intersection signage rationalisation;

10.  Custom hanging seats; and

11.  Rotunda removal.

 

Item 10 has been excluded on the basis that it is too costly to be implemented within the adopted budget. Item 11 has also been excluded to ensure the rotunda is only removed once additional seating is provided under shade canopy. Detailed information relating to the remaining listed items 1-9 of Phase 2 (Quick Wins) is outlined in Attachment 3 and the Details section below.

Details:

The Axford Park Upgrade Phase 2 Work Items (Quick Wins) are included as Attachment 3.

 

The works have been developed to improve the park in the short-term and prepare the site for any future upgrades that may be undertaken in line with the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design.

 

The works are budgeted and proposed to be implemented in the 2018/19 financial year and the key elements relating to these area outlined below.

 

1.       Planting improvements and turf area extension

 

          Low-level shrubbery and a limestone block wall currently interrupt views across the park. Replacing the shrubbery and wall with Ivy will open up views and vistas across the park.

 

          There are a number of paths located within the site that limit the parks use for recreation and events. Replacing these paths with turf will increase the usable open space and open the park to more flexible and adaptive use. Additionally, there are a number of general purpose outlets which have been located adjacent to the paths to service events. The co-location of the general purpose outlets with other structures and planting will ensure they don’t pose trip hazards.     

 

          To increase the visual connections across the site and improve the parks usability, Item 1 proposes the golden cane, cycads, hedges and roses are replaced with Ivy, the limestone block wall and paving are replaced with turf and the general purpose outlets are relocated.

 

2.       Palm tree removal and pruning

 

          The removal of the existing palm trees responds to the opportunities and ideas determined through the consultation period and the demonstrated support for creating additional open space, improving the parks usability and enhancing visual connections.

 

          To enhance visual connections and increase the usable public open space, Item 2 proposes the removal of six existing palm trees and the pruning of the six retained palm trees.

 

3.       Hobart Street entrance closure and paving

 

          Access to Hobart Street via Scarborough Beach Road is currently one-way and accessible only to vehicles travelling south east along Scarborough Beach Road. The one-way entry is 6m wide at its narrowest point which makes is easy for vehicles to illegally exit Hobart Street onto Scarborough Beach Road, causing confusion for pedestrians, cyclist and drivers.

 

          The proximity of the one-way vehicle entry to the protected bike lane entry is also confusing for cyclists and drivers and contributes to the poor legibility of this entry.

 

The closure of the one-way Hobart Street entry responds to the opportunities and ideas generated through the consultation period and the demonstrated support for improved pedestrian connections throughout the site and the closure of the one-way entry into Hobart Street.

 

          To improve pedestrian and cyclist amenity, Item 3 proposes the closure of the one-way vehicle entry into Hobart Street off Scarborough Beach Road and the extension of the brick paved footpath adjacent Scarborough Beach Road.

 

4.       Footpath widening adjacent to Scarborough Beach Road and Fairfield Street

 

          There is currently a narrow stretch of footpath adjacent to the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Fairfield Street which limits pedestrian movement and legibility.

 

          To improve pedestrian connections and amenity, Item 4 proposes the brick paved footpath be extended.

 

5.       Fairfield Street raised plateau

 

          Fairfield Street currently acts as a physical barrier disconnecting the town centre tenancies along Hobart Street with those along the north of Scarborough Beach Road.

 

          To prioritise the pedestrian, improve physical connections and reconnect this disconnected town centre main street, Item 5 proposes the creation of a raised plateau across Fairfield Street.

 

6.       Hobart Street path extension

 

The pedestrian path running east west along the south of Hobart Street does not continue through to Edinboro Street.

 

          To improve pedestrian legibility by connecting the path through to Edinboro Street, Item 6 proposes the removal of planting directly south of Hobart Street and the extension of the brick paved footpath east to Edinboro Street.

 

7.       Toilet block relocation

 

          The public toilet block and Western Power enclosure located at the western end of the park are sited in isolation, on valuable public open space, limiting views across the park.

 

          To reduce the visual and physical impact of these park elements, Item 7 proposes their co-location by relocating the public toilet to adjoin the Western Power enclosure.

 

8.       40km/hr zone extension

 

          The opportunity to extent the existing 40k/hr zone along Scarborough Beach Road east to the entry of the town centre near Edinboro Street was identified through the community consultation process.

 

          To reduce vehicle speeds in the town centre along Scarborough Beach Road, Item 8 proposes the City advocate to extend the 40km/hr zone.

 

9.       Oxford Street/Scarborough Beach Road intersection signage rationalisation

 

          The Oxford Street/Scarborough Beach Road intersection is currently cluttered with signage and an opportunity to reduce the intersection clutter by rationalising the location and number of signs has been identified.

          To improve the aesthetics and legibility of the Oxford Street/ Scarborough Beach Road intersection, Item 9 proposes the removal of any superfluous signage.

 

10.     Commemorative tree planting

 

          On 11 November 2018 the City will celebrate the Centenary of Armistice at Axford Park. To commemorate the end of the First World War and those who served Australia and its allies in wars, conflicts and peace operations, a commemorative tree will be planted in Axford Park.

 

The Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design and corresponding Construction Estimate are included as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5.

 

The seven stages and key elements of the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design are outlined below.

 

A.      The Promenade

 

Stage A incorporates an uninterrupted 7 metre wide promenade for walking and cycling along the north of Scarborough Beach Road, connecting the traditional shopfronts west of Fairfield Street along Scarborough Beach Road to those east of Edinboro Street.

 

The Promenade incorporates additional tree planting and a low concrete ‘garden wall’ with timber seating, integrated public art and line lighting.

 

Bike racks, benches and bins will be located on gravel and sit adjacent to existing trees along the Promenade.

 

The Promenade responds to the closure of the one-way Hobart Street entry off Scarborough Beach Road, rationalising the existing bike lane entry and footpath, improving pedestrian safety and connectivity. 

 

The Promenade addressees the following Design Objectives for the project as identified in consultation with the local community and Council Objectives 2016/17.

 

·           Site Responsive: Enhance the precinct through improved physical and visual connections

·           Place for People: Rationalise access and create a place for people

 

B.      Skateable Terraced Deck

 

Stage B is located at the western end of the park and incorporates timber decked seating platforms with skateable edges positioned around existing trees. The western end of the park is considered the vibrant and active end which transitions across the site to the calm and relaxed Memorial Area in the east.

 

The community consultation outcomes demonstrated a preference for active uses to be located in the west and more passive recreation to be encouraged in the east. There was support for active uses to be sensitively located in relation to the War Memorial, Wall of Remembrance and reflective nature of the park. There were mixed views regarding skateable furniture but support for sensitively incorporated skateable elements to be located at the western end of the park.

 

The multi-use Skateable Terraced Deck responds to the following Design Objectives:

 

·           Dynamic Environment: Improve usability by creating a more flexible and adaptive space

·           Community Driven: Develop upgrade options which are supported and championed by the community

 

C.      Yoga Lawn

 

          Stage C incorporates a yoga lawn surrounded by timber seating decks with a terraced alfresco zone, on level with the buildings, with seating stepped to the park. This stage considers opportunities to incorporate hanging seats from large tree branches as unique, artistic seating options.

 

The terraced alfresco zone will complement the uses in the adjacent northern tenancies, encouraging investment through the delivery of high quality public space.

 

          Although named the Yoga Lawn, this expanse of turf will allow for lunchtime recreation and provide additional green space for office workers and town centre visitors to enjoy on market days, during the week and on weekends. 

 

Stage C maximises the benefits of the Hobart Street entry closure by reclaiming and repurposing a large expanse of bitumen into well designed green space. The repurposed car parking bays include nine (9) 3P designated 45° bays, two (2) 1/4P bays, one(1) designated ACROD bay and one (1) Taxi/ACROD zone. These repurposed car parking bays will result in the expansion of Axford Park and contribute to the creation of additional public open space designed for passive and active recreation.

 

The Yoga Lawn responds to the following Design Objectives.

 

·           Catalyst for Improvements: Explore the role of the site as a catalyst for other town centre improvements

·           Place for People: Rationalise access and create a place for people

·           Green Open Space: Maximise the open space and green space provision

 

D.      Kiosk Area

 

          Stage D incorporates an eye-catching kiosk located as a key activity node linking the town centre activities along Oxford Street and Scarborough Beach Road. The kiosk design will integrate the public toilet which is to be relocated in line with delivery of Phase 2 Works Item 7.

 

To complement this activity node, a timber deck will address the slope of the site through the inclusion of stepped seating. The deck will be co-located adjacent to the kiosk for alfresco dining and events.

 

Stage D includes the removal of the rotunda in order to open the park up to create a larger flexible space for community events and markets. The removal of the rotunda was supported throughout the consultation process and the reclaimed space will enable the park to better support a variety of activities and events.

 

The compacted gravel surface which extends east to Edinboro Street will connect cyclist heading west from the Bike Boulevard on Shakespeare Street across Axford Park into the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre.

  

The Kiosk Area responds to the following Design Objectives.

 

·           Dynamic Environment: Improve usability by creating a more flexible and adaptive space

·           Site Responsive: Enhance the precinct through improved physical and visual connections

·           Attractive + Inclusive: Establish an attractive and inclusive place for the whole community

·           Community Driven: Develop upgrade options which are supported and championed by the community

·           Green Open Space: Maximise the open space and green space provision

 

E.      Memorial Area

 

Stage E incorporates the relocation of the Wall of Remembrance which will be repositioned and integrated into sloping turf as a key park feature. The War Memorial will be retained in its current location but additional turf will be laid around it to emphasise its position in the landscape.

 

The north of the Memorial Area will incorporate timber seating and lighting around the base of the mature trees, enhancing evening activities and use. Clusters of hanging seats will also be sited among the mature trees in response to the communities request for elements and activities which cater for all ages.    

 

The ‘garden wall’, with line lighting and seating, will extend round this eastern section of the park along both the Scarborough Beach Road and Edinboro Street edges.

 

The Memorial Area responds to the following Design Objectives.

 

·           Identity + Sense of Place: Celebrate the parks history and protect and enhance the war memorial and wall of remembrance

·           Attractive + Inclusive: Establish an attractive and inclusive place for the whole community

·           Community Driven: Develop upgrade options which are supported and championed by the community

 

F.       Intersection Upgrade

 

Stage F incorporates the upgrade and paving of the Scarborough Beach Road/ Oxford Street intersection. The footpath pavement will be extended flush across Scarborough Beach Road to Axford Park in order to create an improvement environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

This treatment of the intersection may incorporate artwork and/or coloured, patterned or textures materials to denote arrival at Axford Park and the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre. It is anticipated that this upgrade will improve the intersection both physically and aesthetically.

 

The improvement of this intersection was determined as an opportunity and idea generated through community consultation and the local Town Team, the Mount Hawthorn Hub, has championed a community led demonstration project to garner support for the future improvement of this intersection through the provision of artwork.

 

The Intersection Upgrade responds to the following Design Objectives.

 

·           Site Responsive: Enhance the precinct through improved physical and visual connections

·           Attractive + Inclusive: Establish an attractive and inclusive place for the whole community

·           Community Driven: Develop upgrade options which are supported and championed by the community

 

G.      Verandah Zone

 

Stage G responds to the potential redevelopment of the lots to the north of Hobart Street and incorporates the closure of Hobart Street and the closure of the southern entry/exit to Axford Lane off Hobart Street. These closures propose the expansive bitumen road and parking areas along Hobart Street be repurposed to accommodate additional public open space including a terraced alfresco zone, on level with buildings, with seating stepped to the park.

 


 

The repurposed car parking bays include twenty-two(22) 3P designated 45° bays and five(5) 3P parallel bays. The repurposed road and car parking bays will accommodate the expansion of Axford Park to the north to create a larger continuous flexible space and maximise the open space available for community events, markets and other activities of a similar nature.  

 

The closure of Hobart Street will reduce the dominance of car parking at Axford Park which was identified through community consultation as a key constraint and will maximise public open space provision and improve Axford Park as a place for people. The staged reduction of vehicles moving through the site responds to the community consultation outcomes and will create a safer environment for pedestrians and park users and ultimately make Axford Park feel more inviting and comfortable.

 

The terraced Verandah Zone is anticipated to encourage investment through the delivery of high quality public space. The lots to the north of Hobart Street are afforded the opportunity to complement the Verandah Zone design through the delivery of fine-grain tenancies, at ground level, fronting the park. The provision of new tenancies in this location would strengthening the connection between the current Hobart Street tenancies and those further west along Scarborough Beach Road.

 

Stage G provides opportunities to capitalise on improved urban amenity and maximise any future developments outlook and connection to the park.

 

The Verandah Zone responds to the following Design Objectives.

 

·           Dynamic Environment: Improve usability by creating a more flexible and adaptive space

·           Site Responsive: Enhance the precinct through improved physical and visual connections

·           Sustainable: Identify short and long-term options for upgrade improvements

·           Catalyst for Improvements: Explore the role of the site as a catalyst for other town centre improvements

·           Attractive + Inclusive: Establish an attractive and inclusive place for the whole community

·           Community Driven: Develop upgrade options which are supported and championed by the community

·           Place for People: Rationalise access and create a place for people

·           Green Open Space: Maximise the open space and green space provision

 

During the development of the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design and determination of the Quick Wins, a key factor taken into consideration was the staged approach to project delivery. This staged approach and the identification of short-term and long-term options to redevelop the park responds to the following Design Objective:

 

·           Sustainable: Identify short and long-term options for upgrade improvements

 

The Concept Design has been developed to guide the future redevelopment of the park to ensure the park reaches its full potential as a civic urban park and key town centre destination. It is expected that the complete redevelopment will be implemented in stages over a number or years in response to user demand, City resources, population growth and private investment.

 

Due diligence and an analysis of the City’s capacity to deliver future upgrade items will be undertaken prior to the implementation of any of the seven future Stages A-G outlined above. To ensure Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design continues to guide the redevelopment of Axford Park, the Concept Design will be considered annually as part of the annual review of the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan (MHTCPP) and if appropriate, stages or elements within Stages A-G, will be referenced in the MHTCPP for Councils Consideration. 

 

Consultation/Advertising:

If approved, the key stakeholders engaged earlier in the Axford Park Upgrade project including Mount Hawthorn Sub-branch of the Returned Services League (WA), Mount Hawthorn Hub, Transition Town Vincent, Scouts WA, Mt Hawthorn Baptist Church, Pisconeri Fine Foods & Wine, the operator of Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market and all residents, landowners and businesses within 500m of Axford Park will be notified of Council’s decision.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks associated with the approval of the Phase 2 Works Items and adoption of the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design. The approval of Phase 2 and adoption of the Concept Design will enable Administration to continue with the project as previously agreed by Council and in line with the 2018/19 budget.

Strategic Implications:

The proposed Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design will contribute to two of the six community priorities identified through the City’s Imagine Vincent community engagement initiative; namely – “Enhanced Environment’ and “Thriving Places”.

 

If adopted, Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design will be used to guide the future redevelopment of Axford Park to ensure the park reaches its potential as an urban park and central town centre destination.

 

The first edition of the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan (MHTCPP) is due to be completed in the 2018/19 financial year. As part of the delivery and future annual review of the MHTCPP, the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design will be considered annually and will inform the development of any projects relating to Axford Park.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The project was allocated a total budget of $200,000, made up as follows:

 

·       $35,000 for Phase 1 which included the delivery of the Concept Design, Construction Estimate and determination of the Quick Win Works Items; and

·       $165,000 for Phase 2 which includes the implementation of the Quick Win Works Items 1-10 inclusive of materials and labour.

 

The Quick Win Works Items, as outlined in Attachment 3, are proposed to be implemented in the 2018/19 financial year.

Comments:

The Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design as shown in Attachment 4 has undergone review and refinement and is considered to meet the Design Objectives identified through community consultation. The Concept Design will ensure Axford Park reaches its full potential as a flexible, inclusive, urban park and community gathering space delivered over time in a sustainable, staged manner.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that Council approves the implementation of the Quick Win Works Items so that the project can proceed to Phase 2 (Implementation of Quick Wins), in accordance with the Annual Budget and adopts the Axford Park Upgrade Concept Design to guide the future redevelopment of Axford Park.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

6.3          LATE REPORT:  Revised Engineering Policies Relating to Verge Treatments and Street Trees

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING -14 AUGUST 2018

 

 

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

7            Corporate Services

7.1          Licence to use Axford Park for Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market - Heart Inspired Events

TRIM Ref:                  D18/63416

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Vanisha Govender, Manager Financial Services

Attachments:             1.       Submission in support of Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market - Heart Inspired Events

2.       Business case for subsidised market fee - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a licence to Heart Inspired Events (ABN 72 278 655 015) to use Axford Park, Mount Hawthorn to operate the weekly Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market, on the following key terms:

1.1     Term:                                      5 October 2018 to 24 April 2020;

1.2     Market Season:                       Friday 5 October 2018 – Friday 21 December 2018;

Friday 1 February 2019 – Friday 26 April 2019;

Friday 4 October 2019 – Friday 20 December 2019; and

Friday 7 February 2020 – Friday 24 April 2020;

1.3     Permitted Purpose:                 Hawkers Market;

1.4     Permitted hours of use:          4:00pm – 9:30pm on Fridays during Market Season;

1.5     Market stall hours:                  5:00pm – 8:30pm on Fridays during Market Season;

1.6     Licence fee:                                      $242 per market (incl GST), indexed by CPI;

1.7     Insurance:                                        Licensee to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

1.8     Indemnity:                                        Licensee to indemnify the City against any loss/damage/claims relating to the market;

1.9     Cleaning:                                 Licensee to keep market area clean and tidy and remove all items by conclusion of permitted hours of use;

1.10   Bond:                                      Licensee to pay a bond of $1,000;

1.11   Plastics:                                  Licensee will engage with the City to transition to a reduction in the use of ‘single-use plastics’ where possible; and

1.12   Acknowledgement of City:      Licensee will acknowledge the support of the City in its advertising material for the Market where possible.

 

2.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the licence as referred to in 1. above, subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider granting a new licence to Heart Inspired Events (ABN 72 278 655 015) to enable continued use of Axford Park, which is located at No. 130 (Lot 100) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, for the weekly Mount Hawthorn Hawkers Market (Market).

Background:

Following an Expression of Interest process, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 20 September 2016 (Item 9.1.16) Council resolved as follows:

 

That Council AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a licence agreement with Heart Inspired Events to operate and manage the Mount Hawthorn Hawker’s Market at Axford Park, Mount Hawthorn subject to the following conditions:

1.       the licence agreement shall be for a maximum term of 24 months;

2.       the Market operator paying any relevant fees in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2016/2017;

3.       all requirements outlined in the Expression of Interest document as shown in Attachment 1;

4.       all relevant default, penalties and indemnity clauses; and

5.       any other conditions deemed to be appropriate by the City.”

 

On 20 November 2016, the City, acting under delegated authority from the Council, granted development approval to conduct a Temporary Hawkers Market at Axford Park Reserve, subject to conditions (Development Approval 5.2016.304.1).

 

The City and Cindeketone Pty Ltd, trading as Heart Inspired Events, entered into a licence on 15 November 2016 and the first Market was held on Friday 2 December 2016. Heart Inspired Events operated the Market in accordance with the licence for the duration of the term, with the last market held on 27 April 2018. The fees for the use of Axford Park for the Market were $196 per market in 2016/17 and $216 per market in 2017/18.

 

Administration notes that the Market consistently attracted a high number of patrons, activating the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre on Friday evenings during the market season (November – April) and creating a positive community vibe. Heart Inspired Events operated the Market in accordance with the terms of the licence and in particular, met the key performance indicators specified in the licence including:

 

a.       Showcasing ready-to-eat food;

b.       Prioritising Mount Hawthorn businesses in the Market over other providers, although few local businesses took up the opportunity to showcase their produce or wares at the Market;

c.       Providing a diverse food offering;

d.       Effectively and safely managing a mix of food stalls and food trucks;

e.       Developing a strong communication and working relationship with the City;

f.       Maintaining a clean, well laid out Market that was aesthetically pleasing and easy to navigate;

g.       Minimising risks to create a safe environment for stall holders, food trucks, patrons and visitors;

h.       Organising regular events, activities and live entertainment;

i.        Running a market which was economically viable; and

j.        Running a market every Market Day except where conditions posed a safety risk to stallholders or visitors.

 

Heart Inspired Events has demonstrated an ability to run the Market autonomously and has required minimal input from the City. To date, the City has received considerable positive feedback in relation to the Market and no complaints have been received. The Mount Hawthorn Town Centre has a limited night time economy and the Market serves to positively activate the area on Friday evenings.

Details:

Heart Inspired Events contacted the City in early 2018 to request a new licence for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 market seasons on the same terms as set out in the current licence.  Heart Inspired Events have provided a submission in support of their application for a new licence, which is attached to this report at Attachment 1.

 

Applicable Fee Structure

 

The previous fees for the use of Axford Park for the Market (based on 6 hour period per market) were in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges of the applicable financial year; specifically the community rate for the hire of a town centre reserve or park, as follows. It should be noted that whilst a commercial rate could have been applied for the 2017/18 year based on the applicable Schedule of Fees and Charges, the community rate was applied in acknowledgement of the significant, unforeseen increase that would have applied with commercial rate of $100 per hour.

 

Year

Community Rate (per hour)

Fee per market (6 hours per market)

2016/17

$28 before 6pm, $35 after 6pm

$196 (2 x $28 and 4 x $35)

2017/18

$36

$216 (6 x 36)

 

In terms of the current proposal, as Heart Inspired Events is a commercial operator, the 2018/19 commercial rate of $100 per hour applies, which equates to $550 for each market (based on 5.5 hours).

 

Heart Inspired Events have advised Administration that any hire fee increase would need to be passed on to stall operators in order for the Markets to continue to operate, and a significant increase may result in it being unprofitable for some stall holders to operate, which would in turn impact the viability of the Market. Heart Inspired Events has therefore requested that a fee consistent with the previous fee is applied for the following reasons:

 

·       The market is an activation of an otherwise underutilised space;

·       The market contributes to a sense of community, becomes a local community hub for the evening and is well patronised by many local residents each week;

·       Axford Park is a small park, and due to the size and layout, it is only able to have a small amount of vendors each week, even if the crowd would support more, which limits the income that can be generated to offset costs;

·       The market operator pays for a busker and face painter each week to entertain the community that attend. This costs us $250 per week;

·       The market operator pays for an electrician $150 each week to complete the City’s Form 5 to ensure that the temporary power is used safely. The electrician also checks that all vendors are following the Health Department’s guidelines regarding testing & tagging;

·       The market operator takes all the rubbish away from the park generated by the event each week, which is an expensive task;

·       The market operator always leave the park at the end for each market as it finds it; and

·       To be able to attract a crowd to the event and engage the community each week, the market operator utilises various marketing mediums including print, electronic and social media, and installing signage in the area. This is a large expense required to ensure the market is successful.

 

Heart Inspired Events have submitted a business case to support its request for a fee of $242 per market, as attached at Attachment 2.

 

Administration has considered Heart Inspired Events request and based on the local community benefit provided by the Markets, Administration proposes that a fee of $242 per market is imposed, which equates to $44 per hour. That fee would be consistent with the former commercial rate for the hire of a town centre reserve for more than 10 hours, which was $440. Such an approach is considered appropriate as Heart Inspired Events proposes to hire Axford Park on a weekly basis during the market season, rather than just as a one-off event.

 

A fee of $242 per Market represents an increase of 12 percent and should enable the Markets to continue to operate sustainably and therefore provide continued significant social and economic benefits for the local community and Mount Hawthorn Town Centre.

 

Administration notes that over the last three years the City has only received six other bookings of Axford Park, and no fee was paid for these bookings. Therefore the Market forms the only revenue the City currently derives from Axford Park. Based on a fee of $242 per market, the City would receive approximately $5,800 during the 2018/19 financial year.

 

In acknowledgement of a reduced fee being recommended for the Market, Heart Inspired Events will acknowledge the support of the City in its advertising material for the Markets, where possible.

 

Axford Park Upgrade

 

It is noted that the City is proposing to undertake improvements to Axford Park in line with the Axford Park Upgrade project recommendations. Heart Inspired Events has been notified of the project and any proposed improvements will be discussed with Heart Inspired Events to ensure disruption to the Market is minimised. Heart Inspired Events has also been advised that the City will endeavour to find an alternative location for the market if required, but that the City provides no guarantee that this will be possible, and will not provide any compensation for any loss in revenue which arises as a result of the Axford Park Upgrade. These terms are in the current licence and will be included in the new licence.

 

Single Use Plastics

 

Administration is in the process of completing a ‘single use plastics’ investigation and based on the draft report prepared it is recommended that public events, including markets, transition towards banning the use of plastic straws and balloons. Administration has advised Heart Inspired Events of this proposal, and will work with Heart Inspired Events to reduce the use of single use plastics at the Market.

Consultation/Advertising:

Given the successful operation of the Markets by Heart Inspired Events Administration is not recommending inviting expressions of interest for the operation of the Markets, and is recommending that the City enter into a new licence with Heart Inspired Events to enable the Market to operate for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 market seasons.

 

Administration and representatives of Heart Inspired Events have discussed and reached consensus on the proposed terms of the new licence.

 

As the proposed licence is only for a term of 19 months 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), which includes the following:

 

·       to the highest bidder at a public auction; or

·       to a person at a public tender who makes the most acceptable tender; or

·       by providing public notice and considering any submissions received prior to the disposal.

1.      

Section 3.58(5) sets out certain dispositions that do not need to comply with the above section 3.58(3) requirements, and these include dispositions excluded by the regulations.  In this regard, 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.

 

As the proposed licence is for a term of less than 2 years and does not give the lessee / licensee exclusive possession, the proposed use falls within the scope of Regulation 30(2)(e) and therefore the City is not required to comply with section 3.58.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  Heart Inspired Events have demonstrated their ability to successfully and independently operate a Market over the last 17 months.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

“Community Development and Wellbeing

 

3.1     Enhance and promote community development and wellbeing;

 

3.1.3     Promote and provide a range of community events to bring people together and to foster a community way of life.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Continuing to use Axford Park for the Market is facilitating the multi-use of a community facility and has a lower environmental impact than creating a new space for a market.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Granting a licence for the use of Axford Park will generate revenue for the City, as discussed above. The estimated annual revenue derived from the Market is $5,800.

Comments:

Heart Inspired Events has successfully managed and operated the Market since 2 December 2016 and as a result it has become an integral part of the Mount Hawthorn nightlife during the warmer months of the year. Heart Inspired Events are proposing to continue to operate the Market for a further two seasons and Administration recommends that a licence for a term of 19 months is granted to facilitate this.

 

Due to Heart Inspired Events successful operation of the Market and compliance with the key performance indicators as set out in the previous expression of interest and in the licence, Administration is recommending that Heart Inspired Events is granted a licence to use Axford Park so that it can continue to operate the Market over the next two market seasons.

 

Administration recommends that a fee of $242 per Market is appropriate, as opposed to the fee for the use of Axford Park by a commercial operator as set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges ($550 per Market) as this will ensure the Markets can continue to operate sustainably and independently of the City.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      14 August 2018

7.2          Report from Audit Committee meeting of 17 July 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/107965

Author:                     Tim Evans, Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser:                Vanisha Govender, Manager Financial Services

Attachments:             1.       Audit Committee Minutes - 17 July 2018

2.       Audit Committee Terms of Reference - for adoption

3.       Audit Committee Terms of Reference - with tracked changes  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES this report from the Audit Committee meeting of 17 July 2018 and the minutes of that meeting as Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the revised Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee included as Attachment 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To report to Council the proceedings and transactions of the Audit Committee meeting of 17 July 2018 in accordance with clause 2.21(1) of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 and to consider the adoption of a revised Terms of Reference for the City’s Audit Committee.

Background:

The City’s Audit Committee is a statutory committee of Council, established in accordance with section 7.1A of the Local Government Act 1995. The primary objectives of the Audit Committee are to:

 

·       Accept responsibility for the annual external audit; and

·       Liaise with the local government’s internal and external auditors so that Council can be satisfied with the performance of the local government in managing its affairs.

 

The Audit Committee meets every 2 months comprises 6 members consisting of:

 

·       2 external independent members; and

·       4 Council Members.

 

At its meeting on 17 July 2018, the Audit Committee meeting considered three agenda items as follows:

 

·       5.1        Local Government Auditing Reforms and Proposed Revision to the Audit Committee Terms of

Reference

·       5.2        Interim Audit Management Letter 2017/18

·       5.3        Review of the City of Vincent Audit Log

Details:

In relation to item 5.1, the committee was briefed about recent regulatory to the audit of local government finances and performance, specifically amendments to the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and Local Government (Audit) Regulations which came into effect between 27 June 2018 and 1 July 2018. As a consequence of the legislative changes that have been made in relation to the role of the Audit Committee, it was proposed to update the Audit Committee Terms of Reference to align with the changed role defined in the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996. The Audit Committee unanimously endorsed the revised terms of reference. It requires a decision of Council to amend the terms of reference and therefore Council approval is sought for the revisions. The proposed new terms of reference are included as attachment 2 of this report. A tracked changes version can be found as attachment 3.

 

Item 5.2 provided the Audit Committee with a copy of the external auditor’s interim management letter for the 2017/18 statutory audit. It was noted that Administration had discussed and agreed the interim management letter with the External Auditor, that all findings are either now closed out or in the process of being implemented.

Finally, item 5.3 reported the current status of the City’s Audit Log. Five of the 17 outstanding audit log items were closed, leaving 12 items. However, it is noted that further items will be added from the interim audit findings referred to in item 5.2.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Clause 2.21 of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 states:

 

“2.21 Presentation of committee reports

 

(1)      Every committee is to cause:-

 

(a)      a report with recommendations and suitable preamble;

(b)      minutes of the committee’s proceedings and transactions;

to be presented to the Council by the presiding member of each committee concerned, or in his or her absence, a member of the committee in the form of a motion; “That the report be received and the recommendation be adopted”.

 

(2)      No objection to the receipt of a report of any committee, or any part of it, shall be raised when such reports are presented to the Council, except for reasons arising out of such reports.

 

(3)      The presiding member is to:-

 

(a)      put the motion that the report be received;

(b)      call for a motion to be moved by any member pursuant to clause 5.6(1), with the exception of item (a) of that clause, with respect to any recommendation contained in the report;

(c)      put the motion that the recommendation be adopted in relation to the recommendations contained in the report, apart from a recommendation or recommendations which are the subject of a motion by a member pursuant to the preceding item of this sub-clause; and

(d)      ensure that the motions are debated and dealt with in accordance with these Standing Orders in relation to a recommendation or those recommendations in the report which are the subject of a motion or motions by a member or members pursuant to clause 5.6.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  There is no risk associated with Council accepting this report relating to the Audit Committee, however

the effective operation of the Audit Committee assists the City to better manage its risks as a whole.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)        Continue to adopt best practise 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:

Effective processes and procedures relating to Risk Management, Internal Control and Legislative Compliance will contribute to the overall financial sustainability of the organisation.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

This report is presented to Council in order to inform Council about the proceedings of the Audit Committee. In accordance with the City’s Standing Order Local Law 2008 – reproduced in the LEGAL / POLICY section of this report, the presiding member is to put the recommendation in at least two parts. Firstly, recommendation 1 - that the report be received – is to be put. A call is then to be made for Council Members to move any other of the recommendations individually. If no mover is forthcoming for any individual items then the remaining recommendations may be put together.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                       14 August 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                        14 August 2018