AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

11 December 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 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.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

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

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

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 7

8          Declarations of Interest 7

9          Development Services. 8

9.1             No. 16 (Lot: 13; D/P: 613) Wellman Street, Perth - Amendment to existing Approval for Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility) 8

9.2             No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Cafe. 21

9.3             No. 47 (Lot: 502; D/P: 50409) Jugan Street, Mount Hawthorn - S.31 Reconsideration - Proposed Five Grouped Dwellings. 37

9.4             No. 108 (Lot: 3; D/P: 3110) Vincent Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery) 74

9.5             No. 157 (Lot: 17; D/P: 1509) Loftus Street, Leederville - Proposed Four Dwellings (Multiple) 92

9.6             No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Two Grouped Dwellings. 169

9.7             Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - No. 51 (Lot: 25; D/P: 1230) Marian Street, Leederville. 185

9.8             Small Business Friendly Local Governments Charter 211

9.9             No. 21 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1477) Vincent Street, Mount Lawley - Amendment to Development Approval for Alterations and Additions to exisitng Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House. 220

10        Engineering. 308

10.1           Minor Parking Restriction Improvements/Amendments. 308

10.2           Tender No. 561/18 - North Perth Common Construction – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer 313

10.3           Further Report in Response to Petition - Alma Road and Claverton Streets, North Perth Traffic Calming. 321

10.4           Waste Strategy Project 1 – Recovery of Organic Material – Food and Greens Options Appraisal 325

11        Corporate Services. 330

11.1           Investment Report as at 30 November 2018. 330

11.2           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 17 October 2018 to  13 November 2018. 340

11.3           Financial Statements as at 31 October 2018. 361

11.4           Financial Statements as at 30 November 2018. 449

11.5           Land Exchange - Portion of Lot 75 Brentham Street (Brentham Street Reserve) for Portion of Lot 100 (No 20) Brentham Street (Aranmore Catholic Primary School) 537

11.6           November 2018 Budget review (including Carry Forwards) [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 545

11.7           Lease of 15 Haynes Street, North Perth to North Perth Playgroup Inc. 566

12        Community Engagement 572

12.1           Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan - Public Comment Feedback. 572

12.2           Draft Public Open Space Strategy - Public Comment Feedback. 662

13        Chief Executive Officer 716

13.1           Council Recess Period 2018-19 - Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 716

13.2           Leederville Gardens Inc. - Adoption of new rules of the Association. 719

13.3           Audit Committee Minutes and Annual Financial Report 2017/2018. 769

13.4           Annual Report 2017/2018 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 914

13.5           Information Bulletin. 1032

14        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 1139

15        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 1139

16        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 1139

17        Urgent Business. 1139

18        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 1140

18.1           Chief Executive Officer Key Performance Indicators 2018-19. 1140

18.2           Amendment of rates record for period 2013/14 - 2018/19 - rates exemption applications. 1140

19        Closure. 1140

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Cr Dan Loden on approved leave of absence from 04 December 2018 to 18 December 2018.

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

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

Cr Jonathon Hallett requested a leave of absence from 21 December 2018 to 18 January 2019 due to personal commitments.

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 3 December 2018

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9            Development Services

9.1          No. 16 (Lot: 13; D/P: 613) Wellman Street, Perth - Amendment to existing Approval for Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/166535

Author:                     Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Extract of Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 30 June 2015

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

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 to amend the development approval (5.2014.638.1) granted on 30 June 2015 for an Industry – Light Use (Meat Packing Facility) at No. 16 (Lot: 13; D/P: 613) Wellman Street, Perth, subject to the following condition:

1.       All conditions and advice notes continue to apply to this approval, with exception of Condition 10 which is deleted.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend the existing development approval for a Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility) at No. 16 Wellman Street, Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to amend the conditions of approval so as to extend the term of approval for an additional five years.

Background:

Landowner:

Galaxy Group Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Raymond Dong

Date of Application:

16 August 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

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

Built Form Area:

Town Centre

Existing Land Use:

Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility)

Proposed Use Class:

Light Industry

Lot Area:

462m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wellman Street, which is characterised by other similar light industry uses on the same side of the road and the rear of residential properties (facing Brookman Street) on the western side.  The location of the site is included as Attachment 1. Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the subject site and those adjoining it are zoned District Centre, with the residential area to the west is zoned Residential R25.

 

At its meeting of 11 June 2013, Council resolved to grant a development approval for the subject site to operate as Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility), subject to a 12 month time-limitation. This time limit was applied to the approval as a cautionary measure as the City received numerous objections during the community consultation period. The time limit was intended to give the City a further opportunity to assess the impact of the use on the locality.

 

At its meeting of 30 June 2015, Council resolved to approve the use for a further three years after the date of issue of the approval letter, on the basis that it had not had a negative impact on the surrounding locality. The time limitation was imposed due to the potential for the Light Industry use to be a prohibited use within the District Centre zone under the (then) future LPS2. A copy of the approval including the approved development plans is included as Attachment 2.

 

The existing approval on the site lapsed on the 23 July 2018. Administration advised the business operator of this fact and on 16 August 2018, the City received an application to amend Condition 10 of the existing development approval, so as to extend the operating timeframe for the business.

Details:

The use is operated by Westco Food Pty Ltd, and incorporates the processing, storage and packing of meat products. The work process is that a delivery truck from a supplier arrives with meat carcasses three to five times a week. The carcasses are then processed on site, which includes the cutting up and mincing of the meat products. The meat is then packaged and distributed, by delivery vans, directly to restaurants throughout the central Perth area.

 

The application seeks to amend the previous development approval issued by Council by amending Condition 10 which relates to the term of approval of the Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility) use, but does not propose to change the nature of the use in any way. As such, all remaining conditions (including hours of operation), included in Attachment 2, are proposed to remain unchanged.

 

The development plans and applicant’s supporting letter are included as Attachment 3.

 

It should be noted that in terms of car parking the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements requires the use to have two bays available on site, with four being provided. The proposal involves a surplus of four bays.

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Previously approved

Requires Discretion

Land Use

 

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

 

Hours of Operation

 

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

 

“A” Use

 

 

Industry – Light (Meat Packing Facility)

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation for the proposal occurred for a period of 14 days from 12 October 2018 to 26 October 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by a means of 19 written notifications being sent to all adjoining landowners as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice in the local newspaper. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, no submissions had been received.

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. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to amend an application previously determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Thriving Places

 

·       We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The use includes the processing, packing and storage of meat products, and is considered an Industry –Light for the purposes of LPS2.

 

The subject site is zoned District Centre Zone under LPS2, which has the following objectives:

 

·       To provide a community focus point for people, services, employment and leisure that are highly accessible and do not expand into or adversely impact on adjoining residential areas.

·       To encourage high quality, pedestrian friendly, street orientated development that responds to and enhances the key elements of each District Centre, and to develop area for pubic interaction.

·       To ensure levels of activity, accessibility and diversity of uses and density is sufficient to sustain public transport and enable casual surveillance of public spaces.

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

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

·       To provide a broad range of employment opportunities to encourage diversity and self-sufficiency within the Centre.

·       To encourage the retention and promotion of uses including but not limited to specialty shopping, restaurants, cafes and entertainment.

·       To ensure that the City’s District Centres are developed with due regard to State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

 

The use contributes to the broad range of employment opportunities and retention of diverse uses and is complementary to the surrounding uses on Wellman Street, which include commercial and light industry uses including food packing and processing, shoe care products and other food industries. The use is consistent with the objectives of the District Centre zone.

 

Council must consider the compatibility of the use with its setting, which in this case, is the residential zoned land to the west. The following is relevant:

 

·       Between June 2015 and February 2017, the City received complaints from surrounding residents in regards to noise and delivery trucks arriving outside of the hours of operation. No complaints have been received since February 2017, indicating that the business has rectified these matters and is operating within their conditions of development approval.

·       The traffic is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Wellman Street is used only as a vehicle access point by the residential properties facing Brookman Street and as an access road for the other commercial and light industry businesses along Wellman Street.

·       The use will continue to operate between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Friday, which includes any truck movements to and from the site.

·       The use contributes to the diverse uses within the zone, and contributes to passive surveillance of the residential properties backing on to Wellman Street.

·       No objections were received from the nearby residential properties.

 

The use can be operated in a manner that mitigates any external impacts. A further time limitation is not necessary. It is open to Council to impose a time limitation on any approval.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed use of the site. The continuation of the Industry – Light (Meat Packing Facility) use is appropriate and in accordance with the objectives of the District Centre zone of LPS2.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.2          No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Cafe

TRIM Ref:                  D18/170571

Author:                     Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Parking Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a minor parking restriction amendment to convert the existing on-street adjacent to No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth, from Loading Zone to 1/4P At All Times; and

2.       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 Shop to Restaurant/Café at No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

2.1     Use of Premises

2.1.1  The area shown as ‘Restaurant/Café’ on the approved plans shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Restaurant/Café’ as defined by the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

2.1.2  The maximum of 63 people shall be on site at any one time;

2.2     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;

2.3     Cash in Lieu

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $6,750 shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of 1.25 car bays, based on the cost of $5,400 per bay as set out in the City’s 2018/2019 Schedule of Fees and Charges. prior to the commencement of development or by entering into a written agreement to the City to pay the cash-in-lieu over an agreed period up to five years;

2.4     Bicycle Facilities

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $800 shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of three bicycle bays;

2.5     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

2.6     General

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from a Shop to a Restaurant/Café at No. 342 William Street, Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the use of the subject tenancy as a dine-in and take-away restaurant, employing up to two staff members and accommodating up to 56 dine in customers at any one time, with five additional chairs to be provided for takeaway customers.

 

The proposed hours and days of operation are Tuesday to Sunday from 11:00am to 2:00pm and 5:00pm to 10:00pm.

Background:

Landowner:

Lon Tran and My Linh Lam

Applicant:

Lon Tran and My Linh Lam

Date of Application:

22 August 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

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

Built Form Area:

Town Centre

Existing Land Use:

Shop

Proposed Use Class:

Restaurant/Cafe

Lot Area:

248m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located near the intersection of William Street and Newcastle Street and is currently vacant. The site accommodated no car or bicycle parking.

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 in the following section.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Car Parking

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

 

ü

 


 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Car bays

9.45 car bays required based on 0.15 bays per person

 

Bicycle Facilities

1 short term bicycle bay required

2 long term bicycle bays required

 

 

 

The site accommodates no vehicle or bicycle parking and the proposal does not involve the provision of any such parking.

 

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 City’s application was required to be advertised as the proposal does not meet the parking minimum parking requirements imposed by the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements. This variation is required to be advertised to the surrounding land owners, as per the requirements of Policy No. 4.1.5 - Community Consultation. The application was advertised from 18 October 2018 to 31 October 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, both being objections to the proposal. The main concerns raised within the submissions are:

 

·       that the proposal erodes the diversity of uses in the area;

·       the impact that the lack of parking may have on the area;

·       the pressure that the take-away component of the restaurant may have on parking, in terms of short term parking requirements, and the illegal parking that may be caused by this;

·       whether the proposal includes alfresco seating, and that the applicant had not, at the time of advertising, provided a Parking Management Plan.

 

A summary of submissions and officer’s comments can be found at 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; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential 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 proposes a parking bay shortfall greater than five bays.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Thriving Places

 

·       We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

Car parking requirements for a restaurant/café are determined by Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements. Under the Policy, the proposed use requires the provision of 9.45 parking bays. As the proposal does not involve the provision of any bays, the applicant was required to submit a Parking Management Plan. The submitted Parking Management plan is included as Attachment 3. In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       The subject site was granted development approval as a Shop in October 1985. Whilst it is not clear what specific parking concession was granted at the time, based on the current Policy requirements, the existing Shop would require the provision of 8.2 bays. The site accommodates a nominal credit of that number of bays, meaning that the current proposal represents a further variation of only 1.25 bays.

·       On-street parking is available along William Street, subject to a 2 hour time limitation between 8:00am and 7:00pm, every day.

·       There are approximately 25 existing bicycle bays in the surrounding area which can provide for standard short term bicycle parking in the area.

·       As the subject site is located on William Street, with no rear access or room available on the site that is not occupied by the building, there is no opportunity to provide further parking bays on site.

·       The applicant has indicated that they expect many customers to utilise public transport or walk to their premises. The subject site is located 700 metres from Perth train station, and the Blue Cat runs along Aberdeen Street with the closest stop approximately 240 metres from the subject site. Transperth bus numbers 16, 60, 64, 67, 68, 653 and 950 all run along Beaufort Street, with services running every 5 to 10 minutes during peak periods. The closest bus stop, located adjacent to Weld Square, is approximately 400 metres away from the subject site.

·       Given the central location of the site, it is expected that at least some of the customers to the restaurant will also visit other sites in the local area, which would reduce the impact of the parking shortfall.

·       A loading zone (with a 15 minute maximum time limit) is located directly in front of the subject tenancy, providing easy access to the site for delivery vehicles.  It is open to Council to convert this bay to a 15 minute pick up and drop off bay, so as to maintain access for loading/unloading purposes but also providing opportunities for takeaway delivery drivers.

·       Existing scooter and motor cycle parking (for up to approximately 10 vehicles) is provided in front of the Moon Café at No. 323 William Street, which is located in close proximity to the subject site and will be able to be used by delivery drivers.

 

In terms of the required bicycle facilities, there is inadequate space to accommodate any additional bicycle facilities directly adjacent to the restaurant. There is the ability to accommodate such facilities in close proximity to the subject tenancy, which will enable use by visitors to the restaurant. Council’s Policy requires the provision of one short-term facility and two long-term facilities. 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. Long-term bays are unlikely to be utilised for that purpose. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to require the payment of cash-in-lieu for two short term facilities so as to provide short term alternative transport options. Whilst the facilities only accommodate short-term parking, the provision of two facilities would provide parking for up to four bicycles; which would provide a greater capacity than the standard Policy requirement.

 

The proposal is acceptable, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

 

Activation of the area

 

The immediate surrounding locality is characterised by a range of uses including shops and restaurants/cafes, including a wide range of Asian restaurants and grocery stores, which have created a precinct that attracts both tourists and locals to an area that is easily accessible by public transport and walking. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with both the character of the local area and the various objectives of the District Centre zone. The City’s Place Management team has indicated that the subject area is currently experiencing issues with businesses closing down and that commercial uses that results in foot traffic and activity on the street should be encouraged.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to exercise its discretion regarding this development application for a change of use to a restaurant/café in terms of the provision of car parking.

 

The proposed land use and associated car parking is appropriate for the subject site and would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.3          No. 47 (Lot: 502; D/P: 50409) Jugan Street, Mount Hawthorn - S.31 Reconsideration - Proposed Five Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D18/165733

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 - Extract of Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 July 2018 and Refused Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Current (amended) Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Acoustic Report

5.       Attachment 5 - 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 24 July 2018 and APPROVES the application for the proposed Five Grouped Dwellings at No. 47 (Lot: 502; D/P: 50409) Jugan Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1.       Boundary Walls

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

2.       External Fixtures

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

3.       Construction Management Plan

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

4.       Stormwater

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

5.       Schedule of External Finishes

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

6.       Verge Tree

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

7.       Clothes Drying Facility

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

8.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

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

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·       The provision of a minimum 30 percent canopy cover at maturity; and

·       The provision of three new street trees along the verges of Jugan and Leeder Streets at the full cost of the applicant; and

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

9.       Car Parking and Access

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

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

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

10.     Acoustic Report

All recommended measures in the Acoustic Report submitted as part of this development application shall be undertaken in accordance with the report 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;

11.     Street Walls and Fence

The infill panels of the front fencing shall be 75 per cent visually permeable, in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes; and

12.     General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To reconsider an application for development approval for five grouped dwellings at No. 47 Jugan Street Mount Hawthorn (subject site) at the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of five, two-storey grouped dwellings facing Leeder Street. The vehicle access/egress for the grouped dwellings will be via a shared common driveway along the rear of the subject site accessible from Jugan Street. The plans can be viewed in Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Lucia Anna Stott

Applicant:

New Country Dev Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

4 April 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R100

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwellings (5)

Lot Area:

891m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is a corner lot, located at the intersection of Jugan Street and Leeder Street, which terminates at a cul-de-sac. The site abuts a single storey dwelling to the north, and a church is located across Leeder Street to the south. The church is the only other development on Leeder Street. The subject site abuts vacant land to the west which is privately owned, zoned R100 and has no previous or current development applications or approvals. The subject site and the neighbouring sites along Jugan Street are zoned R100, however the sites along the opposite side of Jugan Street are zoned R60. The site and surrounding area are characterised by a mix of single and grouped dwellings developments ranging from one to three storeys in height. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2018, Council resolved to refuse the development application for five grouped dwellings at the subject site as it was considered to lack the provision of visitor bays, had inadequate space for outdoor living areas and had insufficient provision of stores.

 

The previous determination and plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

Following Council’s refusal, the applicant submitted an application for review with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Administration attended a Mediation Session on 5 October 2018, where the City accepted reconsideration of the application, subject to amended plans being provided that addressed Council’s 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:

 

1.       The size of the outdoor living areas for each dwelling have been increased so as to be compliant with the area requirements of the R Codes.

 

2.       The storerooms for units 2, 3 and 4 have been relocated to the balcony, and now satisfy the deemed to comply requirements in terms of size. It should be noted that the store for units 1 and 5 remain in the garages and are also compliant.

 

3.       Changes to the colours and materials used in this design, as follows:

 

·       Timber detailing has been included within the gables of the dwellings.

·       The infill panels for the front fencing have been changed to be vertical panels to match the vertical battens in the gables.

·       The balustrading for the balconies have been changed to vertical infill to match the front fence and battens within the gables of the dwelling.

·       Parts of the balcony have remained red brickwork rather than having all glass panels, resulting in the use of a variety of materials, and assisting in providing an element of privacy for the occupants of the dwellings.

·       The provision of exposed eaves to the dwellings to enhance the character of the dwelling and provide visual interest.

·       Parts of the grey render on the upper floor have been changed to white render.

·       The white cladding on the upper floor has been changed to a light grey colour.

 

Council is now required to reconsider the proposal pursuant to Section 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 State Government’s Residential Design Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Roof Form

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

 

ü

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Outbuildings

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks and Walls Built on Boundary

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

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

 

West

 

Unit 5:

Upper Floor

Whole wall

Setback Required = 2.2m

 

Ground floor

Kitchen to living room wall

Setback Required = 1.5m

 

 

 

West

 

Unit 5:

Upper Floor

Whole wall

Setback Provided = 1.3m – 1.7m

 

Ground floor

Kitchen to living room wall

Setback Provided = 1.017m – 1.5m

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas of the R Codes

 

In accordance with Table 1 of the R Codes, each of the five grouped dwelling is required to have a 16 metre squared outdoor living area that must be:

 

·       Behind the street setback area;

·       Directly accessible from a habitable room of the dwelling;

·       Minimum length and width dimensions of 4m;

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

Unit 1: Balcony

Minimum dimension: 1.2m

 

Unit 1: Courtyard

Located within the street setback area.

 

Unit 2: Balcony

Area without permanent roof cover: Nil

 

Unit 3: Balcony

Area without permanent roof cover: Nil

 

Unit 4: Balcony

Area without permanent roof cover: Nil

 

Unit 5: Balcony

Area without permanent roof cover: Nil

 

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.3 Parking of the R Codes

 

1 visitor car bay provided on site provided by common access.

 

 

No shared visitor car bay provided on site.

 

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:

The proposal submitted for the reconsideration did not require additional community consultation as the development plans have not significantly changed from those previously considered by Council, and do not involve further departures from the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The original application was referred to the DRP for comments on the 27 April 2018. The comments received are summarised as follows:

 

·       Consider more articulation between the dwellings so that they look more like individual dwellings.

·       Consider tandem parking to reduce the bulk of garages, potentially from two crossovers at Leeder Street. This would allow for north facing outdoor living areas and allow the dwellings to have better frontage to the primary street.

·       Consider bringing the brickwork to the ground to emphasise the townhouse look. The gable end design elements could be further developed and emphasised to provide rhythm and provide a sense of individual identity for each of the townhouses.

·       Unit 1 is a prominent unit on the corner. It needs to be carefully considered, perhaps with its own design elements to depart from the repetition of the adjacent units.

·       Fencing is continuous and repetitive. Consider how the fence could be more informed and altered by redesign of the proposal; potentially reduced in height and made more visually permeable.

·       Concerns regarding the lack of response to the north facing aspect and Jugan Street, including an unattractive facade to the driveway.

·       Reconsider the orientation of the outdoor living areas to face north. The dimensions of the outdoor living areas need to be revised and compliant with the requirements of the R Codes. Consider flipping the design to provide private, rear courtyards.

·       The site does not allow for the planting of mature trees to achieve canopy cover. Increase canopy cover to enhance the amenity of residents. Consider using native tree and shrub species to enhance local biodiversity.

 

Subsequently, the applicant lodged amended plans on 29 May 2018 to address the above comments. On 25 June 2018, the applicant submitted further plans detailing amendments to the materials and landscaping. It was the later plans that were refused by Council on 24 July 2018.

 

The plans submitted for reconsideration were referred to the Chair of the DRP for comments. In respect of the impact on the streetscape, the Chair commented that whilst the built form and scale of the corner unit is poorly resolved, he is supportive of the simplicity of the building materials, brick render and the corrugated roof used in the development.

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 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 appeal 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 five grouped dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Sensitive Design

 

·       Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

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. Some aspects of the proposal comply with applicable standards.  The proposal maintains some departures to the requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The ground floor is set back 1.017 metres to 1.5 metres in lieu of the required 1.5 metres, and the portions of the upper floor are set back 1.3 metres to 1.7 metres in lieu of 2.2 metres.

 

In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       The setback variation for the ground floor is relatively minor, and would be mitigated by the provision of a standard 1.8 metre residential dividing fence.

·       The setback variation for the upper floor would not inhibit natural light and ventilation from reaching the neighbouring site, and would not present undue bulk to the adjoining property, which is currently vacant land adjacent to the Mitchell Freeway.

·       The upper floor has no major openings facing towards the western boundary and would not result in a loss of privacy.

·       No objections to the setback variation were received from the owners of the abutting property.

 

Based on the above, the setback variations are considered acceptable.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

One of the outdoor living areas for unit 1 involves a dimension less than 4 metres (balcony) and the other is located within the street setback area (courtyard). In considering these matters, the following is relevant:

 

·       Unit 1 is provided is provided with both a balcony and a ground level courtyard. The combined area of those two spaces is 39.3 metres squared, well above the deemed to comply requirement.

·       Both spaces are capable of use in conjunction with habitable rooms.

·       Both spaces have a northern exposure and access to winter sun.

 

The outdoor living areas for units 2 to 5 have no portion that is uncovered, in lieu of the required minimum two-thirds of outdoor living area required to be uncovered. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       The outdoor living areas are directly accessed from habitable rooms of the dwelling.

·       The open nature of the balconies and their north facing aspect means that they will be open to winter sun and ventilation.

·       The balconies being raised above the natural ground level allows them to optimise the full extent of the northern aspect of the site.

 

The proposed outdoor living areas meet the Design Principles and are acceptable.

 

Parking and Access

 

The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the R Codes for visitor parking, as no shared visitor parking is provided in lieu of the one bay required. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       Due to the site’s proximity to Glendalough train station, the proposed development falls into Location A under the R Codes, with each dwelling requiring only one car bay. As each dwelling is provided with two car bays, the site is provided with 10 resident bays in excess of the 5 required. This is considered to assist in alleviating any pressure placed on the surrounding area through the lack of an on-site visitor bay.

·       The subject site is located approximately 450 metres away from Glendalough train station and 600 metres away from the bus stop at Anzac Road before Powis Street, which is serviced by a bus every 8 to 10 minutes in peak hour. The subject site is well serviced by public transport which would assist in mitigating the lack of a shared visitor bay.

·       Leeder Street provides no access to the bike path located adjacent to Mitchell Freeway. Access is provided from the south end of Jugan Street, approximately 150 metres from the subject site.

·       There are a number of car parking bays constructed within the Leeder Street verge.

·       Given the low volumes of traffic, Leeder Street is able to accommodate on-street parking, particularly given the only other development in the cul-de-sac is a church.

 

The lack of a shared visitor parking bay would not impact on the locality as a surplus of parking is provided on site. The variation is acceptable.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposal does not comply with the Built Form Policy’s requirements for landscaping, proposing 13.7 percent deep soil zone in lieu of the required 15 percent, and 25 percent tree canopy in lieu of the 30 percent canopy cover. The site could accommodate 30 percent canopy cover by incorporating appropriate tree species and distribution. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.

 

The development plans incorporate the provision of an additional street tree along Leeder Way. The applicant is willing to provide a further two street trees along Jugan Street in order to increase the tree canopy of the area and reduce the visual impact of the proposed two-storey development. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.

 

The proposed landscaping responds to the relevant design principles through the provision of tree canopy and deep soil zones that would contribute to the City’s green canopy and would reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding residential area. The proposal is acceptable from a landscaping perspective.

 

Design

 

The storerooms for units 2, 3 and 4 have been relocated to the balconies and have been reconfigured to meet the minimum dimension requirements. The proposed storerooms are an inferior outcome and would materially affect the use of the subject balconies.

 

The applicant has made very minor changes to the building treatments in an attempt to make the development more sympathetic to the streetscape and local area. The addition of the timber detailing and exposed eaves does reflect elements of the broader locality and are supported. The DRP Chair is supportive of the simplicity of the building materials, brick render and the corrugated roof used in the development. The built form and scale of the corner unit is poorly resolved but, the visual impact of the Jugan Street elevation would be effectively moderated by the provision of on-site landscaping as well as two street trees.

 

Acoustic Report

 

Due to the proximity of the subject site to the Mitchell Freeway, the applicant has provided an acoustic report prepared by Resonate Consultants, dated 2 July 2018, in accordance with the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise.

 

An acoustic report was requested to ensure that any noise attenuation measures required to be implemented at Building Permit stage would not require changes to the design of the proposed dwellings. Some noise attenuation measures have been recommended such as thicker glazing on windows. The recommended measures would have no impact on the proposed design of the dwellings.

 

The noise attenuation requirements for the proposed dwellings would have no impact on the design and no impact on the recommendation for planning approval of this development.

 

Conclusion

 

The previous reasons for refusal related to the lack of a visitor bay, inadequate space for outdoor living areas and insufficient provision of stores. The amended proposal has increased the minimum dimension of the outdoor living areas and the stores, resolving these variations. The proposal has not included a visitor bay but the development provides 10 resident bays in lieu of the five required, which is ample parking for the development.

 

It is recommended that Council sets aside its previous decision and resolves to approve the application subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.4          No. 108 (Lot: 3; D/P: 3110) Vincent Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/164405

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Statement of Use

4.       Attachment 4 - Car Parking Management Plan

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a proposed Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 108 (Lot: 3; D/P: 3110) Vincent Street, North Perth, in accordance with the 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     This approval relates to a Change of Use from ‘Single House’ to ‘Unlisted Use (Millinery)’ on the approved plans dated 9 May 2018. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2     A maximum of one employee and three customers shall occupy the building at any one time; and

1.3     The hours of operation for the ‘Unlisted Use (Millinery)’ shall be limited to between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday;

2.       Car Parking and Access

A minimum of one car bay shall be provided for the exclusive use of the Unlisted Use (Millinery);

3.       Signage

A maximum of one external sign is permitted, which shall not exceed 0.5 square metres in area; and

4.       General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 108 Vincent Street, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the use of the existing Single House on the subject site to an Unlisted Use (Millinery). The millinery business involves the design, sewing and sale of boutique hats. The applicant’s millinery business is currently operating at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, as per a development approval for an Unlisted Use granted on 9 October 2013.

 

The Unlisted Use (Millinery) is proposed to operate Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm. The business would operate with a single employee and the majority of the business sales occur through the website. A maximum of three customers are expected to be on the site at any one time. Customers are not expected to be on the site on a regular basis.

 

The application does not propose any physical works to the exterior of the building. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant has also provided a statement of use and parking management plan (Attachments 3 and 4).

Background:

Landowner:

Julie Mitcheson-Low and Mark Mitcheson-Low

Applicant:

Julie Mitcheson-Low and Mark Mitcheson-Low

Date of Application:

6 July 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House and Ancillary Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Millinery)

Lot Area:

597.1m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 5.0 metres in width, sealed and owned by the City of Vincent

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Vincent Street and comprises a Single House and an Ancillary Dwelling. The site is bound by a Right of Way (ROW) to the north, Norfolk Street to the east, Vincent Street to the south and two Grouped Dwellings to the west (currently under construction).

 

The application was originally lodged as a change of use from Single House to Office to facilitate the use of the Single House as an architectural firm. Prior to the application being advertised, the applicant amended the development application to change the purpose of the proposed Office from an architectural firm to a millinery business.

 

The activities would most appropriately be classed as an Unlisted Use, despite the applicant requesting the application be assessed as an Office. Following community consultation, the applicant was advised that Administration was not supportive of approving an Office use on the subject site due to the flexibility the Office land use provides for future tenants and the car parking shortfall provided on the site. The applicant subsequently amended the application to change the use of the site from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery).

 

The subject site contains both a Single House and an Ancillary Dwelling. The existing dwelling on the subject site is a federation style home which it is not listed on the local or State heritage register. The federation style home has been maintained in a good condition and contains many of the traditional federation features. The proposal would re-use the existing building on the site with no modification proposed to the external façade. Should the current application use be approved, the Ancillary Dwelling would be considered as a Single House. The conversion of the Ancillary Dwelling to a Single House is exempt from development approval as the building meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for car parking and outdoor living areas under the Residential Design Codes. The applicant has indicated that the Ancillary Dwelling is currently vacant.

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) and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy).  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

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

“P” Use

 

 

Unlisted Use is considered an “A” use in accordance with Clause 18(4)(b) of LPS2

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Parking Requirement

 

Unlisted Uses have no prescribed parking requirement under Table 1 of the Parking Policy, with parking to be determined by the City based on a site specific parking management plan.

 

 

 

The application proposes one on-site parking bay and is supported by a parking management plan.

 

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 for the original proposal (change of use to an Office) was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 21 days from 11 August 2018 to 1 September 2018. The method of consultation included a sign being placed on site, a notice being placed in the local newspaper and ten letters being mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

During the community consultation, the City received three submissions neither supporting nor objecting to the change of use, but raising the following concerns:

 

·       Appropriateness of an Office use within the Residential zone;

·       Appropriateness of an Office use within a Single House with heritage character;

·       The negative impact any future signage would have on the residential streetscape character;

·       Inadequate provision of car parking relative to the size of the subject building; and

·       Concerns that the development may operate at a more intense scale than proposed by the applicant.

 

The amended application for a change of use to Unlisted Use (Millinery) was re-advertised for a period of 14 days from 10 October 2018 to 24 October 2018. Ten letters were mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site (see Attachment 1).

 

Two submissions were received objecting to the proposal. The submissions raised the following key concerns:

 

·       Inconsistency with the objectives of the Residential zone and potential impact of the development of the residential character and amenity of the area;

·       Concerns regarding the lack of activity at the subject site outside of business hours;

·       Concerns over the visual impact of any future commercial signage;

·       Inadequate provision of car parking to service the development;

·       Safety concerns regarding the nearby intersection at Vincent Street and Norfolk Street; and

·       Concerns regarding the appropriateness of the Ancillary Dwelling.

 

Administration’s response to the summary of submissions is provided in 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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

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:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes an Unlisted Use.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Thriving Places

 

·       We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

The subject site is zoned Residential under the City’s LPS2. The nearby properties to the north, east and west are also zoned Residential and the land located to the south is reserved as Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

 

The proposed ‘Millinery’ land use is not specifically identified in the land use table provided in LPS2 and does not fall within the interpretation of one of the land use definitions, particularly given that the operator of the business would not reside on the subject site. In accordance with Clause 18(4) of LPS2, Council is required to have regard to the objectives of the Residential zone in determining the appropriateness of an Unlisted Use. The LPS2 provides the following objectives for the Residential zone:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

In considering the appropriateness of the proposed use, the following is relevant:

 

·       The development proposes to operate at a low scale with one employee and up to a maximum of three customers at any one time. If the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition is imposed to this effect;

·       Customer visitation is infrequent with the majority of sales being processed online;

·       The existing Single House has four bedrooms and could accommodate a similar or greater level of activity than that proposed by the Unlisted Use (Millinery) if it were used for residential purposes.  The scale of development is compatible and complimentary with the residential area;

·       If the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring any future signage to be of the same scale as the signage permitted for a Home Business. This would ensure the streetscape character is retained;

·       The subject site will still serve a residential function by virtue of the existing Ancillary Dwelling which will effectively become a Single House; and

·       The City has no records of receiving any complaints relating to the operations of the existing Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone.

 

Car Parking

 

In accordance with the City’s Parking Policy, Unlisted Uses are required to be determined on a case by case basis on a site specific management plan. The applicant has provided a parking management plan (see Attachment 4).

 

The parking management plan outlines that there are two onsite car bays. The second car bay is associated with the Ancillary Dwelling on the site which does not form part of this application. There is only one dedicated car bay available to the Unlisted Use (Millinery).

 

In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       During the consultation period, a number of submissions were received objecting to the proposal and raising concerns regarding car parking and impact on the availability of on-street parking bays;

 

·       The business has been operating with one car bay at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth since 2013. The City has no records of any complaints being received in relation to car parking from this property. The development can operate at the proposed scale with one car bay without having a detrimental impact on the locality;

 

·       There is currently on-street car parking available directly adjacent to the subject site along Vincent Street and Norfolk Street. These on-street car bays are subject to a three hour parking limit and are generally used by visitors to Hyde Park. The proposed operating hours are 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday, which is typically the off-peak period for visitors to Hyde Park;

 

·       The subject site is located 350 metres from the Fitzgerald Street high frequency bus route and 375 metres from the William Street high frequency bus route;

 

·       The parking management plan outlines that there would be a provision of bicycle parking facilities on the subject site, which would be supported by the existing end of trip facilities, including a bathroom, shower and storage room; and

 

·       As part of the development approval for No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, the applicant paid a cash-in-lieu contribution of $5,837 for car parking. It is not necessary to require a further cash-in-lieu contribution, given a contribution has already been made for this business for another site in North Perth.

 

There is sufficient parking on the site and within the immediate locality as well as adequate public transport to service the development.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to exercise its discretion with respect to the acceptability of the proposed land use and car parking. The proposed Unlisted Use (Millinery) is a low intensity use that is compatible with the subject site and surrounding locality. The impact of the development can be appropriately managed through conditions of approval to ensure the development has no undue impact on the nearby residential properties. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the recommended conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.5          No. 157 (Lot: 17; D/P: 1509) Loftus Street, Leederville - Proposed Four Dwellings (Multiple)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/176382

Authors:                   Andrea Terni, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Application Supporting Information

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Applicant's Response to Submissions

6.       Attachment 6 - Department of Planning comments

7.       Attachment 7 - Design Review Panel comments

8.       Attachment 8 - Sustainable Design Assessment Report

9.       Attachment 9 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Four Dwellings (Multiple) at No. 157 (Lot: 17; D/P: 1509) Loftus Street, Leederville in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 9:

1.       Landscaping

1.1     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:

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

·       The location of canopy cover at maturity equating to no less than 30 percent of the site;

1.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 1.1 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;

2.       Schedule of External Finishes

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

3.       Boundary Walls

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

4.       External Fixtures

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

5.       Stormwater

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

6.       Access

Prior to the first occupation of the development, the full length and width of the adjacent Right of Way shall be sealed and drained in accordance with the City’s specification at the full cost of the develop;

7.       Acoustic Report

An Acoustic Report shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit application, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.21 relating to Sound Attenuation. The recommended measures of the acoustic report shall be implemented and certification provided by an acoustic consultant that the measures have been undertaken, prior to the first occupation of the development;

8.       Construction Management Plan

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

9.       Environmentally Sustainable Design

Prior to the issuing of an Occupancy Permit, the Applicant must implement the recommendations of the submitted Sustainable Design Assessment Report. All initiatives must be maintained for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City; and

10.     General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for four dwellings (Multiple) at No. 157 Loftus Street, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of four two-storey multiple dwellings; consisting of three, three bedroom multiple dwellings and one, two bedroom multiple dwelling. Each dwelling will be provided with separate vehicle access from Austen lane and the right of way (ROW). A total of eight car parking bays have been included onsite with two car bays provided in tandem formation for each unit.


 

Background:

Landowner:

Kentville holdings Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Pindan Homes Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

26 September 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor (Three storey height limit)

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Dwellings (Multiple)

Lot Area:

534m² (The property is subject to road widening and ROW widening)

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, 4.0 to 5.0 metres wide, drained and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 157 Loftus Street, Leederville, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject site currently comprises of a single storey house.

 

The subject site is bound by Loftus Street to the east and Austen Lane to the south. The immediate adjoining properties adjacent Loftus Street are characterised by single storey houses and the surrounding properties adjacent Austen Lane are characterised by single and double storey houses. The property directly adjoining the northern lot boundary has undergone a survey strata subdivision and consists of an existing single storey grouped dwelling fronting Loftus Street and two vacant lots to the rear which have recently been approved for single storey grouped dwellings. Council has also approved an application for 10 multiple dwellings (across three storeys) at No. 161 Loftus Street. Development is currently in progress for the site.

 

Loftus Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is affected by a 1.1 metre portion of ORR reservation as per the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) Land Requirement Plan. The property is also subject to a one metre ROW widening requirement.

 

A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s supporting information of the proposed development is included as Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table. Administration has used a net site area of 504.65 square metres (the parent lot excluding the required road and RoW widening).

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Building Size

 

ü

Street Setback

 

ü

Front Fence

ü

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Roof Form

ü

 

Open Space

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Visual Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

 

ü

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Building Size

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.1.1

 

Plot Ratio: 0.7 (354.809m2)

 

 

Plot Ratio: 0.84 (425.7m2)

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.1.3

 

Secondary street setback: 2.0m

 

 

Secondary street setback: 1.25m

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.1.4

 

Western lot boundary

 

Unit 4, Bedroom 3: 6.5m from the mid-point of the ROW

 

 

Unit 4, Balcony: 7.5m from the mid-point of the ROW

 

 

Western lot boundary

 

Unit 4, Bedroom 3: 6.4m from the midway point of the ROW

 

Unit 4, Balcony: 6.6m from the midway point of the ROW

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.1.5

 

Open space = 45%

 

 

Open space = 37.77%

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.4.1

 

Unit 1, dining room: 4.5m

 

Unit 4, bedroom 2: 3.0m

 

 

Unit 1, dining room: 4.4m

 

Unit 4, bedroom 2: 2.6m

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.3.3

 

Visitor car parking bays: 1

 

 

Visitor car parking bays: Nil

Site Works / Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 6.3.6 and 6.3.7

 

Excavation and retaining: 0.5m

 

 

Excavation: 0.8m along the northern lot boundary

 

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:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 23 October 2018 and concluding on 5 November 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners within a 75 metre radius of the subject property, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. Four submissions were received by the City during the community consultation period. Two submissions were received objecting to the proposal and two submissions were received neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal.

 

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

 

·       Concerns regarding the building size and lack of open space due to the over development of the site;

·       The bulk and mass of the development creating a negative impact on the current and evolving streetscape of Austen Lane;

·       The lack of landscaping proposed and the visual impact of a hardstand streetscape;

·       The shortfall in car parking increasing the reliance on street car parking to Austen Lane and Galwey Street;

·       Concerns regarding road safety on Austen Lane and how local traffic would cope and be impacted within a narrow and congested street; and

·       Driveways should be orientated to exit onto Austen Lane rather than the ROW to avoid damage to the adjoining property.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 4.

 

In response to the consultation process and the DRP referral (discussed below), the applicant provided responses to the submissions received (included as Attachment 5) and also lodged the following modifications:

 

·       The removal of the visitor car parking bay which increases the open space and deep soil zone of the site;

·       The setback to the Unit 4 garage being increased from 3.9 metres to 5.7 metres to provide for a second parking space in a tandem configuration;

·       A context plan to portray the development within the existing streetscape;

·       Sections of the development;

·       An outline of the adjacent dwellings;

·       An overshadowing diagram confirming shadow over Austen Lane; and

·       A schedule of the materials and finishes to confirm the architectural features of the proposed development.

 

Administration subsequently provided the amended plans to the submitters who raised objections to the proposal to allow them to provide feedback on the amended plans. Administration did not receive any responses on the amended plans.

 

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

 

Administration referred the proposed development plans to the DPLH for comments. The comments received are included as Attachment 6 and are summarised as follows:

 

·       The site is affected by a 1.1 metre portion of ORR reservation for Loftus Street and no permanent structures are permitted within the road widening area;

·       The access arrangements are in accordance with WAPC’s Regional Roads (Vehicle Access) Policy which seeks to minimise the number of new crossovers onto regional roads;

·       Given the proximity of the proposed development to the Other Regional Road, due considerations shall be given to State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning; and

·       The DPLH has no objection to the proposal on regional planning transport grounds subject to the above recommendations.

 

To address the DPLH comments, Administration recommends the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of an acoustic report for approval by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

Administration referred the original development plans to the Chair of the DRP for comments. The comments received are included as Attachment 7 and are summarised as follows:

 

·       The applicant should consider pitching the roof from the high point north to the low point south to enable northern light to penetrate the upper living areas and/or bedrooms. This would also improve the massing and aesthetics of the building from the two streets;

·       The visitor bay is in an awkward location and the City should encourage its deletion as it impacts on the amenity of Unit 3;

·       An elevation or 3D image showing the development in context;

·       Provide north-south and east-west sections of the development from the right-of-way to Loftus Street;

·       Provide plans of the northern lot and development west of the right-of-way;

·       Show shadow diagrams; and

·       Prepare external materials and finishes schedule.

 

The modified plans appropriately address the comments made by the DRP.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

·       Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans.

 

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:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development incorporates more than three dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Sensitive Design

 

·       Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.


 

Comments:

Building Size

 

·       The property is located in a Transit Corridor built form area permitting a maximum building height of three storeys. The development proposes two storeys which minimise the building bulk on adjoining properties and is consistent with the existing built form of the locality which is predominantly single storey and double storey dwellings;

·       The design of the development incorporates multiple articulations and open style balconies to the street which provide visual relief and a significant reduction of building bulk to the streetscape;

·       The development incorporates a number of design measures to reduce the impact of bulk and scale to the surrounding properties including feature face brickwork (Midland Brick Subiaco Red), feature cladding (James Hardie Primeline Cladding, Newport, Timber Look Stain) and multiple extensive major openings which assist in the breakup of solid wall dominating the streetscape. The provision of major openings and balconies provide an ‘open’ appearance to the building and significantly reduced the overall building mass to the street; and

·       Landscaping has also been incorporated around the perimeter of the building. The landscaping proposed assists in softening the appearance of the built form and mitigating effects of the building to the street.

 

The proposed development retains elements of the existing character building onsite by incorporating the predominant building material of red brick. The development proposes elevations that are well articulated with contrasting materials, colours, openings and façade depths that moderate the visual impact of the built form. The proposal has been developed within the building envelope with regard to building height, street and lot boundary setbacks. The proposal meets the design principle of the R Codes and is acceptable.

 

Street Setback

 

In considering the acceptability of the secondary street (Austen Lane) setback proposed, the following is noted:

 

·       The design of the proposal has incorporated balconies to the secondary street and the support structures of the balconies protrude into the secondary street setback area only with the main building line setback greater than required;

·       The proposal provides an articulated façade to the street together with contrasting materials and finishes and numerous significant glazed major openings to the external walls of the building;

·       The design provides articulation of the building on the secondary street and minimise the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties from Austen Lane; and

·       The street setback proposed is an appropriate distance as the area between the development and the street boundary has allowed significant landscaping to the secondary street façade which reduces the impact of development on adjoining properties and contributes to a desirable streetscape.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

The application involves an upper floor setback of 6.4 metres from the main building line and a 6.6 metre setback from the balcony, both measured from the mid-point of the Right of Way.

 

In considering the acceptability of the lot boundary setback proposed, the following is noted:

 

·       The development has been designed to incorporate a courtyard area between the main building and the ROW which will allow the provision of considerable landscaping at ground level. This includes three 45 litre Magnolia Little Gem Trees and a 100 litre Gleditsia Sunburst which are positioned immediately between the ROW and the proposed dwelling. The trees assist in minimising the impact of the development from the neighbouring property and provide a sense of open space between the subject dwelling and the dwelling on the other side of the ROW;

·       The development has been designed to not present excessive bulk to the adjoining property from the western lot boundary as the proposal incorporates various materials and finishes, including;

o   Subiaco Red feature face brick work which is incorporated to the ground floor design of the building and to the boundary fence which has been selected to maintain the character of the existing dwelling onsite;

o   Timber look stain feature cladding material to the upper storey portion of the wall between the white rendered brickwork and the roof line of the building which has been selected as a distinctive character material of the local area; and

o   Multiple large glazed openings including an open balcony to minimise the solid visual aspect of the development to the neighbouring properties;

·       The setbacks proposed from the ROW are appropriate in maintaining adequate ventilation and sunlight to the proposed development and the existing dwelling on the other side of the ROW; and

·       The City did not receive comments regarding the lot boundary setback provision.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the Built Form Policy with regards to lot boundary setbacks and is supported.

 

Open Space

 

·       The proposal has been designed to allow for considerable open space surrounding the development which minimises the visual aspect of the building to the street and allows for deep soil vegetation including 13 trees that address Austen Lane, three trees that address Loftus Street and four trees that address the ROW;

·       Courtyard space has been proposed for each of the units on the northern lot boundary in addition to the balconies for each individual unit. The courtyard space provides further opportunities for residents to use space external of the building, reduces the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property and allows for further tree canopy;

·       The building has been designed to provide multiple articulations and setbacks from the street and particularly to the northern lot boundary which maintains direct sun and ventilation and overall amenity to the surrounding properties; and

·       The proposal effectively sets aside approximately 30 square metres of land for road widening. Inclusion of that area as part of the calculation would increase open space to approximately 42 percent.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

 

Visual Privacy

 

In accordance with the R Codes, major openings to bedrooms require a 3 metre setback from the lot boundary and major openings to dining rooms require a 4.5 metre setback. Bedroom 2 to Unit 4 would be setback 2.6 metres from the northern lot boundary and the dining room of Unit 1 would be setback 4.4 metres from the northern lot boundary.

 

In considering the acceptability of visual privacy proposed, the following is noted:

 

·       The setback of the Dining Room is only 0.1m from being Deemed-to-Comply.

·       A major opening is proposed to the upper floor, abutting the stair case of Unit 1 which is proposed to soften the extent of solid wall on the northern elevation by providing glazing and a means of northern light to the upper storey areas of the dwelling. The small portion of overlooking extends into the adjoining property’s pedestrian access way and would not overlook any active habitable space;

·       Bedroom 2 of Unit 4 proposes a major opening on the west elevation which overlooks the adjoining property of No. 159A Loftus Street within the cone of vision. The cone of vision is subject to overlooking of the proposed (approved) roof cover over the front entry and car parking bay. The overlooking would not pose an undue impact on the neighbour’s outdoor active habitable area; and

·       The City did not receive comments regarding the visual privacy provision.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

 

Car Parking

 

In considering the acceptability of the lack of a dedicated visitor bay, the following is noted:

 

·       The development has been designed to provide two exclusive car parking bays in a tandem formation for each unit. The resident car parking provided onsite exceeds the requirement in accordance with the R Codes by three bays.

·       The application involves the provision of bicycle facilities which are located directly in front of the entry to each unit which is appropriate and convenient to the occupants and visitors. The bicycle facilities provided onsite exceed the requirement of the R Codes which requires one bicycle facility to each three dwellings and one bicycle facility to each ten dwellings for visitors;

·       The property is located on a high frequency bus route and is directly adjacent a bus stop on Loftus Street. The property is located in an area that provides alternate transport options given its location on a major bus route;

·       The existing single dwelling on site does not accommodate any visitor parking;

·       There are opportunities for on-street parking within Austen Lane on the development side (north) between the ROW and Loftus Street; and

·       On-street parking in Austen Lane occurs currently and any occasional visitor parking resulting from the subject development would not have a significant impact on the local area.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

 

Site Works and Retaining Walls

 

The development proposes portions of excavation and retaining walls of up to 0.8 metres along the northern lot boundary at its maximum point before tapering down to be consistent with the natural ground level.

 

In considering the acceptability of the site works and retaining walls proposed, the following is noted:

 

·       The excavation is proposed to provide a consistent finished floor level for the dwellings and the courtyards that will be of benefit to the residents specifically to Units 2 and 3;

·       The retaining walls are proposed at a height of 0.8 metres at its maximum height before tapering down toward the street as the site becomes level. The retaining walls are required to provide support of the proposed different ground levels between the subject property and the neighbouring property;

·       The proposed site works and retaining walls would be below natural ground level and do not pose an undue impact on the locality; and

·       The City did not receive comments regarding the site works and retaining walls.

 

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

The applicant provided an ESD Report which forms part of the application to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy. The ESD Report is included in Attachment 8.

 

As per the requirements of the Built Form Policy, the ESD Report demonstrates that the development:

 

1.       Maximises passive solar heating, cooling, natural ventilation and light penetration;

2.       Is capable of recovery and re-use of water run-off;

3.       Installation of climate moderation devices can be incorporate into the building design; and

4.       Is capable of achieving a 5 star Green Star rating in accordance with the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system.

 

The ESD Report outlines the following features that will be considered during construction, including:

 

·       Indoor environment quality;

·       Energy efficiency;

·       Water efficiency;

·       The use of high durable materials;

·       Minimal emissions; and

·       Building innovation.

 

The report demonstrates that the development has been designed to achieve the ESD outcomes which are equivalent to a 5 Star Green Star building. The proposal satisfies the environmentally sustainable design requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy and is acceptable. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submitted ESD report to be implemented.

 

Landscaping

 

The application provides for 14.43 percent deep soil zone and 31.74 percent tree canopy cover at maturity. Given that the site is capable of accommodating over 30 percent canopy, the proposed deep soil zone (being 14.43 percent rather than a deemed-to-comply 15 percent) is considered acceptable, although a detailed landscaping plan is required to confirm the acceptability of the tree species and the reticulation details. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed for a Landscape and Reticulation Plan to be submitted and approved prior to completion of the development.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to building size, street setback, lot boundary setback, open space, landscaping, car parking, site works, retaining walls and visual privacy for this development. The proposed development has been designed to reduce impact on the surrounding properties and the streetscape of Loftus Street and Austen Lane. The applicant has proposed appropriate landscaping of the site, varying materials and finishes and major open style glazing of the dwellings which would reduce impacts of building bulk and provide additional amenity for the locality. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.6          No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Two Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D18/159387

Authors:                   Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - 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, REFUSES the application for two Grouped Dwellings at No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reason:

1.       The development does not satisfy the design principles of Clause 5.4.2 (Solar Access for Adjoining Sites) as it will result in the overshadowing of major openings to the existing dwelling on the abutting No. 3 Scott Street.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two grouped dwellings at No. 5 Scott Street, Leederville.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two two-storey grouped dwellings in a battle-axe configuration, with primary access from Scott Street.

Background:

Landowner:

Colin Carson

Applicant:

Tascone Design

Date of Application:

22 August 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Group)

Lot Area:

607m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No.

Heritage List:

No.

 

The subject site is as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1 and comprises a vacant lot which has been cleared and levelled in preparation for development. The subject site is bound by Scott Street to the east, grouped dwellings to the north and south and a single house to the west. Scott Street and the broader area surrounding the subject site is characterised by one and two-storey single, grouped and multiple dwellings.

 

The subject site and the adjacent lot, No. 7 Scott Street, share a driveway through an access easement on the Certificate of Titles and Deposited Plans. This access easement effectively restricts the manner in which the site can be developed.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the R Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

ü

 

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

 

ü

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2 Street Setback

 

Average of five adjoining properties: 5.98 metres

 

 

3.0 metres

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas

 

Not located within the front setback area

 

 

Located within the front setback area

Solar Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.4.2 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites

 

Maximum overshadowing of 35 percent

 

 

 

41.6 percent

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 28 September 2018 and concluding on 11 October 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.

 

The City received eight submissions: one in support; one expressing concern; and six objecting to the proposal. The submissions received presented concerns relating to overshadowing, visual privacy and the design of the dwellings. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s response to these is included as Attachment 3.

 

Following the first consultation period, the applicant sought to respond to the objections through the submissions of amended plans, which involved the following modifications:

 

·       Increased street setback of dwelling line from 4.4 metres to 5.2 metres and amended façade design;

·       Increased canopy cover; and

·       Re-design of Unit 2 to allow for winter sun to access the southern adjoining dwelling’s ground floor living room window.

 

Administration subsequently provided the amended plans to the submitters who raised objections to the proposal to allow them to provide feedback on the amended plans. Administration did not receive any submissions which raised new concerns. Feedback was provided which reiterated previous concerns received, including:

 

·       Concerns regarding the impact of visual privacy on the property at the rear of the subject site;

·       It is noted that the amended plans now allow winter sun into the highlight window on the upper floor of the rear dwelling on the adjoining property to the south (No. 3A), however, there remains concerns around winter sun being restricted to the downstairs living and outdoor living area; and

·       The solar access to the front dwelling of the adjoining property to the south (No. 3) remains impacted as a result of the proposal.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

Administration referred the proposed development plans to the Chair of the DRP for comment in relation to the street setback and front elevation. The Chair of the DRP was of the opinion that the proposed street setback provides a rhythm along the streetscape, and an appropriate transition between the setbacks on either side of the subject site.

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development application received more than five objections during community consultation, in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register 2018 – 2019.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Sensitive Design

 

·       Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The applicant proposes a street setback of 3.0 metres, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 5.98 metres. The existing setbacks for the dwellings on the abutting properties are as follows:

 

·       No. 1 Scott Street – 6.4 metre street setback;

·       No. 3 Scott Street (immediately south of the subject site) – 6.7 metre street setback;

·       No. 7 Scott Street (immediately north of the subject site) – 2.52 metre street setback;

·       No. 9 Scott Street – 7.5 metre street setback; and

·       No. 11 Scott Street – 6.8 metre street setback.

 

In addition to these properties:

 

·       The developments on the northern and southern ends of the street block have nil setbacks to Scott Street which is the secondary street frontage for each of these properties.

·       The setbacks along the opposite side of Scott Street range from 4.4 metres (being 10 Scott Street) to 9.1 metres (being 4 Scott Street).

 

Whilst the above have not been calculated toward the deemed-to-comply street setback, the street block does provide an inconsistent streetscape.

 

In considering the proposed street setback relative to the applicable Design Principles and Local Housing Objective, the following is relevant:

 

·       The 3.0 meters setback is to the proposed balcony, which occupies only 40 percent of the front and is relatively open and does contribute significant building bulk;

·       The dwelling line (being the main portion of the building excluding the balcony), is setback 5.18 meters from the street;

·       Compared to the equivalent components on the abutting No. 7, the proposed balcony has a 0.5 meter greater setback and the proposed main portion of the building has a 2.2 meters greater setback. The subject proposal provides a reasonable transition between the 2.52 metre setback to the north and 6.7 metre setback to the south;

·       The street setback allows for adequate privacy and open space for both dwellings and allows adequate space for the provision of the required parking and landscaping requirements and all essential facilities and utilities;

·       The provision of the balcony and courtyard within the front setback area provides for additional street surveillance, contributing to a safer public realm;

·       Given the amount of deep soil area located within the front setback area, the proposed landscape plan is intended to provide tree planting to mitigate the impact of building bulk on the street;

·       The proposed façade presents a number of materials, including varying shades of grey render, red face brick work and extensive glazing. These materials are consistent with the streetscape and assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street;

·       The garages are located behind the front dwelling, reducing bulk from garage doors as viewed from the street; and

·       As detailed earlier in the report, Scott Street accommodated a varied streetscape, with setbacks ranging from nil to over 7.0 meters.

 

The application satisfies the design principles relating to Street Setback and is supported.

 


 

Solar Access

 

The applicant proposes a total of 41 percent overshadowing onto the parent lot of the southern adjoining lot, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 35 percent.

 

The property is orientated east-west, which will inevitably result in some overshadowing regardless of the resultant development on-site. For example, the overshadowing cast by a standard 1.8 metre high fence is approximately 129.2 square metres or 21.2 percent of the southern adjoining lot. With respect to the design principles, the proposed development:

 

·       Would not result in any overshadowing onto the roof space of either dwelling to the south of the subject site (No’s. 3 and 3A) and appropriately takes into account the existing road mounted solar collectors;

·       Results in overshadowing to the northern facing major openings of No. 3 Scott Street at midday on 21 June of each year;

·       Does not restrict sunlight into the ground-floor, north-facing highlight windows of No. 3A Scott Street, due to the height of those windows; and

·       Appropriately responds to the outdoor living areas of both dwellings to the south and restricts only a very small amount of sun into those areas.

 

Whilst largely acceptable from a solar access perspective, the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of the R Codes as it does not protect solar access for the north facing major openings of the abutting No. 3 Scott Street.

 

Outdoor Living Area

 

The applicant proposes an outdoor living area for Unit 1 in the street setback area, in lieu of the deemed‑to‑comply provision of the R Codes requiring the outdoor living area to be located behind the street setback area.

 

Both outdoor living areas, including the courtyard and balcony, are capable of being used in conjunction with habitable rooms. All outdoor living areas have been designed to make optimum use of the northern aspect of the site and are open to winter sun and ventilation. The outdoor living areas within the street setback area allows for additional passive surveillance over the public realm. The proposed outdoor living areas are consistent with the design principles of the R Codes and are supported.

 

Landscaping

 

Administration have calculated that the proposal provides 92 square metres, or 15 percent, deep soil zone. Based on the indicative landscaping plan, the site is able to provide 30 percent canopy cover. The proposal complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements set out in the Built Form Policy, although a detailed landscaping plan is required to confirm the acceptability of the tree species and the reticulation details. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed that a Landscape and Reticulation Plan is submitted and approved prior to completion of the development.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development. The proposed dwellings present a façade that draws on design elements, colours and materials of the existing streetscape. The street setback allows for adequate outdoor living area and provision of landscaping, which mitigates the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties. However the extent of overshadowing will restrict access to natural light of the ground floor living areas of the adjoining dwelling. It is recommended that the application be refused for this reason.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.7          Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - No. 51 (Lot: 25; D/P: 1230) Marian Street, Leederville

TRIM Ref:                  D18/161755

Author:                     Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Map

3.       Attachment 3 - Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Report  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ADOPTS Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2, included as Attachment 3, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

2.       ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 is considered a standard amendment pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as the amendment:

·      Is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Strategy which identifies the provision of high density residential and commercial activities within a walkable catchment of the Mount Hawthorn and Leederville Town Centres;

·      Is consistent with the intent of the Urban zone under the Metropolitan Region Scheme to provide for a range of commercial and residential activities;

·      Will have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment, with this detail to be resolved through a future development application;

·      Does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

·      Is not a complex or basic amendment;

3.       REFERS Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

4.       Subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

5.       REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission to require a Local Development Plan for 320 - 324 Oxford Street and 51 Marian Street, pursuant to Clause 47(d) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the adoption of proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) in accordance with Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to rezone No. 51 Marian Street, Leederville (the subject site) from Residential R30 to Mixed Use R100.

Background:

Landowner:

Synergy Property Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Urbanista Town Planning

Date of Application:

17 October 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone:  Residential        R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Lot Area:

432m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site fronting Marian Street is zoned Residential R30 under LPS2 and is located within the Residential Built Form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The land to the east is also zoned Residential R30 under LPS2 within the Residential Built Form area and consists of Single Houses. The land to the west and south is zoned Mixed Use R100 within the Activity Corridor Built Form area and consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 proposes to rezone the subject site from Residential R30 to Mixed Use R100 to match the existing zoning and density of the adjoining land to the west and south (No. 318, 320, 322 and 324 Oxford Street). The landowner of the subject site also owns No. 320 - 324 Oxford Street and the applicant has advised that the ultimate intent is for these lots to be amalgamated to facilitate a mixed-use development on the site. A copy of the Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 map is included as Attachment 2 and the accompanying report is included as Attachment 3.

 

No subdivision nor development application for the site(s) has been lodged. A preliminary concept plan showing the potential building footprint for this redevelopment is included in Figure 6 of Attachment 3 for indicative purposes only.

 

The applicant’s justification for the amendment is summarised below.

 

·       The amendment would enable the redevelopment of the adjoining lots in a mixed use development and the achievement of affordable housing outcomes consistent with State Government policy and the City’s strategic vision;

·       The rezoning of this site is consistent with the adjoining properties (to the west) and follows the line of the Mixed Use zone at the rear;

·       The subject site is well located within proximity to Leederville and Mount Hawthorn, essential services, public recreation facilities, primary, secondary and tertiary education facilities, community mental and physical health services and other multi-modal transport options. The subject site is suitable for high density residential development that would take advantage of the amenity and walkability of the local area; and

·       The higher density coding would allow the City to maximise its contribution to the State’s urban consolidation objectives and support an increase in housing stock in strategic areas consistent with LPS2.

Consultation/Advertising:

If Council resolves that Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 is a standard amendment, in accordance with Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposal must be advertised for public consultation. The amendment would also need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment was necessary.

 

The standard amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days. Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

 

·       Advertisement in a local and state newspaper;

·       Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·       Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies;

·       Display on the City’s website;

·       Placement of a sign on site, giving notice of the proposal; and

·       Any other way the local government considered appropriate.

 

Following the 42 day advertising period, a summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to those submissions would be included in a report to Council for consideration of whether to support or not support the amendment.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 allows a local government authority to amend its local planning scheme with the approval of the Minister for Planning.

 

Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 requires a resolution of a local government to adopt an amendment to a local planning scheme which must specify if the amendment is a “basic amendment”, “standard amendment” or “complex amendment”. This matter is discussed later in the report.

 

If Council resolves to adopt the amendment, the City would advise the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) what type of amendment it was considered to be in accordance with Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and would forward the amendment documentation to the EPA for its consideration in accordance with Regulation 47(1).

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function to consider adopting Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 for the purposes of public consultation.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Sensitive Design

 

·       Our planning framework supports quality design, sustainable urban built form and is responsive to our community and local context.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Administration Comment

 

The amendment would facilitate the amalgamation of the subject site with the adjoining sites to the west which are in the same ownership. That amalgamation would create a landholding of 2,016 square metres and would facilitate mixed use development on the site. The subject site is well located given its proximity to public transport (including a high frequency bus route along Oxford Street and the Leederville Train Station approximately 1,200 metres to the south) and the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres (approximately 330 metres and 370 metres respectively). 

 

The amendment would provide for a more intensive use of the subject site under the proposed Mixed Use R100 zoning then what is permitted under the current Residential R30 zoning. In considering this, the following is relevant:

 

·       The amendment would consolidate the zoning of the lots within single ownership.

·       The rezoning of this site would provide a consistent zoning boundary with the site to the south, being No. 318 Oxford Street.

·       Irrespective of the subject amendment, a zoning boundary between the Mixed Use R100 zone and the Residential R30 zone would remain.

·       Any future development of the subject site (as part of the larger amalgamated site) would be guided by the Built Form Policy (and potentially a Local Development Plan) which seeks to achieve appropriate buildings setbacks particularly where abutting sites have different density codes. Development on the higher density site would need to be setback 6.5 metres for the first three stories and 12.5 metres for the fourth storey and above, which would provide an appropriate transition.

·       Across from the subject site, there is Mixed Use 100 zoned land fronting Oxford Street, a 5.0 metre wide laneway and Aranmore Catholic College.

 

Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 is appropriate for the purposes of advertising, subject to there being a requirement for a Local Development Plan to guide the transition between the higher density along Oxford Street and the lower density along Marian Street. Initiation of the amendment does not bind Council to support final adoption of the amendment.

 

Amendment Type

 

Under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council is required to consider whether the amendment is basic, standard or complex. The amendment is considered to be a standard amendment for the following reasons:

 

·       The City’s Local Planning Strategy makes reference to the Oxford Street Urban Corridor which is generally comprised of the properties directly abutting Oxford Street between the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres.  The intent of this corridor under the Local Planning Strategy is “to focus higher density residential and commercial activities along the corridor in a way that provides increased opportunities for diverse housing and employment within a walkable catchment area of the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres”. The amendment would facilitate the provision of a higher density of residential and commercial activities through the development of the subject site as part of a larger landholding with the adjoining properties fronting Oxford Street. The subject site forms part of a broader landholding that is located approximately 370 metres and 330 metres from the Mount Hawthorn and Leederville Town Centres respectively;

·       The amendment does not alter the Urban zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS);

·       The amendment would have a material impact on the adjoining property to the east in terms of the likely development outcome. That outcome could be appropriately controlled as part of a future development application process, as guided by Council’s Built Form Policy.

·       The development is proposed across a larger landholding which would provide the opportunity for the design to respond to the local context and to mitigate impacts on the existing development the area. This would be resolved through a future development application;

·       The amendment would not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts; and

·       The amendment is not considered to be a basic or complex amendment, as defined within the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

It is recommended that Council formally consider the amendment to be a standard amendment for the purposes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Built Form Policy

 

If ultimately approved by the Minister, the subject site would be zoned Mixed Use R100 but be within the Residential Built Form area, while the adjoining properties to the west would be within the Transit Corridor Built Form area. It would be necessary for the Built Form Policy to be amended to include the subject site within the Transit Corridor Built Form area. This matter does not require immediate action and could be progressed if the amendment was approved.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.8          Small Business Friendly Local Governments Charter

TRIM Ref:                  D18/165760

Author:                     Gerrad Gibson, Heritage Officer

Authoriser:                Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Small Business Friendly Local Governments Charter

2.       Attachment 2 - Small Business Friendly Local Governments Brochure

3.       Attachment 3 - Small Business Friendly Local Governments Reporting Template  

 

Recommendation:

That Council AGREES to:

1.       the terms outlined in the Small Business Friendly Local Governments Charter and

2.       implement the Small Business Friendly Local Governments initiative.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider implementing the Small Business Friendly Local Governments (SBFLG) initiative and agreeing to the SBFLG Charter.

Background:

The City has been invited to participate in the Small Business Development Corporation’s (SBDC) Small Business Friendly Local Governments initiative to recognise and promote local government authorities in WA that are committed to actively supporting small businesses in their local area.

 

Local governments are encouraged to sign the Small Business Friendly Local Governments Charter to show they have committed to work with, and support, small business by:

 

·       Offering enhanced customer service;

·       Reducing red tape;

·       Making on-time payments;

·       Having a process in place to handle disputes; and

·       Introducing other activities to improve the operating environment for small businesses in their area.

 

Participating local governments are required to submit a report card to SBDC twice a year, explaining how they are meeting their commitments. A copy of the Charter is included as Attachment 1, further information is provided in the brochure included as Attachment 2 and a template for the report card is included as Attachment 3.

 

There are currently 24 local governments participating in the SBFLG initiative, including Town of Victoria Park, City of Subiaco, Town of Cambridge and City of Stirling. On 13 July 2018, the City met with the SBDC to discuss participating in the SBFLG initiative, what the City would have to do, and what benefits the City and community would gain.

Details:

The City currently meets most of the commitments required in the SBFLG Charter, including providing a high level of customer service, proactively reducing administrative burdens, regularly consulting with small businesses, paying invoices within 30 days and implementing other activities to support small business.

 

The City would need to undertake some additional tasks if it signs onto the Charter, including providing progress reports to the SBDC twice a year, promoting and marketing the SBFLG initiative, and providing access to a dispute resolution service on our website. These extra tasks would require minimal resourcing and can be met by the City’s current operating budget.

There is no expiry to the SBFLG Charter and as long as the City maintains its commitments, it would be eligible for the ‘Small Business Friendly’ branding and accreditation. With this, the City would gain opportunities to:

 

·       promote its work through the State Government;

·       build an ongoing positive relationship with the SBDC; and

·       send the clear message to its residents that the City is committed to supporting small business.

Consultation/Advertising:

On 8 November 2018, the matter was presented to the Business Advisory Group for discussion. The Business Advisory Group supports the proposal as recommended.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low risk to agree to the Charter and commit to supporting small business.

Strategic Implications:

1.         This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Thriving Places

 

·       We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with agreeing to the Charter can be met by the City’s existing operational budget.

Comments:

Implementing the Small Business Friendly Local Government initiative would have a positive impact on local businesses and residents and would help the City meet its commitments outlined in the Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028.  The initiative would complement the City’s development of an Economic Development Strategy.  It is recommended that Council agrees to the Charter and to implement the initiative.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

9.9          No. 21 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1477) Vincent Street, Mount Lawley - Amendment to Development Approval for Alterations and Additions to exisitng Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/149330

Author:                     Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Approval Documentation and Plans dated 23 February 2015

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Written Submission

5.       Attachment 5 - Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan

6.       Attachment 6 - Heritage Impact Statement and Response from Design Review Panel

7.       Attachment 7 - Summary of Submissions and Administration Response

8.       Attachment 8 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response

9.       Attachment 9 - 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 to amend a development approval for Alterations and Additions to existing Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House at No. 21 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1477) Vincent Street, Mount Lawley, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3 dated 23 July 2018 and 22 October 2018, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 9:

1.       All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2014.656.1 granted on 23 February 2015 and included in Attachment 2 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1     Condition 3.1 (cash in lieu of car parking) is removed;

1.2     Condition 3.2 is amended to read as follows:

3.2     Prior to occupation/use of the development, a minimum of three bicycle parking bays, in the form of two (2) Class 3 bicycle bay facilities for the Commercial component shall be provided. Bicycle bays must be provided at a location convenient to the entrance, publically accessible and within the development. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3;

1.3     A new condition 10 is imposed to read as follows:

10.     Landscaping

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

·        The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants, based on the City’s tree selection tool and to maximise the provision of canopy cover; and

·        Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

10.2   All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 10.1 shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to completion of development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

1.4     A new Condition 2.4 is imposed to read as follows:

11.     The Consulting Rooms shall not accommodate more than two clients on-site at any given time;

1.5     A new Condition 2.5 is imposed to read as follows:

12.     Appointments with each health practitioner shall be scheduled no less than 10 minutes apart to avoid the overlap of clients on site;

1.6     A new Condition 11 is imposed to read as follows:

13.     The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists;

1.7     A new Condition 12 is imposed to read as follows:

14.     This approval is valid for two years from the date of this approval; and

1.8     Condition 4.1 (Terrace Roofing) is removed.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend a development approval for alterations and additions to existing Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House at No. 21 Vincent Street, Mount Lawley.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to amend the exiting approval by extending the approval period and removing Condition 3.2, which requires payment of cash-in-lieu.

Background:

Landowner:

Jeffery & Lynn Bennett

Applicant:

Bruce Arnold

Date of Application:

23 July 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Consulting Rooms

Proposed Use Class:

Consulting Rooms: A

Dwelling (Single House): P

Lot Area:

355m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

Yes. Management Category A – Conservation Essential

 

The subject site is located at No. 21 Vincent Street, Mount Lawley, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject is surrounded by residential uses, abutting the lot and to the north on the opposite side of Vincent Street. The broader area includes residential and commercial uses, with commercial uses being located along Beaufort Street.

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site accommodates a single-storey building being used as Consulting Rooms. The subject site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, as Management Category A – Conservation Essential.

 

In April 1990, the City of Perth approved the change of use from residential to Consulting Rooms. That approval contained a condition which restricted the site to one health practitioner at any one time.

 

An application for alterations and additions to existing dental surgery (including allowing two health practitioners) and a proposed two-storey dwelling to the rear of existing Consulting Rooms was approved by Administration under delegated authority on 23 February 2015. A copy of this approval is included in Attachment 2. The approval contained a condition (3.1) which required the payment of $6,572.80 for the equivalent value of 1.264 car parking spaces. This approval was not enacted and payment was not made to the City. The previous approval also contained a condition (4.1) which required the outdoor living area to have a minimum two thirds uncovered, in accordance with the R Codes. The applicant is seeking removal of this condition.

 

The current proposal does not involve any amendments to the previously approved built form. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved operating hours, number of employees and overall intensity of the land use. There are currently two consulting rooms within the existing dental surgery with one of these consulting rooms being used by the dentist to treat patients. There are three employees in total on site at any time currently. This is one health practitioner being a dentist, a receptionist and a dental nurse. The applicant has confirmed that only one client is capable of being treated at any one time by the dentist currently.

 

The second consulting room is being used for the purposes of sterilising equipment and as a back of house area, and it is intended that this can be accommodated in the proposed extension area of the dental surgery. This will allow a dental hygienist to operate from the second consulting room. There would be four employees being a dentist, a dental hygienist, a dental nurse and a receptionist working from the premises at one time as part of this proposal. The applicant has confirmed that only one client is capable of attending the dental hygienist at any one time and the appointments are scheduled for one hour. This would be in addition to one client being treated by the dentist at any time. These appointment times can vary from 20 minutes to two hours per appointment. The dwelling proposed as part of this application is intended to be offered to the resident dentist or the hygienist.

 

The development plans are included in Attachment 3, the associated report from the applicant is included in Attachment 4 and the Parking Survey and Management Plan are included in Attachment 5.

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, the Non-Residential Parking Policy and the State Government’s SPP 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R Codes). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

The applicable deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes are not affected by the Built Form Policy, with the exception of street setbacks and landscaping.

 

The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). These provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application and discussed in the Comments section of this report.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply/ Previously Supported

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

ü

 

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Visual Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

 

ü

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy

 

Eight car parking bays

 

0.6 (1) long-term bicycle bays

 

 

 

Two car parking bays

 

Nil long-term bicycle bays

 

The applicant has requested that a cash-in-lieu condition not be imposed.

Outdoor Living Area

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas

 

C1.1   An Outdoor living area to be provided:

-      With at least two thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover

 

 

Entire outdoor living area (roof top terrace) is covered.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days between 3 October 2018 and 16 October 2018 by means of letters being sent to surrounding neighbours. The City received one objection to the proposal. The concerns are summarised below:

 

·       Overshadowing as a result of the building height; and

·       Potential for damage to dividing fences.

 

A summary of the submission with Administration’s and the applicant’s response can be found in Attachment 7 and Attachment 8, respectively.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

Given the site is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), the application was referred to the DRP for specific comments on the impact on the cultural significance of the site. The comments provided by the DRP can be summarised as follows:

 

·       It is considered that the new addition would have no significant impact on the sightline of the existing building when viewed from Vincent Street;

·       The proposal only involves minor alterations to the original fabric of the building and it is noted that the original western elevation will be retained and concealed behind a new wall; and

·       The contemporary style of the additions is supported as the new materials and finishes are distinguishable from the old building and assists in the discernment of the evolution of the place.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

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

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

 

As the proposed built form does not differ to the original approval, the current application can be considered as an amendment to an approval under Clause 77(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2, Clause 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant would have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Council’s determination.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The application is being presented to Council as the applicant is requesting to waive the cash-in-lieu contribution amount for six car parking bays.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Sensitive Design

 

·       Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

·       Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Should Council agree to waive the cash-in-lieu for the shortfall of vehicle parking on-site, the City would not receive the amount of $32,400 that would contribute towards the provision and upgrading of transport infrastructure within the City of Vincent.

Comments:

In considering the acceptability of this application for an extension of time, Administration has considered the following:

 

1.       Changes in the planning framework since development approval was granted;

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

3.       Whether the applicant has actively pursued the implementation of the development.

 


 

1.       Changes to the planning framework

 

City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

The previous application for the subject site was assessed under the City’s TPS1 and associated policies. The City’s LPS2 was approved by the Minister and was gazetted on 16 May 2018. LPS2 resulted in no changes to the subject site’s Residential R50 zoning.

 

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

On 13 December 2016, Council adopted the Built Form Policy, which was published and came into effect on 21 January 2017. The adoption of the Built Form Policy also resulted in several other polices being rescinded. The subject site is located with the Residential Built Form Area under the Built Form Policy. The current application has been assessed against the Built Form Policy.

 

State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes

 

On 2 March 2018, the Western Australian Planning Commission gazetted amendments to the State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. It is noted that these changes do not affect the assessment of the subject application.

 

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

 

On 6 March 2018, Council resolved to adopt Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Non-Residential Development Parking Policy) and revoked Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. The Policy was published and came into effect on 7 April 2018.

 

2.       Whether the development is likely to receive approval now

 

In considering whether the development is likely to receive approval now, Council must assess the issues of land use, car parking and landscaping.

 

Land use

 

The application previously obtained approval for Grouped Dwelling under TPS1 which was classified as ‘P’ use within the Residential zone. An assessment of the proposed dwelling has been undertaken for this application informed by legal advice which confirms that the dwelling is classified as a Single House land use. A Single House is a ‘P’ use under LPS 2. The land use permissibility remains the same as what was considered in the previous application and the development requirements for Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings do not differ.

 

Parking

 

The 2015 application was assessed against the City’s previous version of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. Due to the adjustment factors of that policy, the proposal involved a shortfall of 1.264 car parking bays was resolved via a condition of development approval requiring a cash-in-lieu contribution or guarantee to the value of $6,572.80. The approval was not enacted and therefore this cash in lieu contribution has not been paid to the City.

 

Three car parking bays were previously approved on-site, with two of the approved parking bays being dedicated for the consulting rooms and one for the dwelling. One bay for the consulting rooms is required to be provided as a car parking space designed for people with a disability in accordance with the National Construction Code (NCC) Volume 1 and is shown on the development plans submitted. As per the NCC, this bay need not be signed and marked so as to restrict the use of the car parking space only for people with a disability. This is because the NCC only requires these bays to be appropriately signed and marked where there are more than five car parking spaces provided on site.

 

The application does not propose to increase the amount of car parking bays provided onsite. The car parking bay associated with the dwelling complies with the deemed-to-comply car parking requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The current Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy requires eight car parking bays to be provided for the previously approved consulting rooms, with the application involving the provision of two bays. A cash-in-lieu contribution for the six bays would equate to $32,400, however, the application is seeking Council’s discretion on the matter and has provided a Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan to demonstrate the parking provision would not result in parking problems within the locality. The Parking Survey was undertaken in accordance with the WAPC’s Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines and calculated the number of car parking bays available within the operating hours of the consulting rooms and also provides an analysis of the parking availability within the surrounding locality. These supporting documents are provided in Attachment 5 and include the following relevant information:

 

·       There are 134 off-street, public car parking bays within 261 metres of the subject site;

·       These are all time limited car parking bays, ranging from a maximum of one to 7.5 hours;

·       Of these 134 car parking bays, 85 car parking bays require a parking ticket when being used;

·       These bays were surveyed for vacancy between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm, which are the approved operating hours of the consulting room;

·       At the lowest vacancy (which occurred on two separate occasions throughout the week), there were 59 off-street car parking bays available;

·       At the highest vacancy, there were 105 off-street car parking bays available;

·       On average, throughout the operating hours of the consulting rooms, there were 82 off-street, public car parking bays available within 261 metres (less than a five minute walk) of the subject site.

 

The applicant proposes the following Parking Management Strategy for the existing consulting rooms, based on the results of the Parking Survey:

 

·       All employees, inclusive of the health practitioners and receptionist, if driving, are to park at the car park located on the corner of Beaufort Street and Barlee Street, where the maximum time limit is 7.5 hours, with a valid parking ticket. Alternatively, monthly commercial parking permits can be purchased from the City;

·       There are two car bays available on site allocated exclusively for clients of the consulting rooms (one of which is designed to allow parking for people with a disability); and

·       The receptionist will advise clients of the most suitable car parking locations based on their type and length of scheduled appointment.

 

In addition, employees and clients accessing the site can do so through public or active transport options. There are two high frequency bus stops within the 250 metre pedestrian shed, and an additional two high frequency bus stops between 250 and 357 metres of the subject site. The Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy requires a minimum of 1.4 short-term bicycle bays and 0.6 long-term bicycle bays. The application involves the provision of three short-term bicycle bays located on-site, which in conjunction with the end of trip facilities appropriately facilitates an alternative form of transport to and from the site.

 

In considering the approved intensity of the use and the applicant’s request to remove the condition relating to cash-in-lieu contribution, the following is relevant:

 

·       The consulting room has been operating since 1990, with no complaints being received by the City in relation to parking or use of the subject site;

·       There are 134 off-street, public car parking bays within 261 metres of the subject site, with the Parking Survey identifying a minimum of 59 vacant car parking bays available at the busiest time;

·       All employees would be asked to utilise the car parking available on the corner of Barlee Street and Beaufort Street, with commercial parking permits available for purchase;

·       There will be two car parking bays available on-site for use by the two clients being treated by the dentist and hygienist at any one time;

·       Access to all public car parking bays is easily accessible by vehicle off main arterial roads;

·       There are three bicycle parking bays available on-site; and

·       There are two high frequency bus stops within 250 metres of the site, and an additional two high frequency bus stops between 250 and 357 metres of the subject site.

 

Given the extensive private, public and active transport services available to the subject site to cater to the demands of the development, as well as car parking spaces available on site for clients, it is reasonable to remove the condition relating to the cash-in-lieu contribution. A condition of development approval has been recommended to be imposed to ensure that appointments for each health practitioner be scheduled at least 10 minutes apart to avoid any potential overlap and increased demand for on site car parking.

 


 

Landscaping

 

The City’s Built Form Policy includes landscaping requirements in relation to the amount of deep soil zone and canopy cover. The applicant proposes a deep soil zone of 4.6 percent of the site in lieu of the deemed‑to-comply 15 percent and a canopy cover of 5.1 percent of the site in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 30 percent.

 

The previous approval included the removal of the existing Cape Lilac tree within the street setback. This tree is a pest species as it sheds berries and is susceptible to cedar moth infestations. The tree also affects the stormwater drainage of the existing heritage building as the berries block the gutters causing water to overflow. The removal of this tree also allowed for the inclusion of a car parking bay within the street setback area.

 

Opportunities to provide additional landscaping on site is limited. While Administration stills supports the removal of the existing Cape Lilac tree for the reasons above, the tree should be replaced with a more appropriate species that provides an equivalent or greater canopy cover. There is opportunity to install trees that can provide canopy coverage within deep soil zones in the front of the lot. There are also opportunities to provide additional landscaping within garden beds between the car bay in the front setback area and the dental surgery, as well within the garden beds along both the southern and eastern lot boundaries. Whilst the width of some portions of the garden beds proposed means that they would not contribute towards deep soil area, they would still allow for species to adequately grow to a height and maturity that can contribute to canopy cover. The landscaping opportunities on the site would assist in reducing the impact of the development, providing a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and surrounding residents, and contribute towards a sustainable landscape design for the lot and the greater community. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submission of a landscaping plan to show the installation of landscaping and tree species on site consistent with the City’s tree selection tool.

 

Heritage Conservation

 

The previous approval provides for an extension to the western façade of the heritage building enclosing the external area to the west of the building. These additions to the existing heritage building have been designed to reflect the existing style of the building. The multiple dwelling is located behind the principal façade of the heritage building. The multiple dwelling is contemporary in design and incorporates materials and colours that are distinguishable from the historical architecture and design of the building.

 

The subject site is listed on the City’s MHI, as a Management Category A – Conservation Essential. Consideration must be had to the Statement of Significance of the subject site, as follows.

 

"The former substation has considerable historic value as a physical record of Perth’s tram and trolley bus transportation system that operated in Perth from 1899 to 1969 and contributed significantly to the development of the suburbs within the Town of Vincent.

 

The former substation has some aesthetic value as a good example of a municipal building constructed in the Inter-War Functionalist style.

 

The former substation has considerable rarity value as one of few remaining physical structures associated with the tram and trolley bus transportation system located within the Town of Vincent."

 

A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted as part of the previous application to determine whether the design satisfies the provisions of the City’s Heritage Management Policy. The HIS can be found in Attachment 6. This HIS presented the following conclusions:

 

·       It is considered that the new addition would have no significant impact on sightline of the existing building when viewed from Vincent Street;

·       It is noted that the original western elevation will be retained and concealed behind a new wall;

·       The contemporary style of the additions is supported as the new materials and finishes are distinguishable from the old building and assists in the discernment of the evolution of the place; and

·       It is considered the proposal has no adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the subject place and the application is recommended for approval.

 

The proposal would not alter the original façade of the heritage building or obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the place. The development would maintain an existing line of view to the heritage place and is positioned in a location that ensures the prominence of the heritage building is not compromised. Administration considers the proposal presents an appropriate outcome for the heritage building and satisfies the requirements of the City’s Heritage Management Policy.

 

Outdoor Living Area

 

The existing approval contains the following condition (4.1):

 

“The proposed dwelling terrace shall have a minimum two-thirds of the proposed area without permanent roofing.”

 

The applicant is seeking removal of this condition on the basis that the Outdoor Living Area meets the relevant Design Principles of the R-codes. Clause 5.3.1 of the R-Codes requires an outdoor living area to be provided with at least two-thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover.

 

The proposed Outdoor Living (terrace) is accessed directly from the living room and is located on the northern side of the property and will be open to winter sun. The proposed roof is a skillion roof with the angle increasing to the north to allow sufficient light into the dwelling. Administration recommends removal of condition 4.1 on the basis that the proposal meets the Design Principles of the R-codes.

 

3.       Implementation of the development

 

The applicant has provided the following information detailing why the application has not been substantially commenced:

 

“The ongoing Dental practice business was purchased by my client around late 2014 and was then leased to The Dental Corporation (DUPA). Unfortunately a condition of the lease meant that the approved works was not able to be executed which in turn resulted in the approval lapsing in February 2017. In the recent months, the lessee has indicated that they no longer wish to peruse the lease and my client, Mr. Bennett, who is a Dentist, will now look to take over the running the practice as a small local practice similar to the one he currently operates in Donnybrook. Due to this change in the leasing arrangement, my client wishes to resubmit the documents which were originally approved which is to provide a small extension to the existing surgery and add a dwelling at the rear of the existing building. The proposed new dwelling, which is the major work associated with this proposal, will form a part of the package being offered to either the resident dentist or the hygienist employed in the surgery and may also be part of an interchange staff programme with the Donnybrook practice.”

 

Whilst the owner has not made genuine attempts to implement the approval, it is acknowledged that constraints existed by way of a separate lease arrangement.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to exercise discretion with respect to the extension of time, car parking and landscaping.

 

The Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan demonstrate the area is well serviced by a variety of private, public and active transport methods and facilities. The parking demand can be accommodated on site and within the surrounding locality. The cash-in-lieu condition is not required.

 

Landscaping can be provided on site that would result in an equivalent or greater canopy coverage compared to the tree that is proposed to be removed.

 

Administration recommends that the application be approved.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

10          Engineering

10.1        Minor Parking Restriction Improvements/Amendments

TRIM Ref:                  D18/181202

Author:                     Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Engineering

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Plan No. 3495-PP-01

2.       Plan No. 3496-PP-01  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES the following minor parking restriction improvements and amendments:

1.1     the introduction of a 3P 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday parking restriction on Wavertree Place, and on Britannia Road, Leederville between Oxford Street and Seabrook Street as shown on Plan No. 3495-PP-01 (Attachment 1); and

1.2     an on-road Loading Zone adjacent to ‘Beaufort Central’ at 250 Beaufort Street, Perth, as shown on Plan No. 3496-PP-01 (Attachment 2); and

2.       NOTES that Administration will advise residents and businesses directly impacted by these minor parking restriction improvements and amendments.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider improvements/amendments to parking arrangements at various locations throughout the City of Vincent as detailed in the report.

Background:

The City regularly receives requests for the introduction of, or changes to, parking restrictions in both residential and commercial areas.  Administration generally undertakes a range of investigations including parking demand and traffic volume surveys to assess traffic and on-street parking conditions.  The data is then used to determine whether new or amended restrictions are warranted to improve parking availability and amenity. Where changes are considered justifiable a report is then presented to Council for consideration as Administration does not have delegated authority to make such changes.

Details:

A number of parking issues have recently been identified and investigated with details provided below.

 

Britannia Road, Leederville/Mt Hawthorn

 

Britannia Road, Leederville/Mt Hawthorn is classified as an Access Road under the Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy and is in the care and control of the City.

 

Temporary parking restrictions were implemented on Britannia Road, between Oxford Street and Seabrook Street, during construction of the Rosewood Aged Care facility at No. 5 – 9 Britannia Road given the negative impact that contractor vehicles were having on local resident amenity and on-street parking availability.

 

Rosewood Aged Care opened at Britannia Road in August 2017 and accommodates approximately 120 residents.  Development approval conditions included a restriction on visiting hours to between 8am and 8pm daily, and a restriction on delivery times to between 7am and 7pm daily (with no deliveries between 8.00am and 9.00am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days).  There is no restriction regarding staff working times or shift changes.

 

The number of staff and extent of visitors associated with the aged care facility has led to increased usage of on-street parking on Britannia Road particularly between Wavertree Place and Brentham Street.  Based upon complaints from local residents the City’s Rangers conducted a parking occupancy survey on Britannia Road between Oxford Street and Seabrook Street as well as Wavertree Place over a two week period.  The survey was undertaken at 8.00am, 2.00pm and 6.00pm on designated days across that period.  The survey identified that the Britannia Road on-street bays were at 42% average occupancy and the Wavertree Place on-street bays were at 60% average occupancy. 

 

On some occasions Wavertree Place peaked at an occupancy rate of 100% (probably due to the proximity of an aged care facility and a primary school) which indicates that restrictions could be considered at Wavertree Place. Installing restrictions in Wavertree Place would almost certainly displace parked vehicles onto the nearby section of Britannia Road.

 

In order to improve the amenity for residents, while maintaining some parking for the public, including for resident visitors and Rosewood Aged Care visitors, it is proposed to implement 3P 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday restriction on Wavertree Place.  In addition, it is proposed to implement the same restriction on Britannia Road, between Oxford Street and Seabrook Street given its close proximity to Wavertree Place and Rosewood Aged Care.  These proposed restrictions are shown on Plan No. 3495-PP-01 (Attachment 1).

 

These restrictions would likely impact Rosewood staff who are currently utilising on-street parking on Britannia Road. The aged care facility does include an underground car park with capacity for some staff and the Britannia Reserve car park located less than 500 metres away provides an opportunity for extended parking Monday to Friday.  Short-term visitors to the aged care facility would be able to utilise the proposed 3P on-street bays.

 

Request for a Loading Zone, Beaufort Street, Perth

 

‘Beaufort Central’ located at 250 Beaufort Street, Perth, is a relatively new four storey mixed use development comprising 148 commercial and residential units, located between Brisbane and Parry Streets, and extending through to Stirling Street.   The Beaufort Street ground floor includes a food premises with other commercial and retail tenancies.

 

The City has received a number of requests for a loading zone to service, 250 Beaufort Street and the surrounding businesses.  Installing a loading zone at this location will result in the loss of two paid (ticket) parking bays and is subject to an AM bus lane clearway restriction.

 

It is recommended that a loading zone with operational times 9.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12noon Saturdays be approved as shown on Plan No. 3496-PP-01 (Attachment 2).

Consultation/Advertising:

All affected property owners and occupiers would be notified of the parking restriction changes.  There would be minimal impact upon the wider community.

Legal/Policy:

The City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 regulates the parking or standing of vehicles in all or specified thoroughfares and reserves under the care, control and management of the City and provides for the management and operation of parking facilities.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: These proposed parking restriction changes would deliver amenity and safety improvements for residents, businesses and visitors.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Accessible City

 

·       We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services throughout the City.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Costs associated with these parking restriction changes would utilise existing funds within the 2018/19 ‘Parking and Street Name Signs’ and the ‘Roads Line Marking’ operating budgets.

Comments:

These minor improvements and amendments should improve amenity and on-street parking availability.  More significant changes to parking arrangements in the City should await completion of the Integrated Transport Strategy.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

10.2        Tender No. 561/18 - North Perth Common Construction – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer

TRIM Ref:                  D18/159245

Author:                     Tahnee Bunting, Place Manager

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Tender Evaluation and Pricing Schedule – Confidential

 

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by BOS Civil for Tender No. 561/18 for the North Perth Common Construction.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the awarding of Tender No. 561/18 – Appointment of a Contractor for the Construction of North Perth Common Shared Space.

Background:

The delivery of a new public shared space for North Perth in the current financial year has been identified in several of the City’s strategic documents, including the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19- 2021/22 (Item 4.8) and the North Perth Place Plan (Item 1.1).

 

The project is moving into the construction phase and the City requires a suitably qualified construction team to undertake the next stage of works. 

Details:

As the contract value exceeds $250,000, Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing requires an open public tender process.

 

Under CEO Delegation 1.19 of the Delegated Authority Register, the Director Engineering approved the Procurement Plan, which included the following Evaluation Criteria: 

 

Qualitative Criteria

Weighting

A.      Relevant Experience

Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Relevant Experience”:

a)   Provide details of similar projects undertaken including scope of the Tenderer’s involvement and confirming successful completion of the project.

1.      

30%

B.   Key Personnel Skills and Experience

Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Key Personnel Skills and Experience”:

Tenderers to provide as a minimum information on the proposed personnel to be allocated to this project such as:

§ Their role in the performance of the Contract;

§ Qualifications, with particular emphasis on experience of personnel in projects of a similar size and scope;

2.       

20%

C.   Tenderer’s Resources

As a minimum, Tenderers should provide a current plant/equipment schedule in an attachment and label it “Tenderer’s Resources”. Tenderers should indicate which pieces of plant/equipment will be allocated to this project, confirm if the item is owned/leased or intended to be hired and indicate any contingency measures for breakdowns or emergencies that result in plant/equipment not being available.

10%

D.   Demonstrated Understanding of the project

Tenderers must provide the following information in an attachment and label it “Demonstrated Understanding”:

a)   A project delivery plan including key stages and timelines.

b)   General site operation procedures/plans.

c)   Site safety procedures including measures to ensure public safety

d)   Traffic management procedures/plans.

3.       

30%

E.   Environmental Responsibility

·      Provide details of your organisation’s environmental policy and/or practices which manage or reduce the impact on the environment;

·      Offer details of any initiatives for this project that would support the sustainability objectives of the Principal and assist them to achieve environmental targets (e.g. use of recycled construction products, recovery/recycling of site waste etc).

10%

 

The Request for Tender 561/18 was publicly advertised from 6 October 2018 and invited submissions until 30 October 2018.

 

At the close of the advertising period, four responses were received from the following companies:

 

·      BOS Civil

·      Environmental Industries

·      Phase 3 Landscaping

·      West Coast Profilers

 

Tender Assessment

 

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.

 

Title

Role

Director Engineering

Voting

Manager Engineering

Voting

Place Manager

Voting

Procurement and Contracts Officer

Voting

Emerge Associates Director, Principal Landscape Architect 

Technical Advice (non-voting)

 

Evaluation

 

A summary of each compliant Tenderer is proved below. A full outline of the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria for each tenderer is contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

 

Company

Qualitative Score / 100

Ranking

BOS Civil

77

1

Environmental Industries

69.5

2

Phase 3 Landscaping

69

3

WCP

56

4

 

Once the tenders were ranked on the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria, the evaluation panel made a value judgement as to the cost affordability, qualitative ranking and risk of each Tender, in order to determine which Tender presented the best value for money.

 

The price summary for the Tender is included as Confidential Attachment 1. This also lists prices for the additional extras, such as three phase power and bollards.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Request for Tender No. 561/18 was advertised in the West Australian on 6 October 2018 and on the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 6 October and 30 October 2018.

Legal/Policy:

·       Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995;

·       Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

·       City of Vincent Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    It is low risk for Council to appoint a construction company to undertake these works.

Strategic Implications:

North Perth Common will contribute to three of the six community priorities identified in the City’s Strategic Community Plan and the City’s Corporate Business Plan; namely – “Enhanced Environment’, “Accessible City” and “Thriving Places”.

 

North Perth Common has also been identified as a key priority project within the North Perth Town Centre Place Plan. The delivery of this project was initially identified in the North Perth Master Plan to provide the area with a centrally located public meeting space.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

North Perth Common will contribute to the greening of Vincent by providing additional town centre green space and canopy cover.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

 

·       $71,620 – Design Documentation and Project Management.

·       $669,380 – Construction, inclusive of materials and labour.

 

These funds have been spread over the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 financial years.

Comments:

North Perth Common will be a prominent and highly visible public space within the town centre. The site context has complexities that need to be addressed to achieve a high quality outcome. It was essential that tenderers demonstrated how they had considered the site context, such as the location near Fitzgerald Street, the adjoining and surrounding businesses and large number of people regularly frequenting the area.

 

The submission for BOS Civil complies with all the tender requirements, including demonstrated understanding of the project, relevant experience, expertise, project team and capacity to deliver the works outlined in the specification.

 

The BOS Civil submission was superior in the responses, particularly in relation to relevant experience and demonstrated understanding.  The submission demonstrated an appropriate allowance of time in delivering the project in both the methodology and similar examples which reinforced the panel’s confidence in the ability of BOS Civil to deliver the project efficiently and to a high quality.

 

Reference checks were conducted for BOS Civil on 23 November 2018.

 

The Evaluation Panel recommends that Council accept the Tender submitted by BOS Civil for Tender No. 561/18 as the best overall value for money to the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

 

ATTACHMENT CONFIDENTIAL

 

ATTACHMENT CONFIDENTIAL

ATTACHMENT CONFIDENTIAL

ATTACHMENT CONFIDENTIAL

ATTACHMENT CONFIDENTIAL


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

10.3        Further Report in Response to Petition - Alma Road and Claverton Streets, North Perth Traffic Calming

TRIM Ref:                  D18/180120

Author:                     Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Engineering

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Plan No. 3484-CP-01  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the discussion of the Urban Mobility Advisory Group (UMAG) and the comments of the residents received as an outcome of the Public Forum held at the North Perth Town Hall on 12 November 2018;

2.       APPROVES mid-block single lane slow points in Alma Road, between Camelia and Persimmon Streets and in Alfonso Street, between Claverton and Vincent Streets, as shown on Plan No. 3484-CP-01 (Attachment 1);

3.       AUTHORISES the Director Engineering to:

3.1     determine the precise location and extent of the works described in recommendation 2 above, in consultation with affected adjacent landowners; and

3.2     consider the other matters raised as part of the further consultation, assess the impact of the mid-block single lane slow points once constructed and uses the data in liaison with the UMAG, to review the effectiveness of the slow points; and

4.       Informs the petitioners of the Council’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the outcome of the public consultation and the Urban Mobility Advisory Group’s discussion in respect of the approved and possible additional traffic calming measures to be introduced in the area bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets, North Perth as requested by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 18 September 2018.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2018 a 42 signature petition was tabled outlining residents’ concerns about the speed, volume, composition and origins of traffic using the local road network bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets.

 

A report was presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 18 September 2018 recommending a number of actions including installing ‘a single lane slow point’ in Claverton Street and realigning a portion of the on-road parking in Leake Street to deter speeding.

 

Prior to the Council considering the report a number of residents requested additional traffic calming, over and above what was being recommended, as well as raising concerns about a number of issues such as the adequacy of the street lighting and damaged footpaths.

 

Having considered both the report and the residents comments, the Council decided in part to:

 


 

“2.      NOTES:

2.3       that there are three locations (Alma Road, Camelia and Alfonso Streets) where recorded speeds are close to the intervention level;

3.       APPROVES:

3.1       a mid-block single lane slow in Claverton Street, between Camelia and Alfonso Streets; and

3.2       a mid-block single lane slow in Leake Street, between Grosvenor and Chelmsford Roads;

4.       AUTHORISES the Director Engineering to:

4.1       determine the precise location and extent of the proposed works described in 3.1 and 3.2 above; and

4.2       engage with the residents within the streets as nominated in the petition and the Urban Mobility Advisory Group on additional traffic calming, safety and amenity measures in the streets nominated in the Petition including locations identified in item 2.3;”.

Details:

Urban Mobility Advisory Group (UMAG)

 

The residents’ concerns expressed in the petition were discussed at length by the UMAG at its meeting of 8 October 2018.

 

The current urban speed limit is 50kph with 85% speed of 50kph as a measure of a safe road environment.

 

Some UMAG members suggested the City should be trying to achieve an 85% speed in the order of 35 to 40kph.  The Group also discussed the appropriate number of traffic calming devices that should be considered for the respective streets in order to achieve the desired road environment.  Instead of installing the two already approved slow points it was proposed to incorporate ‘entry statements’ as means of changing the driver’s perception of the road environment for the area.

 

The group also discussed the approved locations (in Claverton and Leake Streets) being installed as a trial and adding additional ‘trial’ locations in Alma Road, Alfonso and possibly Camelia Streets and testing the outcomes.  The group suggested that Council consider deferring any works so that the entire ‘cell’ could be considered and implemented as a single project.

 

The Chair advised that the Council had already approved the Claverton and Leake Streets locations, to be funded from the 2018/19 Miscellaneous Traffic Management budget, and the existing (Miscellaneous Traffic Management) budget was not sufficient to construct the six suggested slow points and associated entry statements.

 

Public Forum North Perth Town Hall Monday 12 November 2018

 

On 2 November 2018 the City letters delivered to 156 properties within the study area (bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets) inviting them to meet with Elected Members, Engineering and Community Engagement staff and representative of the WA Police, at a Public Forum at the North Perth Town Hall on Monday 12 November 2018.

 

18 residents took the opportunity to attend during a two-hour period between 4.00pm and 6.00pm.  The residents were asked to provide written comments.

 

The majority were supportive of the approved single lane slow points in Claverton and Leake Street but thought that the longer streets, specifically Alma Road and Claverton and Leake Streets, should have a minimum of two or more devices.  The Alma Road residents in particular expressed strong support for traffic calming, preferably two or more slow points, to be installed in their street as part of this project and not deferred to a later date.  Two residents expressed support for a slow point in Alfonso Street.

 

Three Camelia Street residents took the opportunity to speak to the officers at the public forum.  The focus of the respective discussions were the intersections of Camelia and Vincent Streets and Camelia and Claverton Streets and not specifically a mid-block slow point.  The resident closest to Vincent Street had concerns about the speed of traffic entering Camelia Street from Vincent Street and the need for a median island and/or speed hump on entry. 

 

The resident closest to Claverton Street had concerns about the uncontrolled nature of the intersection; the speed of traffic in Claverton Street; and supports the ‘slow point’ in Claverton Street.

 

Two residents submitted very detailed (emailed) responses, which expanded upon the discussion to include specific suggestions such as closing roads (i.e. Alma Road) to through traffic; additional streets trees; entry statements; infrastructure improvements; regulatory controls at internal intersections; and changes to parking.  These are beyond the scope of the current proposals.  UMAG could consider these proposals following review of the effectiveness of the proposed works.

 

Another shared concern was the likely impact of the North Perth Common development upon traffic within the precinct.  A number of residents stated would ultimately push more traffic onto the surrounding streets.

Consultation/Advertising:

A Public Forum was held at the North Perth Town Hall on Monday 12 November 2018.

Legal/Policy:

The roads, other than Charles Street, as discussed in this report, come under the care, control and management of the City.

Risk Management Implications:

Low/Medium:     The study has shown that, other than two locations the operating speeds and volumes within the study area are within the operating criteria for the respective streets in accordance with their classification.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Accessible City

 

·       We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services throughout the City.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

To construct a single lane slow point costs around $7,000, with the two previously approved locations to be funded from the 2018/19 Miscellaneous Traffic Management budget.  If Council were to approve the two additional single lane slow points (a total of $28,000), as discussed in the body of the report, they could also be funded from this budget.

 

Any further proposals would be considered as part of the 2019/20 draft budget.

Comments:

The installation of the four slow points will enable the City to compare the effectiveness of ‘hard’ traffic calming measures versus that of signage only.  It is also recommended that the matter again be referred to the UMAG to review the effectiveness of the slow points with a view to considering if further interventions should be considered.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

10.4        Waste Strategy Project 1 – Recovery of Organic Material – Food and Greens Options Appraisal

TRIM Ref:                  D18/177448

Author:                     Yvette Plimbley, Manager Waste and Recycling

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Options - Advantages and Disadvantages  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       SUPPORTS in principle the future adoption of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent in line with the draft State Waste Strategy;

2.       REQUESTS:

2.1     Administration to prepare a comprehensive business case for implementation of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system to be presented to Council in March 2019;

2.2     Administration to prepare a consultation plan to seek community input on the future adoption of a FOGO system;

2.3     Administration to investigate external funding options to support the adoption of a FOGO system including through the Waste Authority’s Better Bins Program; and

2.4     further financial modelling to be presented to Council on the implications of the adoption of a FOGO system.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the introduction of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent.

Background:

The City of Vincent currently spends around $6.5 million per annum on its Waste and Recycling Service, which includes kerbside collections for domestic rubbish and recycling, commercial rubbish and recycling collections, bulk verge hard waste (junk), bulk verge green waste collections, public space litter collections and street cleaning, City event bins, waste education and community engagement events/workshops, and subsidised home composting equipment.

 

The City recently adopted the new Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 with a Vision of “Zero waste to landfill by 2028”.  The City’s current diversion from landfill is around 42%. The City will not achieve this vision without significant changes to current waste management practices.

 

The Strategy recognises that currently around 55% of a typical Vincent rubbish bin is organic waste.  Project 1 of the Strategy is an options appraisal to consider ways that this organic material could be diverted from landfill.

 

The new Western Australia draft Waste Strategy 2030 has recently been released for comment. This Strategy but has a much stronger focus on waste avoidance and creating a circular economy approach where waste is valued as a resource which can be reused or recycled for the benefit of the Western Australia Economy.   A headline strategy is for Local Governments to “Deliver a harmonised kerbside collection system, which includes food organics and garden organics (FOGO), in all Perth and Peel regions by 2025”.

Details:

Current Service

 

The City provides a two bin kerbside collection service through a general waste bin and recovery of dry recyclables in a yellow lid bin.  

 

Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) manages the treatment and disposal of the City’s residual waste collected in the general waste bin via its Tamala Park Landfill and Neerabup Resource Recovery Facility (RRF).    Waste disposal costs have risen significantly in recent years due to increases in both the landfill levy and MRC gate fees. Since its implementation in 2013, the landfill levy has increased year-on-year from the original $28 per tonne 2013/14 to $70 per tonne in July 2018.  Similarly the MRC gate fee has risen consistently from $120 per tonne in 2013/14 to the current rate of $205 per tonne. This trend is set to continue as member councils continue to divert their organic tonnages to various green and FOGO collection schemes.

 

In 2016/17 the City collected 17,695 of waste and recovered 7,375 tonnes; achieving a recovery (landfill diversion rate) of 42%, as detailed below:

 

Main Sources of City Waste

Tonnage 2016/17

% Diverted from Landfill

Rubbish – green lid bin

12,782

29% (3707 tonnes)

Recycling – yellow lid bin

3,750

82% (3075 tonnes)

Bulk hard waste (junk)

670

15% (100.5 tonnes)

Bulk green waste

493

100% (493 tonnes)

 

Waste Composition Audit

 

A recent MRC audit of the City’s general waste (summer and winter cycles) highlighted that an average of 55% of a typical rubbish bin is food or garden organic waste.  This is made up of an average of 17.75% food waste and 37.62% green garden waste.

 

There is a significant opportunity to increase diversion rates through organic waste segregation at source.

 

Organic Material Recovery – Options Considered

 

The City considered the following four options:

 

Option 1 – Three bin system, garden organics only (GO)

Option 2 – Three bin system, food organics and garden organics (FOGO) - combined

Option 3 – Four bin system, food organics and garden organics (FOGO) – separate bins

Option 4 – Three bin system.  Garden Organics to single dwellings and Food Organics to Multi unit dwellings

 

Key factors considered for each option were the cost implications, potential waste diversion and advantages and disadvantages of introducing a separate organics collection system.

 

Costings and options were prepared with the assistance of Waste Management Consultants Talis. They assisted Administration with analysis of the options and provided wide ranging experience from working with other local governments.

 

Organic Material Recovery Options Costs – Key Findings

 

Scenario

Description

 

Rollout costs (one off)*

Indicative Annual  Saving or Additional Cost*

Diversion rate

Baseline

Current service

2 bins

42%

1

Garden only

3 bins

$1,086,289

$124,663 saving

57%

2

FOGO

3 bins

$1,182,636

$44,120 cost

62%

3

FO + GO

4 bins

$1,798,422

$695,220 cost

62%

4

FO(units)  + GO (houses)

3 bins

$1,184,976

$67,317 cost

58%

 

 

 Preferred option  

Discussion of Options

 

Option 1 (Garden organics) is the simplest option.  It is easy to communicate and for residents to understand, would generate the best saving in annual service costs and provide a significant improvement in the City’s diversion from landfill.  It is now becoming standard across the metro region and does not preclude adding food waste to the service in the future when the FOGO processing become more widely available.

 

Option 2 (FOGO) is best practice and is emerging as a service option in WA providing greater diversion from landfill than option 1. It carries a higher risk of implementation because it is more complicated in terms of resident behaviour, would marginally increase service cost and FOGO processing options are currently limited in the market. It also results in the fortnightly collection of the rubbish bin and aligns with both the City’s Waste Strategy and recently the released draft WA Waste Strategy 2030.

 

Option 3 is not recommended.  It does not provide any advantage in terms of landfill diversion rate.  It is a significantly higher cost than option 2 and requires 4 bins.

 

Option 4 could be considered as a hybrid for staged implementation that provides appropriate services for the different type of dwellings in the City. It carries similar risks to options 2 and 3 in terms of market availability for food processing services and it does carry higher cost for only a modest estimated additional 1% of landfill diversion when compared to Option 1 and a lower landfill diversion than Option 2.

 

More detailed advantages and disadvantages of each option are contained in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

It is essential that the City develops a comprehensive public engagement and communications strategy to inform, educate and promote any new collection system.

 

An engagement strategy would be developed utilising best practice principles and incorporating lessons learnt from other local governments.

 

The proposed public engagement and communications strategy would be presented to the March 2019 Council meeting at part of the overall implementation plan.

Legal/Policy:

The introduction of an organic bin aligns with the City’s Waste Strategy 2018-2023 and its aim to achieve “Zero waste to landfill through maximising recovery and avoidance”.

 

It also aligns with new Western Australia draft Waste Strategy 2030 that aims to “Deliver a harmonised kerbside collection system, which includes food organics and garden organics (FOGO), in all Perth and Peel regions by 2025”.

 

Legislation:  The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007

Risk Management Implications:

Medium: Community acceptance of a three bin FOGO scheme.  It would be essential to undertake a comprehensive communications campaign to inform, educate, and promote any new scheme and encourage good waste diversion behaviours.

 

Medium: Lack of established FOGO processing infrastructure. This would develop as more Councils move to a FOGO system. Talis have estimated that there are seven Councils in the Perth and Peel region that have approved or are close to approving the adoption of a FOGO system.

 

Medium: MRC cost increases.  As member councils remove their residual waste from the MRC facilities, this adversely impacts the remaining member councils as gate fees increase.  It is estimated that for every 10,000 tonnes removed, the gate fee increases in the region of $5 per tonne.  However, failure to divert waste, would incur even higher costs as MRC gate fees and the landfill levy continue to rise.

Strategic Implications:

The introduction of an organic bin would contribute to the following priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:-

 

Priority:       Enhanced Environment

Outcome:    We have improved resource efficiency and waste management by delivering a contemporary and sustainable waste service that minimises waste generation and increases recovery, reuse and recycling.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Separation of organic waste at source to allow recovery of clean organics is high on the Waste Hierarchy and is a considerably better environmental outcome than sending organic material to landfill.

Financial/Budget Implications:

High level modelling for each option shows the indicative one off costs of rollout and the saving or additional cost for each option. This modelling shows the one off rollout costs of the preferred FOGO option to be $1,182,636 with an additional annual cost of $44,000.

The one-off rollout cost in year one includes the cost of additional bins to be delivered to each household, a full time education officer to cover the roll-out of the new service and marketing and education costs of the new service. This cost could be spread over more than one financial year depending on the final implementation timetable.

 

The ongoing cost includes the collection and processing costs for the organics and residual streams as well as ongoing bin maintenance and education. The cost of the impact of the reduction in tonnage sent to MRC (which results in a rise of the MRC gate fee) has been included.

 

The impact of an increase in landfill levy has not been modelled as future rises in the levy have not been confirmed by State Government.

 

All options modelled assume no changes to other waste services although it is recommended that all services are reviewed after rollout so that the impact of the change on other waste services can be measured. For example a FOGO bin rollout may well cause migration of organic material from the bulk verge green waste service which could result in recommended changes to that service.

 

There may be the opportunity to apply for Better Bins Grant funding which is currently up to $30 per participating household.  This opportunity has not been included in the modelling as the deadline for applications under the existing scheme is December 2018 and there has been no confirmation of funding beyond this date. This opportunity would be further explored by Administration as part of the implementation process and modelling would be updated as necessary.

 

Further financial modelling would be undertaken if an option is supported in principle by Council and the modelling would be used to inform the annual budget process.

Comments:

It is recommended that Council supports in principle the implementation of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent. 

 

It offers potentially the most cost effective solution for the City to recover organic material from its waste stream it achieves the joint highest diversion of the options considered for a marginal additional annual service cost.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

11          Corporate Services

11.1        Investment Report as at 30 November 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/186972

Author:                     Sheryl Teoh, Accountant

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 30 November 2018 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of investments and the interest earned to date.

Background:

Funds surplus to day to day operational requirements are invested in bank term deposits for various terms, to facilitate maximum investment returns in compliance with good governance, legislative requirements and Council’s Investment Policy No 1.2.4.  Details of investments are attached in Attachment 1.

 

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

 

Details:

Total funds held as at 30 November 2018, including on call in the City’s operating account were $44,188,761; compared to $41,716,473 for the period ending 30 November 2017. The increase in total funds is largely due to issuing of 2018/2019 rates instalment notices a month earlier compared to the prior year.

 

Total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 November 2018 were $42,678,504 compared to $41,180,325 for the prior month end, and $39,482,047 for the period ending 30 November 2017.

 

The following table shows funds under management for the previous and current years:

 

Month

2017/18

2018/19

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$23,433,728

$21,212,649

$26,826,861

$23,990,516

August

$30,161,860

$27,714,651

$44,327,708

$37,499,275

September

$40,305,364

$37,944,911

$44,209,274

$40,651,147

October

$41,087,462

$38,947,823

$44,463,021

$41,180,325

November

$41,716,473

$39,482,047

$44,188,761

$42,678,504

December

$38,768,084

$37,065,389

 

 

January

$39,498,741

$36,147,499

 

 

February

$39,217,278

$36,665,928

 

 

March

$36,377,700

$34,622,001

 

 

April

$33,647,074

$31,177,278

 

 

May

$30,338,407

$28,712,736

 

 

June

$28,409,157

$24,687,341

 

 

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 November 2018 is:

 

 

Adopted Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$420,000

$228,200

$232,715

101.98%

Reserve

$246,060

$110,500

$114,302

103.44%

Sub-total

$666,060

$338,700

$347,017

102.46%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$58,781

N/A

 

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust were not included in the 2018/19 Budget as actual interest earned is held in trust and restricted.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

6.14.     Power to invest

 

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

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

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

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

[(b)   deleted]

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

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

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

 

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

 

19.       Investments, control procedures for

 

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

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

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

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

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

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

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

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

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

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

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

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

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

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

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.

 

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

 

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios as shown in the following table:

 

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

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

A1+

30%

18.2%

30%

Nil

90%

51.6%

A1

25%

5.7%

30%

Nil

80%

5.7%

A2

20%

18.1%

n/a

Nil

60%

42.8%

 

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation aligns with the “Innovative and Accountable” priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

 

“The City of Vincent has a significant role to play in supporting our community to realise its vision. To achieve this, we will be an innovative, honest, engaged and responsible organisation that manages resources well, communicates effectively and takes our stewardship role seriously.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

Funds for investment have slightly increased from the previous period due to timing of payments to creditors and other expenditures over cash receipts.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.66% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.72% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for November 2018 was 1.94%.

 

As at 30 November 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income is higher than the year to date budget estimate by $8,317 (2.46%).

 

The City’s Investment Policy states that preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”. Administration currently uses Marketforces.org.au to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investment in fossil fuel related entities. 30.34% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforces.org.au as at 30 November 2018.

 

Administration notes that Sustainable Platform has been engaged to undertake an accreditation assessment of the City’s sustainability practices and policies and has provided a high level review of the City’s investments in non-fossil fuel and other industries potentially considered contentious. This work will lead to a review of the City’s investment policies in the first quarter of the new calendar year.

 

This investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

·       Investment portfolio;

·       Investment interest earnings; and

·       Current investment holdings.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 11 December 2018


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

11.2        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 17 October 2018 to
13 November 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/175206

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT and BPAY November 18

2.       Payments by Cheque November 18

3.       Payments by Credit Card November 18  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 17 October 2018 to 13 November 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 82434 - 82470

 

$9,840.00

Cancelled cheques

 

$0.00

EFT and BPAY Documents 2317 – 2328 and 2330

 

$3,498,680.05

Payroll       

 

$1,256,017.17

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$385.00

 

·      Loan Repayments

$148,540.85

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$28,556.32

 

·      Credit Cards

$6,499.05

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$183,981.22

Total Accounts Paid

 

$4,948,518.44

 

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 17 October 2018 to 13 November 2018.

Background:

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                            

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 17 October 2018 to 13 November 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

82434 - 82470

$9,840.00

Cancelled Cheques

 

$0.00

EFT and BPAY Payments

2317 – 2328 and 2330

$3,498,680.05

Sub Total

 

$3,508,520.05

 

 

 

Transfer of  Payroll by EFT

22/10/18 Ad hoc

$825.40

 

30/10/18

$620,238.10

 

31/10/18 Ad hoc

$609.70

 

13/11/18

$634,343.97

 

October/November 2018

$1,256,017.17

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$385.00

Loan Repayments

 

$148,540.85

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$28,556.32

Credit Cards

 

$6,499.05

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$183,981.22

 

 

Total Payments

 

$4,948,518.44

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

13.     Lists of Accounts

 

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

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Management systems are in place which establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                11 December 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               11 December 2018

11.3        Financial Statements as at 31 October 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/178449

Author:                     Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 31 October 2018  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 31 October 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the financial statements for the period ended 31 October 2018.

Background:

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

 

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

 

·       the annual budget estimates;

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

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

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

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

         

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

Details:

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

 

Note

Description

Page

 

 

 

1.

Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph

1-3

2.

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report

4

3.

Net Current Funding Position

5

4.

Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas

6-64

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

65-77

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

78

7.

Rating Information and Graph

79-80

8.

Debtor Report

81

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

82

 

 

 

 

 

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the adopted and year to date budget. 

         

Summary of Financial Activity by Program as at 31 October 2018

 

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Variance

Variance

2018/19

2018/19

2018/19

2018/19

2018/19

$

$

$

$

%

REVENUE

23,398,772

7,990,415

7,993,210

2,795

0%

EXPENDITURE

(59,698,331)

(16,295,475)

(15,164,100)

1,131,375

-7%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES

(36,299,559)

(8,305,060)

(7,170,890)

1,134,170

-14%

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET

NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE

Add Deferred Rates Adjustment

0

0

15,034

15,034

0%

Add Back Depreciation

10,289,210

13,310

0

(13,310)

-100%

(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals

(687,908)

(114,837)

0

114,837

-100%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES

9,601,302

(101,527)

15,034

116,561

-115%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

1,829,854

657,334

430,987

(226,347)

-34%

Capital Expenditure

(14,949,424)

(4,149,916)

(2,386,872)

1,763,044

-42%

Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations

583,333

0

0

0

0%

Proceeds from Disposal of assets

475,000

166,000

101,559

(64,441)

-39%

(12,061,237)

(3,326,582)

(1,854,326)

1,472,256

-44%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Repayments Loan Capital

(1,017,424)

(307,474)

(307,475)

(1)

0%

Proceeds from New Debentures                             $428,000

0

0

0