Agenda of Council Briefing

Council Briefing Agenda 5 November 2019

5.1 No. 48 (Lot: 60; D/P: 414285) and No. 50 (Lot: 61; D/P: 414285) Cowle Street, West Perth - Multiple Dwelling (Amendment to Approved)

TRIM Ref: D19/159044

Authors: Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Original Development Approval issued 8 February 2016 ⇩

3. Amendment to Approval issued 3 March 2017 ⇩

4. Amendment to Approval issued 23 October 2017 ⇩

5. Development Plans ⇩

6. Written Submission ⇩

7. Minutes from 15 October 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council ⇩

8. Landscape Plan ⇩

9. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩

10. Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response ⇩

11. Determination Advice Notes ⇩

12. Environmentally Sustainable Design Report ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for development approval Five Storey Multiple Dwelling Development (Amendment to Approved) at No. 48 (Lot: 60; D/P: 414285) and No. 50 (Lot: 61; D/P: 414285) Cowle Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 5 subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 11:

1. Amendment to Approved (Time Extension)

1.1 All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2015.417.1 granted on 8 February 2016, development approval 5.2016.545.1 granted on 3 March 2017 and development approval 5.2017.273.1 granted on 23 October 2017 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1.1 Condition 2 of approval 23 October 2017 is amended to read as follows:

2. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for one year from the 8 February 2020. If the subject development is not substantially commenced by 8 February 2021, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

1.1.2 Condition 2 of approval dated 8 February is amended to include the following:

2. Car Parking and Accessways

2.8 The visitor bays shall be marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, to the satisfaction of the City;

1.1.3 Condition 7.4 is amended to read as follows

7.4 Landscape and Reticulation Plan

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

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

7.4.2 Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

7.4.3 The removal of redundant crossovers;

7.4.4 A minimum of 15 mature trees (minimum 500 litres) are to be provided onsite;

7.4.5 The location of a 500L Weeping Peppermint Tree within the verge area;

7.4.6 A minimum of 400.7 square metres of deep soil area to be provided for in accordance with State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments; and

7.4.7 The provision of trees contributing towards canopy coverage within deep soil areas provided. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list.

All works shown in the plans as identified above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City.

1.1.4 Condition 8.8 is amended to read as follows:

8.8 Bicycle Bays

A minimum of 25 resident bays and 10 visitor bays are to be provided onsite. Bicycle bays must be provided at a location convenient to the entrance and publically accessible. The bicycle facilities must be designed in accordance with AS2890.3.

1.1.5 Insert new Condition 10 to read as follows:

10 Environmentally Sustainable Design

All measures as identified in the Environmentally Sustainability Report prepared by Wood and Grieve engineers dated 2 August 2016 are to be implemented during construction of the development to the satisfaction of the City.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for amendment to approved (extension of time) for a five storey multiple dwelling development at Nos. 48 and 50 Cowle Street, West Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes an extension of time for an additional one year to substantially commence the previously approved development.

Background:

Landowner:	West Perth Management Pty Ltd and Cowle Street Management Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Element
Date of Application:	1 July 2019
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R80
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Vacant and Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Multiple Dwellings
Lot Area:	4,007m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	Yes

The subject site is bound by Cowle Street to the south, Dorrien Gardens Reserve to the north. The development site includes two lots, being No. 48 and No. 50 Cowle Street with a total development area of 4,007 square metres.

The subject site is zoned Residential R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and is located in the Residential Built Form Area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). No. 48 Cowle Street currently comprises of one single house which is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a Category B Management category. No. 50 is currently vacant. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

The history of development approvals on the subject site are as follows:

· On 8 February 2016 the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved a development application for the demolition of three dwellings and retention of one Heritage Listed Dwelling; and construction of a five storey residential development comprising of 74 multiple dwellings and car parking for No. 48 (Lot: 10) and No. 54-70 (Lot: 41) Cowle Street, West Perth the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 2;

· On 8 March 2016, Council resolved to remove lot formerly known as No. 68-70 (Lot: 41) Cowle Street, West Perth, from the Municipal Heritage Inventory, following a catastrophic fire;

· On 21 July 2016, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved a subdivision application for the amalgamation of No. 48 (Lot: 10) and No. 54-70 (Lot: 41);

· On 3 March 2017 the JDAP resolved to grant approval minor modifications to the approved development. The minutes of this meeting can be found in Attachment 3;

· On 31 March 2017, the WAPC approved a subsequent subdivision application for the realignment of the lot boundaries to reflect the proposed staging of the development;

· On 23 October 2017 the JDAP resolved to grant approval for an extension of time to substantially commence the development approval, the decision extended the term of approval until the 8 February 2020, the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 4; and

· On 4 September 2018, the City cleared the conditions of subdivision approval and became party to an Easement agreement for a right of carriageway to ensure vehicle access point for both Lots is continuously provided.

The current development application, which is included in Attachment 5 submitted on 1 July 2019 is seeking an additional one year extension of time to substantially commence the development with the period proposed to be extended to the 8 February 2021. There are no proposed changes to the development plans. The applicant’s written submission is included as Attachment 6.

15 October 2019 OMC

The subject application was previously presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 15 October 2019. At this meeting, Council resolved the following:

That Council DEFERS consideration of the time extension application until further assessment is undertaken to consider changes to the planning framework and the likelihood of the development being approved in light of Local Planning Scheme 2 not having any provisions similar to clause 20 and 27 of the Town Planning Scheme Number 1.

The minutes of this Council Meeting are included in Attachment 7. Administration’s assessment in respect to this reason for deferral is included within the Comments section below. Additional information received from the applicant following the deferral is included in Attachment 6.

Details:

Detailed Assessment

The previous development application was assessed against the standards of the City’s Residential Design Elements Policy and Part 6 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes). The previous development application was approved with departures to the plot ratio, height, street and lot boundary setbacks set out under Part 6 of the R Codes.

Consideration of Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes

State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments (R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments) came into effect on the 24 May 2019 and replaced State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes for each design element. Proposals are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the Element Objectives for each design element. While addressing the Acceptable Outcomes is likely to achieve the relevant Element Objectives, they are not a deemed-to-comply pathway and the proposal is still to be assessed against the relevant Element Objectives. Where Acceptable Outcomes are not met, proposals may still satisfy the Element Objective via alternative means or solutions.

The Element Objectives and/or Acceptable Outcomes that are not achieved in the proposal are as follows

Building Height
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Built Form Policy Clause 5.6 Building Height C 5.6.1 Three storeys	Five storeys
Element Objectives
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.2 Building Height and Built Form Policy Clause 5.6 Building Height O 2.2.1 The height of the development responds to the desired future scale and character of the street and local area, including existing buildings that are unlikely to change.
Street Setbacks
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.3 Street Setbacks and Built Form Policy Clause 5.2 Street Setback A 2.3.1 4.8 metres	1.5 metres
Side and Rear Setbacks
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.4 Side and Rear Setbacks and Built Form Policy Clause 5.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks A 2.4.1 Side Setback: 3.0 metres A 2.4.1 Rear Setback: 3.0 metres A 2.4.1 Lot Boundary Wall Height Two storeys shall not exceed two-thirds the length of the boundary	Basement Level North: 1.5 metres East: Nil West: Nil to 5.1 metres Ground Floor North: 1.1 metres to 1.6 metres East: Nil West: Nil
	Level One North: 1.1 metres to 2.9 metres East: Nil to 9.1 metres West: Nil to 14 metres
	Level Two North: 2.3 metres to 3.9 metres East: Nil to 10.2 metres West: 1.3 metres to 15.2 metres
	Level 3 North: 2.1 metres to 3.95 metres East: Nil to 9.0 metres West: 1.3 metres to 15.2 metres
	Eastern Lot Boundary Wall Five storeys Does not exceed two-thirds the length of the boundary
	Western Lot Boundary Wall Four storeys Does not exceed two-thirds the length of the boundary
Plot Ratio
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.5 Plot Ratio A 2.5.1 1.0 (4,007 square metres)	1.5 (6,012 square metres)
Building Separation
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.7 Building Separation A 2.7.1 Fourth Storey Within Site Boundary Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 12 metres Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 7.5 metres Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 4.5 metres	Fourth Storey Within Site Boundary Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 5.3 metres Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres
A 2.7.1 Fifth Storey Within Site Boundary Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 12 metres Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 7.5 metres Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 4.5 metres	Fifth Storey Within Site Boundary Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 5.3 metres Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres
To Adjoining Property Boundaries Setback from habitable rooms/balconies to boundary: 9.0 metres	To Adjoining Property Boundaries Setback from habitable rooms/balconies to boundary: 3.8 metres
Communal Open Space
Element Objective	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.4 Communal Open Space O 3.4.1 Provision of quality communal open space that enhances resident amenity and provides opportunities for landscaping, tree retention and deep soil areas.	Communal open space proposed within the central space between dwellings. There is no active recreational facilities, such as barbeque facilities.
Visual Privacy
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.5 Visual Privacy A 3.5.1 Setback of unenclosed private outdoor spaces: 6.0 metres	Unenclosed private outdoor spaces Apartment U2-107: Nil setback to eastern boundary Apartment U2-206: Nil setback to eastern boundary Apartment U2-306: Nil setback to eastern boundary
Pedestrian Access and Entries
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.7 Pedestrian Access and Entries A 3.7.2 Pedestrian entries are protected by the weather	No weather protection at pedestrian entries
Car and Bicycle Parking
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.9 Car and Bicycle Parking A 3.9.1 Residential Bicycle Parking Bays: 37 Visitor Bicycle Parking Bays: 8	Residential Bicycle Parking Bays: 25 Visitor Bicycle Parking Bays: 10
A 3.9.2 Motorcycle/Scooter Parking Bays: 9	Motorcycle/Scooter Parking Bays: Nil
A 3.9.3 Residential Car Parking Bays: 66 Visitor Car Parking Bays: 9	Residential Car Parking Bays: 80 Visitor Car Parking Bays: 10
Solar and Daylight Access
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.1 Solar and Daylight Access A 4.1.1 (a) At least 70 percent of dwellings have living rooms and private open space obtain two hours of direct sunlight	67 percent (50 of 74) of dwellings have living rooms and balconies that receive at least two hours of direct sunlight
A 4.1.1 (b) Maximum of 15 percent receive no direct sunlight	21 percent (16 of 74) of dwellings receive no direct sunlight
Universal Design
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.9 Universal Design A 4.9.1 At least 5 percent of dwellings are designed to Platinum Level as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia)	Nil dwellings meet Silver of Platinum Level requirements as there is no disabled parking provided for the residents of the development and bathroom entrances are less than 1.2 metres wide.

Energy Efficiency
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.15 Energy Efficiency A 4.15.1 (b) All dwellings exceed the minimum NATHERS requirement for apartments by 0.5 stars (5.5 star rating required)	Dwelling ratings vary between 5.0 and 8.1 stars.
Water Management and Conservation
Element Objectives	Proposal
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.16 Water Management and Conservation O 4.16.1 Minimise potable water consumption throughout the development.	No details relating to initiatives to minimise potable water consumption throughout the development.

An assessment of how the proposal meets the Element Objectives of the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments 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 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation for a period of 21 days from 7 August 2019 to 29 August 2019. The method of consultation being a sign on site, an advertisement in the local newspaper, 438 letters being distributed to all landowners and occupiers within 150 metre radius of the subject site (as shown in Attachment 1) and the proposal being published on the City’s webpage.

At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of five submissions were received, all in objection to the proposal. The concerns raised were in relation to the following matters:

· The height of the development dominating the existing streetscape and detracting from the established characteristics of Cowle Street;

· Overshadowing onto the south-eastern apartment building;

· The proposal does not incorporate materials and design elements that maintain the heritage characteristics of the street;

· The lack of landscaping due to the proposed setbacks; and

· The increase in traffic to the site, and impact it would have on the surrounding locality as a result of parking and additional vehicles attracted to the area.

A summary of submissions and Administrations response is included in Attachment 9. The summary of submissions and the applicant’s response is included in Attachment 10.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The proposal was originally presented to the City’s Design Review Panel (formerly Design Advisory Committee) on 1 July 2015, prior to a development application being lodged. An amended proposal was presented to the DRP on 19 August 2015. The proposal was further presented to DAC on 28 October 2015, following lodgement of the development application.

The current application was referred to the DRP on 14 August 2019. The DRP provided the following comments and recommendations:

· The development is designed sensitively to the context even though it is over plot ratio and height;

· The applicant should consider:

o What landscaping species are capable of reaching maturity in the locations proposed;

o How landscape would facilitate resident outdoor hang-out spaces;

o Location of crossovers and replacement verge tree; and

o Potential alternative treatment to where plan currently indicates the use of grass cell;

· The applicant should consider details relating to and the design of the multiple entrance for visitors;

· The applicant should consider simplifying and reducing the raised walkways widths in the internal courtyard areas as they appear complex and impact on access to sunlight at lower courtyard levels; and

· Further communal open space should be considered for residents to be able to sit and engage with other residents.

Following presentation at DRP, the applicant provided a landscape plan to address the above comments. The landscape plan can be found in Attachment 8.

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 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

· Policy No. 7.5.4 – Substantial Commencement of Development;

· Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plan; and

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

Planning and Development Act 2005

Should Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant would have the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 2 Apartments

The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides comprehensive guidance for the development of multiple dwellings and mixed use development and focuses on improved design outcomes for apartments that are responsive and appropriate to the context and character of the site and locality. This is a performance based assessment and applicants are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the objectives of each design element as well as the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development was originally determined by the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) and there has been significant changes to the statewide planning framework, with the implementation R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

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:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

When assessing the application for an extension of time, Administration have 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. If the applicant has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development.

This is discussed in further detail below. The applicant has addressed the above matters in Attachment 6.

1. Changes to the Planning Framework

City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2

The previous applications for the subject site were assessed against the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), in which the subject site was zoned Residential with a density coding of R80, and associated State and local planning policies. TPS1 included two provisions which were relevant to the application at the time that the previous applications were determined, being:

· (20)(2) Subject to compliance with the procedures set out in the Residential Planning Codes for notifying affected owners and occupiers, the Council may grant an increase in the permitted density by up to 50 percent if - ….

(b) the proposed development conserves or enhances an existing dwelling or existing dwellings worthy of retention; and

· (27) Where desirable to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place listed in the Heritage List or to enhance or preserve heritage values in a Heritage Area, the Council may vary any site of development requirement of the Scheme provided that, where in the Council’s opinion the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site which is the subject of consideration for variation, the Council shall:

(a) consult the affected parties by following one or more the provisions dealing with advertising uses pursuant to Clause 37; and

(b) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its decision to grant the variation.

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) was approved by the Minister for Planning and was gazetted on 16 May 2018. LPS2 proposed no changes to the zoning or density coding of the subject site, which remains as Residential R80. Clauses 20 and 27 of TPS1 were not included in LPS2.

Although Clause 27 was not included in LPS2, Clause 12 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations includes a provision to the same effect. This provision came into effect in 2015, prior to the first development approval on the site, and remains applicable to the current application:

· 12(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to -

(a) Facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Action 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or

(b) Enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Apartments

The previous applications for development approval for the subject site were assessed against Part 6 of the R Codes. On 24 May 2019, the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments were gazetted which replaced the previous Part 6.

Where an amendment to approval dated granted prior to 24 May 2019 are proposed, Administration is required to assess the proposal against R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides a performance based assessment through Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes in lieu of the deemed-to-comply pathway provided by the former Part 6. Administration has assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments, which are detailed further below.

2. Whether the proposal is likely to receive approval now

Since JDAP’s most recent decision to approve an amendment to the approved development in August 2017 the planning framework has changed. To determine whether the development is likely to receive approval now, the development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.

The proposal is for an extension of time to the approval period to substantially commence development. The development application does not propose any changes to the previously approved built form.

Plot Ratio

The proposed plot ratio of 1.5 is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.5 of the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 for the following reasons:

· The dwellings are separated into four buildings across the two sites, which assists in dispersing the impact of building bulk across the subject site and limiting the impact on the adjoining properties. Building bulk is further mitigated as the elevations are well articulated through the use of contrasting materials, colours, openings and façade depths that moderate the visual impact of the built form;

· The development provides for sufficient on-site car parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors, and diversity in the dwelling types proposed including one, two and three bedrooms. As discussed further in the report, sufficient landscaping is provided across the subject site to provide increased amenity for occupants;

· In considering the bulk and scale, the development is consistent with the future desired built form of the locality as envisaged by the Built Form Policy and LPS2. While the development represents a departure from the current built form of the locality, which consists predominantly of single storey development, as well as two and three storey developments, the heritage listed dwelling is being conserved to contribute towards retaining elements of the current streetscape;

· It is noted that the Italian Club located on the corner of Cowle Street and Fitzgerald Street approximately 115 metres from the site has an approved Local Development Plan that permits heights up to 8 storeys which, if developed will significantly alter the built form outcomes in this area;

· The development has been designed to suitably mitigate any impacts of bulk and scale as noted above, which includes the highest portion of the development located adjacent to the adjoining reserve, and away from the street; and

· The proposal is consistent with the promotion of higher density development within close proximity to the Perth CBD and other high amenity areas including the Leederville Town Centre, and is well serviced by public transport.

As noted above, Clause 20(2) of the City’s previous TPS1 provided for increased density for the retention of heritage listed dwellings. Although this was not included in LPS2, the development has been assessed against the current planning framework, which includes a performance based approach under the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. For the reasons outlined above, the development is consistent with the element objective with respect to plot ratio, and the approval of the previous applications was not reliant on the ability to seek increased density as was available at the time those decisions were made.

Similarly, although Clause 27 of the City’s previous TPS1 provided for varying of Scheme requirements when the heritage properties were being retained and enhanced this was not included in LPS2, however a similar provision remains part of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 under Clause 12, and is applicable. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 12 and the proposed plot ratio is acceptable.

Building Height

The development incorporates a total of four buildings, which vary in height from single-storey to five-storeys. The four buildings fronting Cowle Street propose heights of single-storey, two-storey and four-storeys. The single-storey building is a retained character dwelling which is listed on the City’s MHI. The two buildings facing Dorrien Gardens Reserve are five-storeys.

The proposed building height is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The development is spread over four buildings, with two four-storey buildings, one two-storey building and one single-storey building fronting Cowle Street and two five-storey buildings fronting Dorrien Gardens Reserve, which breaks up the building bulk as viewed from the public realm;

· The fourth storey of the building fronting Cowle Street on No. 50 is contained within the proposed roof form and the two-storey building is located on the lot boundary abutting a single dwelling, which mitigates the perception of building height when viewed from the street and the adjoining residential property;

· The development has been designed to respond to the adjoining multiple dwellings at Nos. 28-44 Cowle Street, with the proposed lot boundary walls abutting the existing lot boundary walls, and the height of the development ensures solar and daylight access to the adjoining dwellings;

· The height of the building responds to the slope of the land, with the basement car parking responding to the existing ground level of the subject site, which minimises the extent of excavation required for the development;

· The proposal incorporates various roof forms, extensive glazing, balconies along the façade fronting Cowle Street and Dorrien Gardens Reserve, landscaping within the front setback area and a variety of colours, materials and design elements including natural brown materials, facebrick, render and timber-look cladding and pitched roof, that are consistent with the existing streetscape, which contribute to mitigating the impact of building bulk and scale when viewed from the public realm and adjoining properties; and

· The development is abutting a three-storey apartment building and Cowle Street to the south and does not result in overshadowing onto private outdoor living areas or habitable spaces, with shadow cast from this development falling onto the adjoining footpath and road reserve.

Street Setback

The proposed street setback is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The development is broken into four buildings fronting Cowle Street, with two four-storey buildings, one two-storey building and an existing character house mitigating the impact of building bulk and scale when viewed at a pedestrian scale of the public realm;

· The proposed street setbacks are consistent with the retained dwelling at No. 48 Cowle Street;

· The development provides a clear transition between the public and private realms, with the inclusion of fencing surrounding the outdoor living areas and clearly delineated entrances for visitor vehicle and pedestrian access;

· There is adequate privacy measures including the street fence and location of courtyards and balconies, to ensure privacy from the public realm to the habitable spaces of dwellings;

· The location of outdoor living areas of the upper levels and the habitable internal spaces on the ground floor enables passive surveillance onto the public realm; and

· The application incorporates design elements, colours and materials including natural brown, facebrick, render and timber-look cladding and pitched roofs, and staggered boundary setbacks of the balconies and walls that reflect the existing characteristics of the street and maintain the existing established streetscape.

Side and Rear Setbacks, Building Separation and Visual Privacy

The proposed lot boundary setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Elements 2.4, 2.7 and 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the relevant local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The application provides a sympathetic, transitional relationship between the subject site and the western adjoining single dwelling with the two-storey building being located adjacent to this residential development;

· Building separation is proportionate with the height of the development, with taller buildings being located to the northern and eastern lot boundaries and having larger setbacks to lower density residential development on the adjoining western lot;

· The development responds to the multiple dwellings located at Nos. 28-44 Cowle Street, on the adjoining eastern lot, by proposing lot boundary walls abutting existing lot boundary walls;

· The proposal provides adequate landscaping opportunities, provision of deep soil areas and ability to provide high level landscape amenity, and private outdoor living spaces within setback areas, which mitigates the impact of building bulk on the street and adjoining properties and provides adequate residential amenity for future residents;

· The proposal has been designed to ensure adequate access to natural ventilation and sunlight, and ensures outdoor living areas and external services are located to reduce the impact of noise on adjacent properties within the subject site and to adjoining residential properties, providing adequate amenity protection to future residents;

· The orientation of private outdoor living areas minimises direct overlooking onto other private outdoor living areas within the development and on adjoining residential properties whilst allowing for passive surveillance over Cowle Street and Dorrien Gardens Reserve; and

· The setbacks proposed reflect the existing lot boundary setbacks and are consistent with the existing design characteristics of the streetscape, by incorporating pitched roofs and varying materials to mitigate the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining lower density residential dwellings.

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas and Landscape Design

The proposed landscape plan satisfies the Element Objectives of Element 3.3 Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments, and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The previous approval included a condition requiring that there be a minimum of 15 mature trees of at least 500 litres to be provided onsite, which would provide a canopy of at least 25 percent (1,017 square metres);

· The subject site includes 16.8 percent (675.4 square metres) of deep soil area;

· The submitted landscaping plans identifies a vegetable garden, a number of citrus trees, and planting and deep soil areas in private outdoor living areas, and landscaping within all common and circulation areas;

· The proposed landscape plan provides internal canopy to the development and a high level of amenity for residents and visitors using the communal and circulation areas; and

· The proposed landscaping in the street setback area would contribute to the landscape amenity of the street.

Administration has recommended that Condition 7 relating to landscaping of the original approval be amended requiring an updated landscape and reticulation plan be submitted to and approved by Administration prior to commencement of development that provides for onsite landscaping and planting to satisfy the Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.

Communal Open Space

The proposed communal open space satisfies the objectives of Element 3.4 of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The development reflects the overall objectives of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the Built Form Policy, and is appropriate for the context of the site for the following reasons:

· The development provides communal open space central to the development, with landscaping and seating infrastructure proposed;

· The proposed communal open space provides quality landscaping and enhances residential amenity to the subject site;

· The communal open space is located on the ground floor and has pathways that make it universally accessible, to provide amenity to all residents;

· The layout of dwellings in relation to the location of the communal open space would mitigate the impact of noise on residents within the site, and with it located central to the site, mitigates the impact on neighbouring properties;

· The subject site is located within 200 metres of Robertson Park and 500 metres of Hyde Park, and is located between Charles Street and Fitzgerald Street which are designated commercial and district centre zones under the LPS2;

· Each dwelling has a large balcony or courtyard, which enhances the residential amenity of residents and provides adequate space for the provision of social interaction; and

· The common spaces and circulation areas provide adequate space for meaningful landscaping and passive recreational opportunities for the subject site.

Pedestrian Access and Entries

The proposed pedestrian access and entries are consistent with the objectives of Element 3.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments given the proposed pedestrian access is universally accessible, with the main entry being centrally located to the development. There are three pedestrian access points along Cowle Street, between private outdoor living areas, which provides a safe environment for visitors.

Vehicle Access and Parking

The proposed car and bicycle parking is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments for the following reasons:

· The subject site is located within 200 metres of a high frequency bus route on Fitzgerald Street, and adequate pedestrian and cyclist network and the proposed car parking is sufficient in accordance with Table 3.9 of Residential Design Codes Volume 2;

· The centrally located vehicle access point is designed for safe access and egress to the site for both visitors and residents;

· There is clear differentiation between resident and visitor vehicle parking, with the open-aired visitor parking located towards the front of the subject site and the basement resident parking behind gates located to the centre of the site;

· The vehicle access and pedestrian access are clearly defined maintaining a safe environment for vehicle users and pedestrians;

· There is adequate provision of bicycle parking for residents, and an existing condition of approval would ensure there be adequate provision of bicycle parking for visitors; and

· The location, orientation and design of visitor and resident car parking minimises the impact of the parking in relation to visual and environmental amenity on adjoining residential properties and the public realm.

Solar and Daylight Access

The proposed solar and daylight access is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.1 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments for the following reasons:

· The orientation and internal layout of the dwellings maximises the amount of natural light into habitable rooms and private outdoor living areas;

· The depth of balconies and courtyards along the northern boundary provides shading to minimise heat gain and glare internal to the dwelling during summer months.

Universal Design

The proposal satisfies the objectives of Element 4.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments as the development has been designed to provide universal access for visitors. The planning framework does not prescribe a requirement for disabled car parking but the Building Code of Australia requires disabled car parking. The applicant would need to demonstrate through the building permit application process that this requirement can be achieved prior to a Building Permit being issued. The internal layout of the apartments may be refined during the detailed design stage, to improve accessibility of people with disabilities and ageing in place.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)

The applicant submitted an ESD report with the original proposal, but has not provided an updated one with the current application. The report, included in Attachment 12, demonstrates that the development achieves an average 6.7 star NATHERS rating over the entire development. The proposal satisfies the objectives relating to Elements 4.15 and 4.16 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and Clause 1.8 of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· Water from small scale rain events is capable of being managed and contained onsite, which is also a requirement under the Building Code of Australia and would be required to be satisfied at the building permit application stage;

· All apartments are dual aspect, which ensure natural ventilation of apartments and the regulation of temperature and reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy. The development achieves an average NATHERS rating of 6.7 stars with a minimum rating of 5.0 stars and proposes instant electric hot water systems which are considered as a ‘significant energy efficient initiative’. The applicant has confirmed that the recommendations of the ESD report will be incorporated as part of the Building Permit. Administration recommends the imposition of a condition requiring this; and

· The design of landscaping onsite assists in the management of stormwater and drainage onsite, and reduces the amount of potable water required to water landscape areas.

A new condition of approval is recommended to require implementation of the ESD report to ensure the development achieves the identified NATHERS rating.

Heritage Management

The subject site is located on the City’s MHI and has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties. The proposal satisfies the performance criteria of this Policy for the following reasons:

· The sole existing character home is proposed to be retained and used for residential purposes;

· The materials and colours proposed are compatible with the fabric of the existing dwelling, and do not obscure or alter the characteristics that contribute to the significance of the place; and

· A condition of approval has been implemented for the applicant to submit a Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of works, which would detail measures to ensure the existing dwelling is not detrimentally impacted by construction works.

3. Extent applicant has implemented/pursued the development application

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.4 – Substantial Commencement of Development aims to provide a clear description of what constitutes as substantially commenced. This policy considers that the demolition of a major structure such as a whole house or building are not considered to be substantial commencement of works. The applicant has demolished and cleared the site with the exception of one Heritage Listed dwelling which is being retained and has not lodged a building permit for any forward works.

The applicant is seeking a time extension of one year to substantially commence development. As set out in Attachment 3, the applicant has provided details relating to how the application has been progressed apart from the commencement of physical works, which include:

· Engaging a full consultant team to progress the design through to a full construction documentation set of drawings;

· Modifying the development through the DAP Form 2 application that was approved on 3 March 2017, to reflect the detailed design process and better respond to market demand;

· Demolishing redundant structures on site to make way for the proposed new development;

· Undertaking an extensive marketing campaign to assist in obtaining necessary pre-sales; and

· Re-subdividing the site in December 2018 to reflect the intended staging of the development and provide the necessary access easements to facilitate the use of the shared crossover.

Council Briefing Agenda 5 November 2019

5.2 No. 536 (Lot: 216; D/P: 2672) Charles Street, North Perth - Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising of Two Commercial Tenancies and Two Multiple Dwellings

TRIM Ref: D19/74077

Authors: Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Original Development Plans dated 15 March 2019 ⇩

3. Development Plans dated 3 September 2019 ⇩

4. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩

5. Design Review Panel Minutes ⇩

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 development approval of the Mixed Use Development comprising of Two Commercial Tenancies, Two Multiple Dwellings and Associated Car Parking at No. 536 (Lot: 216 D/P: 2672) Charles Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 6:

1. Land Use

1.1 The tenancies shown as ‘Comm A’ and ‘Comm B’ are approved for the purpose of ‘Office’ as defined in the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the subject land may not be used for any other use without the prior approval of the City; and

1.2 The proposed Office shall be limited to the following hours of operation:

· 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday.

2. Acoustic Report

2.1 A Notification under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 must be registered over the certificate of title to the land the subject of the proposed development. The notification shall notify owner and prospective purchaser of the property as follows:

The lot is in close proximity to commercial and non-residential activities and may be affected by noise, traffic, car parking and other impacts associated with these uses.

This notification shall be lodged and registered in accordance with the Transfer of Land Act prior to the first occupation of the development;

2.2 An Acoustic Report in accordance with the State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Noise the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound and Attenuation shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit; and

2.3 All recommended measures in the Acoustic report shall be undertaken in accordance with the report identified in Condition 2.2 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;

3. Landscaping

3.1 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 lodgement of a Building Permit. 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 retention and protection of the existing frangipani tree located on the site;

· The provision of a minimum of 17 percent deep soil area, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, and 16 percent canopy cover;

· The provision of trees contributing towards canopy coverage within deep soil areas provided. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list; and

· Provision of tree species within the landscaping area on the southern side of the development to mitigate the impact of building bulk. The selected tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list;

3.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 3.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; and

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

4. Environmentally Sustainable Design

An updated Environmentally Sustainable Design Report reflecting the approved development proposal shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the issuing of a building permit;

5. Building Design

5.1 Doors and windows and adjacent floor areas fronting Charles Street and Hilda Street shall maintain an active and interactive relationship with this street;

5.2 Ground floor glazing and/or tinting shall be a minimum of 70 percent visually permeable to provide unobscured visibility. Darkened, obscured, mirrored or tinted glass or other similar materials as considered by the City is prohibited; and

5.3 The awning within the Charles Street and Hilda Street road reservation attached to the façade of the building shall be designed to be removable, to the satisfaction of the City;

6. Fencing

The gate and/or fencing infill panels above the approved solid portions of wall shall be visually permeable in accordance with the State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, to the satisfaction of the City;

7. Sightlines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within the 1.5 metre of where:

· Walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or

· A driveway meets a public street; or

· Two streets intersect;

unless otherwise approved by the City of Vincent

8. Car Parking, Bicycle Parking and Access

8.1 Prior to occupation of the building:

8.1.1 a minimum of two parking bays for the residents of the multiple dwelling;

8.1.2 one visitor bay for the visitors of the multiple dwellings; and

8.1.3 two commercial bays;

shall be provided on the site and permanently marked for the use of residents, visitors and tenants parking in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1;

8.2 Prior to occupation of the development, a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The Parking Management Plan is to include, but not limited to addressing the following:

8.2.1 Detailed management measures for the operation of the vehicular entry gate, to ensure access is readily available for owners, visitor and tenants to the residential and non-residential units at all times;

8.2.2 The allocation of the car parking bays to ensure that a minimum of two parking bays for the residents of the multiple dwelling, one visitor bay for the visitors of the multiple dwellings, and two commercial bays; and

8.2.3 Reciprocal parking arrangements for the use of the commercial bays for visitors of the multiple dwellings outside of operating hours;

The approved Parking Management Plan shall be implemented, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan and approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City;

8.3 A minimum of two short-term bicycle bays and one long term bicycle bay shall be provided within the development. The bicycle bay shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and installed prior to occupation to the satisfaction of the City;

8.4 All driveways, car parking and manoeuvring area(s) which form part of this approval shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City; and

8.5 All pedestrian access and vehicle driveway/crossover levels shall match into existing verge, footpath and Right of Way levels to the satisfaction of the City. The proposed vehicular access gate is required to open wholly within the subject lot;

9. Waste Management

9.1 A Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the City prior to lodging an application for a building permit. The plan must include the following details to the satisfaction and specification of the City:

· the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas;

· the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins;

· details on the future ongoing management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and

· frequency of bin collections; and

9.2 The Waste Management Plan must be implemented at all times to the satisfaction of the City;

10. Stormwater

Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any other property or road reserve;

11. Clothes Drying Facilities

Each multiple dwelling shall be provided with a clothes drying area screened from the public realm in accordance with State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the occupation or use of the development;

12. 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 shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition and/or forward works). The Construction Management Plan is required to address the following concerns that relate to any works to take place on the site:

· Public safety, amenity and site security;

· Contact details of essential site personnel;

· Construction operating hours;

· Noise control and vibration management;

· Dilapidation Reports of nearby properties;

· Air, sand and dust management;

· Stormwater and sediment control;

· Soil excavation method;

· Waste management and materials re-use;

· Traffic and access management;

· Parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

· Consultation plan with nearby properties; and

· Compliance with AS4970-2009 relating to the protection of trees on the development site.

13. Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, a schedule detailing the colour and texture of the building materials, demonstrating that the proposed development complements the surrounding area, must be submitted to and approved by the City, prior to lodging an application for a building permit. The development must be finished, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the schedule provided to and approved by the City, prior to occupation of the development;

14. External Fixtures

All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive; and

15. Road Reserve

15.1 No earthworks are to encroach into the road reserve area;

15.2 No stormwater drainage is to be discharged onto the road reserve; and

15.3 The landowner/applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the road reserve.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a mixed use development comprising of two commercial tenancies and two multiple dwellings and associated car parking at No. 536 Charles Street, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of a two storey mixed use development on the subject site. The proposal consists of:

· Two commercial tenancies to be used as Office on the ground floor fronting Charles Street, being 40 square metres and 38 square metres in area respectively. The applicant has not indicated the operating hours or number of staff for these tenancies;

· Two two-bedroom apartments on the first floor. Each apartment is 79 square metres in area, and the entrance is provided from Hilda Street; and

· Vehicle access provided from Lawler Street using the existing crossover and a total of five car parking bays. Of these five car parking bays, two bays are allocated to the commercial tenancies (one bay each), two bays are allocated to the residents (one bay each), and one bay is allocated to the visitors of the apartments.

Background:

Landowner:	Thi Loan Tran Nguyen
Applicant:	Perth Residential Development
Date of Application:	21 August 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R60-100
Built Form Area:	Transit Corridor
Existing Land Use:	Dwelling (Single)
Proposed Use Class:	Office: ‘A’ Dwelling (Multiple): ‘P’
Lot Area:	407m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

Site Context

The subject site is located at No. 536 Charles Street, North Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. It currently accommodates a single-storey dwelling. The subject site is bound to the north by Hilda Street, the east by Lawler Street and the west by Charles Street. The southern adjoining properties are coded R60 and consist of two grouped dwellings, one single-storey and one two‑storey. The surrounding area generally consists of single dwellings and is within 100 metres of the Charles Street Hotel.

Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R60-100 and is subject to Clause 26(3) of LPS2. The criteria set out in Clause 26(3) of LPS2 states that development would only be permitted to the R100 standards where the site exceeds 2,000 square metres. As the site area is 407 square metres, the proposal has been assessed against the R60 standard.

Charles Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The subject site is affected by future road widening at the corner of Charles Street and Hilda Street. Following this road widening, which is 63 square metres, the total site area would be 344 square metres. The assessment has been undertaken based on the future lot size and boundaries.

Subject Application

The application was lodged with the City on 20 August 2018. Administration undertook an assessment of the application which identified a number of departures to the then State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes and City’s Policy 7.1.1 Built Form which were unlikely to be supported as proposed. Administration requested additional plans be provided to address these departures, before progressing with the application. Following discussions and a meeting with the applicant, the applicant submitted written justification on 26 October 2018 in response to the City’s concerns.

Administration and the applicant had a further meeting, and amended plans were provided on 13 December 2018. Due to the Christmas period, the application was advertised between 25 January 2019 and 19 February 2019. In response to comments received during the advertising period and from the City’s Design Review Panel, the applicant submitted amended plans on 15 March 2019 (included in Attachment 2). The proposal was also referred to Main Roads on the advice of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). Main Roads provided its advice on 10 April 2019.

The application was scheduled to be presented to Council at the Briefing Session held 23 April 2019, and the subsequent Ordinary Meeting of Council held 30 April 2019 with administration drafting a recommendation for refusal. The applicant requested the item be withdrawn to provide additional opportunity to refine the design to address the concerns from Administration. Amended plans were provided on 16 July 2019, subsequently, Administration met with the applicant and Main Roads to discuss potential impacts of future road widening on the subject site. During this time the application was again presented to DRP. The final set of plans were received on 3 September 2019, and Main Roads provided updated comments in relation to the updated plans on 10 October 2019.

The development plans that are the subject of this application are included as Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The proposal was assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Built Form Policy and Part 6 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes) which related to mixed use developments. Following the assessment of the application against the relevant deemed-to-comply standards, the Minster for Transport and Planning announced that State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2) would be gazetted on 24 May 2019 and supersede Part 6 of the R Codes. The proposal has been reassessed against the requirements of the R Codes Volume 2.

The R Codes Volume 2 is a performance based policy that includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes for each design element. Proposals are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the Element Objectives for each design element. While addressing the Acceptable Outcomes is likely to achieve the relevant Element Objectives, they are not a deemed-to-comply pathway and the proposal is still to be assessed in the context of the design solution to ensure that the Element Objectives are met. Where Acceptable Outcomes are not met, proposals may still satisfy the Element Objective via alternative means or solutions.

The Element Objectives and/or Acceptable Outcomes that are not achieved in the proposal are as follows:

Land Use
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Local Planning Scheme No. 2 ‘P’ permitted use	Office is an ‘A’ use which requires advertising prior to exercising discretion
Street Setback
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 2.4 Side and Rear Setbacks R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments C4.3.1 Primary Street Setback: 2.0 metres Secondary Street Setback: 2.0 metres	Primary Street (Charles Street): Nil to 2.0 metres following road widening Secondary Street (Hilda Street): 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres Secondary Street (Lawler Street): 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres
Side and Rear Setbacks
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 2.4 Side and Rear Setbacks R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 2.4.1 First Floor: 3.0 metres	Apartment 1: 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres Apartment 2: 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres
Building Depth
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 2.6 Building Depth R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 2.6.3 Room depths and/or ceiling heights optimise daylight and solar access and natural ventilation	Bedroom 2 in both apartments south facing
Communal Open Space
Element Objectives	Proposal
Element 3.4 Communal Open Space R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments O 3.4.1 Provision of quality communal open space that enhances resident amenity and provides opportunities for landscaping, tree retention and deep soil areas.	No communal open space proposed.
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 3.4 Communal Open Space R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 3.4.1 Informal seating associated with deep soil or other landscaped areas	No informal seating areas
Visual Privacy
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 3.5 Visual Privacy R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A3.5.1 Balcony setback 6.0 metres	Apartment 2 balcony setback 5.4 metres

Pedestrian Access and Entries
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 3.7 Pedestrian Access and Entrances R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments O 3.7.7 Entries and pathways are universally accessible, easy to identify and safe for residents and visitors.	Pathways to the first floor is in the form of a stairwell, which is not universally accessible.
Private Open Space and Balconies
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 4.4 Private Open Space and Balconies R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments O 4.4.2 Private open space is sited, oriented and designed to enhance liveability for residents	Reduced amenity for balcony of Apartment 2 which overlooks the vehicle access and bin store area.
Car and Bicycle Parking
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Policy 7.7.1 Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements One long term bicycle bay	No long term bicycle bays
Size and Layout of Dwellings
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 4.3 Size and Layout of Dwellings R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 4.3.1 Minimum internal floor area for two bedroom and two bathroom dwellings: 75 square metres	Apartment 1: 70.6 square metres Apartment 2: 70.9 square metres
Circulation and Common Spaces
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 4.5 Circulation and Common Spaces R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 4.5.2 Circulation and common spaces are designed for universal access.	Circulation and common spaces are the form of a stairwell, which is not universally accessible.
Universal Design
Acceptable Outcomes	Proposal
Element 4.9 Universal Design R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments A 4.9.1 (a) 20 percent of all dwellings, across a range of dwelling sizes, meet Silver Level requirements as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia) OR (b) 5 percent of dwellings are designed to Platinum Level as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia).	Neither dwelling has been designed to achieve a Silver Level or Platinum Level as defined in Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia).

Waste Management

Acceptable Outcomes

Proposal

Element 4.17 Waste Management R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments

A 4.17.2 A Level 1 Waste Management Plan (Design Phase) is provided in accordance with the WALGA Multiple Dwelling Waste Management Plan Guidelines – Appendix 4A (or equivalent local government requirements where applicable).

No waste management plan provided.

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified acceptable outcomes and/or element objectives and are discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 21 days between 25 January 2019 and 19 February 2019, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.5.1 – Community Consultation. Advertising was undertaken by means of a sign located on the subject site, an advertisement in a locally distributed newspaper, 118 letters being distributed to landowners and occupiers within a 100 metre radius and the proposal being published on the City’s webpage. The City received 13 submissions; nine objecting to the proposal, two expressing concern over the proposal and two supporting the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions related to the following:

· The impact of additional parking and traffic on the locality;

· The lack of landscaping;

· The impact of building bulk and scale;

· Lack of consideration for environmentally sustainable design;

· Lack of architectural design; and

· Overall height of the proposal facing Lawler Street, which has a two-storey height limit.

A summary of submissions and Administration’s response is included in Attachment 4. The applicant has responded to the above concerns through amended plans.

When advertised, the proposal included three multiple dwellings and had a height of three storeys. These plans are contained in Attachment 2. Following community consultation, the applicant submitted amended plans responding to the comments raised. These amended plans have been included in Attachment 3 and reflect the following modifications:

· Reduction in the number of storeys from three to two;

· Reduction in the number of multiple dwellings from three to two;

· Increase of the street setbacks from a nil setback to all primary and secondary streets to:

o Nil to 2.0 metres (following road widening) on Charles Street (primary street);

o 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres on Hilda Street (secondary street); and

o 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres on Lawler Street (secondary street);

· Lot boundary setbacks to the southern adjoining lot, including:

o Removal of the lot boundary wall;

o Increase of ground floor lot boundary setback from nil to 3.1 metres, to 1.5 metres to 3.0 metres; and

o Reduction of first floor lot boundary setback from 2.2 metres to 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres to 2.2 metres; and

· Increase in the amount of deep soil area from 7.5 percent to 17.0 percent.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) delegations under the MRS, the application was referred to DPLH because the subject site is partly reserved as an ORR under the MRS. The DPLH advised the City to refer the application to Main Roads (MRWA) for comment as this land is affected by Planning Control Area 125 (PCA125): Charles Street (between Carr Street and Green Street).

A Planning Control Area is a statutory mechanism used to protect strategic land from development in the interim while the potential use and development of this land is further investigated and planned.

Main Roads WA

The application was referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA have reviewed the proposed plans contained in Attachment 3 and did not object to the proposal, subject to standard conditions being imposed. These include:

· No earthworks encroaching into the road reserve;

· No stormwater encroaching being discharged into the road reserve; and

· The landowner/applicant making good any damage to the existing verge.

These conditions form part of Administration’s recommendation.

It is noted that the development does not propose any permanent works within the road reserve area, with this proposed to be landscaped in the interim. This has been included as part of the recommended advice notes in Attachment 6.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The proposal was presented to DRP on 20 February 2019 when the proposal presented as a three storey development and again on 24 July 2019 subsequent to the amended plans being submitted to the City. The minutes from these DRP meetings are included as Attachment 5. The applicant has responded to the comments made which is also included in Attachment 5.

Following the 24 July 2019 DRP meeting, further changes were made to the plans. These amended plans received 3 September 2019 were presented to the DRP Chair for comment. The following comments were provided in respect to the amended plans:

· The applicant should consider detailed design elements, including colours, materials and finishes, that reflect the existing streetscape character of Charles Street, Lawley Street and Hilda Street, and the wider North Perth locality;

· The applicant should consider refining the proposed landscaping plan;

· Keeping a constant relationship with the awning and the fall of the pavement; and

· Consider the interaction between the development and the adjoining southern properties, particularly the impact of overshadowing onto the habitable spaces and solar collectors of the adjoining site.

The first three points can be adequately addressed through conditions of approval prior to commencement of development. The impact of overshadowing is discussed in the building height heading within the Comment section below. The transition between the subject site and the adjoining residential property is discussed in more detail in the comments section below.

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 5.4 Road and Rail Noise;

· State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

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

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

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

At the 23 July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, the proposed Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy was approved for the purposes of advertising. The development has not been assessed against the proposed amendments to the Built Form Policy as the amendments are in draft form and are not considered to be ‘seriously entertained’. This is because they have not received approval from Council following community consultation, which concludes on 22 November 2019. Furthermore they are not certain or imminent in coming into effect in their current advertised form.

The submissions from community consultation for the amended Built Form Policy are expected to be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2020 to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments

The proposed development was originally assessed against the relevant provisions of Part 6 of superseded State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments became operational following publication in the Government Gazette on 24 May 2019. The amended plans dated 3 September 2019, included in Attachment 3, have been assessed against the relevant provision of R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments provides comprehensive guidance for the development of multiple dwellings and mixed use development and focuses on improved design outcomes for apartments that are responsive and appropriate to the context and character of the site and locality. This is a performance based assessment and applicants are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the objectives of each design element as well as the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development received more than five objections during community consultation.

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:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

Office is an ‘A’ use in the Residential zone under LPS2. This means that the use is not permitted unless the Local Government has formally advertised the proposal and discretion has been exercised in granting development approval.

Administration received objections relating to the impact of parking as a result of visitors and employees travelling to and from the subject site.

The proposed Office satisfies the objectives of the Residential zone for the following reasons:

· The subject site fronts onto Charles Street which is identified as a Primary Distributor in the Main Roads WA road hierarchy and is reserved as an Other Regional Road in the MRS. Developments along Charles Street consists of single and grouped dwellings and commercial land uses, including a medical centre, the Charles Street Hotel and shops;

· The land use is compatible given standard business operating hours are during the day, where it is expected there would be less impact on surrounding sensitive land uses; and

· The Office land use is of a low scale and intensity and would likely not result in an unacceptable amount of noise that would have a detrimental impact on the adjoining residential properties. The proposed Office land use is compatible with the surrounding development context. The applicant has not provided indicative operating hours. To ensure the compatibility of the Office use with the surrounding residential development, Administration recommends a condition restricting the operating hours to Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm. The applicant has agreed to this condition.

Building Height

The application proposes a two storey development with a maximum wall height of 6.9 metres and a maximum wall height of 7.8 metres. The City received objections in relation to the building height not reflecting the existing Charles Street character and having a detrimental impact on the adjoining residential properties.

The proposed building height is consistent with objectives of Element 2.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The subject site is located within the Transit Corridor under the Built Form Policy, which permits a three storey building height with a wall height of 10.2 metres and a top of roof height of 13.2 metres. The proposed building height is less than these requirements and is not inconsistent with the desired scale. The surrounding locality includes a mix of single and two-storey developments, and the proposal is consistent with this built form;

· The building height typically follows the topography of the subject site, which slopes down from Charles Street to Lawler Street by approximately 1.5 metres;

· The development includes a clerestory featuring openings within the roof form to provide articulation; and

· The layout of the lots contribute towards unavoidable overshadowing to the adjoining properties. This is due to the east-west orientation of the subject site and adjoining properties to the south at No. 532 Charles Street and No. 81 Lawler Street. An assessment of the impact of the overshadowing on these properties is as follows:

o No. 532 Charles Street consists of a single storey dwelling with one major opening on the northern side. This opening is currently overshadowed by the existing dividing fence and dwelling on the subject site, and the impact of the overshadowing as a result of the proposal would not be any greater. The outdoor living area is located on the northern boundary, but is covered with a patio structure, and would not experience any greater overshadowing as a result of the development. The proposal would result in the overshadowing of the existing solar panels on the roof; and

o No. 81 Lawler Street consists of a two storey dwelling with no major opening on the ground floor, and a number of minor and major openings on the upper floor. The overshadowing from the proposal falls predominantly onto the vehicle access leg, although it would impact on the ground floor opening as well. The upper floor openings would not be affected by the shadow, and the outdoor living area is located on the southern side of the property and includes a patio and shade sail structures, which would remain unaffected.

While there is some overshadowing experienced on the adjoining properties, the proposal has been designed to reduce the extent of this where possible. The development has been reduced from three storeys in height when it was advertised for public consultation, and is less than the deemed-to-comply three storey building height permitted in the Built Form Policy for the subject site and surrounding properties which would have greater overshadowing impacts. In this instance, Administration is of the view that the overshadowing impacts have been mitigated as much as possible acknowledging the constraints of the lots as well as the development potential of the subject site.

Street Setbacks

The applicant proposes a street setback between nil and 2.0 metres along Charles Street, 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres along Hilda Street, and 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres along Lawler Street. The City received objections to a nil street setback, as it would result in a built form that was considered an overdevelopment of the subject site.

The proposal fronts Charles Street (the primary street), Hilda Street and Lawler Street (the secondary streets). The proposed street setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Element 2.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The development reflects the existing street setback of the commercial land uses adjacent to the subject site and along the broader streetscape, including:

o No. 540 Charles Street – nil setback;

o No. 528 Charles Street – 0.5 metres;

o No. 502 – 506 Charles Street – nil setback; and

o No. 496 Charles Street – 2.0 metres setback.

The portion of the development with the nil setback is proposed at the corner truncation of Charles Street and Hilda Street and increases to 2.0 metres. This is positioned away from adjoining residential properties and does not result in a detrimental impact on the continuity and rhythm of the existing street setbacks. The 2.0 metre setback is consistent with the setback of the existing adjoining property and No. 534 Charles Street, which is also 2.0 metres;

· The development provides a clear transition between public and private spaces, with the clearly defined residential and commercial pedestrian entrances;

· The commercial land uses are capable of providing passive interaction with the primary and secondary street and provides appropriate openings to utilise space external to the tenancies;

· The setback of the dwellings from the proposed balconies provide adequate amount of visual privacy into the dwellings when viewed from the street, while also providing opportunities for passive surveillance from balconies and major openings to each street frontage;

· The openings from habitable rooms and balconies provide passive surveillance opportunities onto the street; and

· The existing streetscape consists of pitched roofed dwellings, both single and two storeys as well as grouped dwellings and some commercial land uses. Existing dwellings have a variety of materials including facebrick and render, and tile pitch roofs. The height of the surrounding development is between one and two storeys. The prominent colours in the locality are earthy tones, including red, brown, cream, charcoal and white. The inclusion of the proposed facebrick, awnings and feature archways reflect existing character elements from the Charles Street streetscape, but it is noted that no information in respect to colours has been provided. To ensure that the colours and materials of the local area are appropriately incorporated into the development, Administration recommends that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the submission of a schedule of colours and materials to demonstrate that these complement the surrounding area.

Side and Rear Setbacks

The applicant proposes a southern lot boundary setback that varies between 1.5 metres and 2.0 metres. The City received objections relating to the previously proposed lot boundary wall and southern lot boundary setbacks due to the density of the development having a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbours. The applicant removed all proposed lot boundary walls as part of amended plans in Attachment 3.

The proposed southern lot boundary setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Element 2.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The proposal incorporates an articulated design, open faced car parking area on the ground floor and is setback appropriately to mitigate the impact of building bulk when viewed from the southern adjoining site;

· As noted in the building height section, overshadowing on the adjoining properties is unavoidable as a result of the orientation of the lots, and does occur to a major opening on each of the adjoining properties. The extent of overshadowing has been reduced where possible through the reduction of the building height which is less than that permitted under the Built Form Policy, and these areas would remain overshadowed if the upper floor were setback 3.0 metres as per the acceptable outcome. The proposed setback does not cause greater overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties;

· The southern lot boundary setbacks allow for additional landscaping opportunities along the blank wall, to mitigate the impact of building bulk on the adjoining lot; and

· The development provides appropriate transition between the subject site and the adjoining residential land uses by proposing a setback of 1.5 metres to the southern adjoining property to allow for landscaping opportunities and to minimise the amount of overshadowing onto the adjoining lot. In addition, the absence of any lot boundary walls on the southern lot boundary minimises the impact of building bulk and scale on the adjoining lot.

Tree Canopy, Deep Soil Areas and Landscape Design

The applicant has submitted a landscape plan, included within Attachment 3, which depicts 61.5 square metres of deep soil area of the lot area, accounting for the future road widening. This equates to 17 percent of the site area. Landscaping is also proposed in the road widening area which contributes an additional 63 square metres. A total of 11 proposed small trees and the retention of one medium tree located to the rear of the site, being a frangipani tree. Small trees are defined as:

· Providing at least four to six metres of canopy diameter at maturity;

· Growing to at least four to eight metres in height; and

· Requiring at least nine square metres of deep soil area for each tree to reach maturity.

Based on the above, the deep soil areas associated with each tree are not considered to facilitate growth to maturity of the species chosen as the deep soil areas for each tree vary between 5.3 metres and 6.2 metres, as a result of the angled lot boundaries and the PCA125 area. The landscaping as proposed would achieve 16.1 percent canopy cover across the subject site.

The City received submissions relating to the lack of vegetation and the impact it has on the perception of building bulk and scale, and on the heat island effect in the immediate locality. The applicant has provided additional deep soil areas and capability of growing more vegetation to contribute to canopy cover.

The Built Form Policy prescribes 30 percent canopy to be provided across the site. The development incorporates 16 percent canopy cover across the site, concentrated within the street setback areas and along the southern lot boundary.

The proposed landscape plan is consistent with the objectives of Elements 3.3 and 4.12 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The landscaping proposes the retention of an existing mature frangipani tree in the north-east corner of the subject site, which has a canopy of approximately 28 square metres;

· Aside from the existing frangipani tree to be retained, there is minimal vegetation on the subject site currently the development proposes trees and associated shrubs along the three street frontages and the southern boundary. The installation of this landscaping improves the tree canopy across the site, contributing towards the City’s green canopy and reducing the urban heat island effect. In addition, the development proposes the temporary landscaping of the area within the PCA125 boundary along Charles Street which would improve the amenity in the event this land is developed in the future;

· The landscaping is located around the street frontages and along the boundary of the southern lot to reduce the impact of the development. It is noted that along the southern boundary, shrubs are proposed, which would have limited effect in reducing mitigating the view from the adjoining property. Administration recommends a condition requiring a revised landscaping plan be provided which includes appropriate tree species to assist in screening the development; and

· In reviewing the landscaping plan, the City’s Parks Team have advised that given the constraints of the subject site, the selection of appropriate tree species would assist in providing greater canopy cover, improving the amenity for occupants and contributing towards the streetscape. Administration recommends a condition of approval requiring a revised landscaping plan that includes appropriate tree species selection to maximise canopy coverage for the development.

Communal Open Space

The proposed development does not include any communal open space for residents and does not satisfy the objectives of Element 3.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

Although the development does not provide for any communal open space within the building, it is consistent with the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· Each dwelling has adequate outdoor living areas for residents, which are capable of being used for passive recreation;

· These balconies are capable of being used in conjunction with internal habitable spaces and would provide space for recreational activities and social interaction;

· There are three public parks within 250 metres of the subject site, which would provide additional opportunities to recreate and for social interaction; and

· Given the size and scale of the development in providing for two apartments, it is not necessary for there to be further open space provided in addition to the outdoor living areas of each dwelling.

Visual Privacy

The proposed balcony of Apartment 2 is setback 5.4 metres from the southern adjoining residential lot. The acceptable outcome relating to setback of balconies identifies a setback of 6.0 metres to be appropriate. The City did not receive any submissions objecting to overlooking of the southern adjoining site.

The balcony is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments given the extent of overlooking falls onto a common property area of the adjoining property that serves the purpose of vehicle access, and avoids any outdoor living areas or major openings to habitable rooms.

Private Open Space and Balconies

The proposed balcony of Apartment 2 is oriented to the west and overlooks the vehicle access and bin store located on the ground floor below, which provides a level of reduced amenity for the occupants.

The balcony is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The balcony exceeds the minimum area and dimension identified in the R Codes Volume 2, and provides a functional space. The balcony is also capable of being used in conjunction with the living room which provides flexibility for the occupants;

· The balcony is sited to the rear of the development to provide privacy from Apartment 1, and is oriented to the north to maximise solar access. To the south the balcony overlooks the vehicle access and bin store area on the subject site. This would result in a reduced visual amenity for the occupants of the balcony, but landscaping including a tree is indicated to be provided on the ground floor, which would assist in mitigating the impact as this matures. Overall the access to the northern sun and functionally afforded by the balcony siting outweighs the potential outlook to the south; and

· The balcony has been designed in integrate with the overall built form.

Bicycle Parking

The subject site provides two short term bicycles bays and nil long term bicycle bays for the commercial tenancies. The City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy) prescribes a minimum of one long term bicycle bay. The development satisfies the overall objectives of this policy for the following reasons:

· The public short term bicycle bays are located within the car parking area, accessible only by employees or visitors to the site, while the residents bicycle facilities are securely located within each of the storerooms, ensuring their accessibility;

· The location of the subject site is along a major public transport route, with other alternative transport options available for visitors and employees to the site; and

· There is only one car parking bay available for each commercial tenancy, which encourages the use of sustainable and active modes of transport. To continue to encourage this, Administration recommends that a long term bicycle bay be provided in accordance with the Parking Policy requirements, which would be capable of use by staff for the commercial tenancies. This could be located under the stairwell adjacent to the short term bicycle bays so that they are conveniently accessible. A condition to this effect has been recommended.

Size and Layout of Dwellings and Building Depth

The proposed size and layout of the dwellings satisfy the objectives of Element 2.6 and Element 4.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The size of the living areas are reflective of the anticipated demographic and number of occupants within each dwelling, given they are two bedroom dwellings;

· Habitable rooms have at least two openings and adequate ceiling height to facilitate access to natural sunlight and ventilation throughout the dwelling; and

· The bedrooms are consistent with the minimum floor areas and dimensions outlined in the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, with each provided with two openings to ensure access to natural ventilation. Access to sunlight is available from the south, and although this is not ideal, the ceiling heights are 2.7 metres to maximise access. The living rooms of each dwelling are consistent with the minimum floor areas and dimensions outlined in the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and are capable of being used in conjunction with both the kitchen/dining areas and the balconies. The open plan living areas and the ability to use the internal with external living areas, and the provision of adequately sized bedrooms provides the residents with a functional dwelling with the flexibility to accommodate different furniture layouts and facilitate the use of the space.

Managing the Impact of Noise

Charles Street is identified as an Other Significant Freight/Traffic Route under Schedule 3 of the State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise (SPP 5.4 Road and Rail Noise). This means that the development is required to be assessed in accordance with this policy.

SPP 5.4 identifies that applications are to generally be accompanied by a noise assessment and any necessary mitigation measures should be conditioned as part of the development approval. The applicant has not provided a noise assessment with the application. In the referral responses, neither the DPLH nor Main Roads raised a concern with this not being provided upfront. A condition of approval is recommended to require an acoustic report be provided as part of the building permit application, to identify noise impacts from Charles Street and mitigation measures the impact of noise to the dwellings. This would ensure that the development is consistent with the provisions of SPP 5.4 Road and Rail Noise and the objectives of Element 4.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments by ensuring that the treatments identified in the acoustic report would be implemented to reduce the amount of noise experienced from habitable rooms and balconies.

Universal Design, Pedestrian Entrances and Access and Circulation and Common Spaces

The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of Element 3.7 or Element 4.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The proposed circulation and common areas are not designed for universal access, as prescribed as an acceptable outcome under Element 4.5 Circulation and Common Spaces.

The proposed development satisfies the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments given the development considers social and economic opportunities by introducing alternative housing options for different demographics than what is located within close proximity to the site. The development has been designed so that it is flexible and can be adapted to accommodate different demographics, and provides safe and convenient access for residents and visitors. The commercial tenancies on the ground floor are provided with an unobstructed path of travel from both the street and the rear parking area.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)

The applicant submitted an ESD report as part of this development application. This report demonstrates that the development as initially proposed, being a three storey mixed use development with three multiple dwellings and two office tenancies, was capable of achieving five star Green Star rating in accordance with the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system. The amended plans have not been assessed against the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system. Given the size and scale of the development has been reduced a condition of approval has been recommended for an amended ESD Report is provided for the development plans prior to the building permit which demonstrates a five star Green Star rating. The applicant has agreed to this condition.

The proposal satisfies the objectives of Elements 4.15 and 4.16 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and Clause 1.8 of the City’s Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The development incorporates solar collectors to the building, to reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy sources;

· The dwellings have been designed to maximise the northern sun in winter, and provide shading from direct sun in summer;

· All habitable rooms have access to natural ventilation, with at least two operable windows or doors to each habitable space; and

· The above points would assist in reducing reliance on non-renewable sources of energy within the development.

Waste Management

No waste management plan has been submitted with the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.17 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· Based on the City’s standard waste generation and collection frequency, the development would require a total of six bins, consisting of:

o Residential component – two 240 litre bins for food-organic garden-organic waste, one 240 litre bins for general waste, and one 240 litre bin for recycling; and

o Non-residential component – one 140 litre bin for recycling and one 240 litre bin for general waste;

The area required for the bin store to accommodate these bins is 2.7 square metres. The development proposes a bin store with six bins which is 5.3 square metres, and is sufficient to accommodate the needs of the development; and

· The location of the bin store is to the rear of the car parking area, and abuts the vehicle access of the adjoining site, eliminating adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining habitable spaces and outdoor living areas and proposed dwellings. The bin store is conveniently located and provides opportunities for the separation and recycling of waste.

Council Briefing Agenda 5 November 2019

7 Community and Business Services

7.1 Investment Report as at 30 September 2019

TRIM Ref: D19/150702

Author: Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser: Rosslind Ellis, A/Executive Director Community & Business Services

Attachments: 1. Investment Report as at 30 September 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 30 September 2019 as detailed in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 30 September 2019 and the interest earned year to date.

Background:

The City’s surplus funds are invested in bank term deposits for various terms to facilitate maximum investment returns in accordance to the City’s Investment Policy (No. 1.2.4).

Details of the investments are included in Attachment 1 and outline the following information:

· Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

· Investment portfolio data;

· Investment interest earnings; and

· Current investment holdings.

Details:

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several accredited financial institutions.

As at 30 September 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $44,876,698, compared to $44,209,274 for the period ending 30 September 2018.

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 September 2019 is $41,017,535 compared to last year’s amount of $40,651,147.

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

Month	2018/19		2019/20
Ended	Total funds held	Total term deposits	Total funds held	Total term deposits
July	$26,826,861	$23,990,516	$32,209,493	$26,105,854
August	$44,327,708	$37,499,275	$49,641,327	$44,977,692
September	$44,209,274	$40,651,147	$44,876,698	$41,017,535
October	$44,463,021	$41,180,325
November	$44,188,761	$42,678,504
December	$40,977,846	$38,667,039
January	$42,109,674	$35,225,189
February	$44,227,308	$36,178,794
March	$39,157,958	$32,739,750
April	$36,427,902	$31,019,902
May	$33,384,520	$29,469,158
June	$30,503,765	$25,613,648

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 September 2019 is:

	Annual Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$105,000	$72,077	68.64%
Reserve	$278,688	$69,672	$74,671	107.18%
Sub-total	$698,688	$174,672	$146,748	84.01%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$29,316	N/A

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2019/20 Budget as actual interest earned is held in trust that is restricted.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 1.93% for current investments including the operating account and 1.96% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for September 2019 is 0.98%.

Sustainable Investments

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-investments in fossil fuel related entities.

As at 30 September 2019, $7,915,867 (17.64%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

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
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	27.5%	30%	Nil	90%	61.4%
A1	25%	0%	30%	Nil	80%	0%
A2	20%	21%*	n/a	Nil	60%	38.6%

* The maximum allowable position with an A-2 accredited institution (Bank of Queensland) has exceeded the threshold. This is because the total investment closing balance at the end of the September has decreased compared to when the investments were undertaken resulting in an increase in the portfolio percentage for Bank of Queensland.

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 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.

Council has delegated the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to facilitate prudent and responsible investment.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Administration has developed effective controls to ensure funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy. This report enhances transparency and accountability for the City’s investments.

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details section of the report. Administration is satisfied that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets.

Council Briefing Agenda 5 November 2019

7.2 Financial Statements as at 30 September 2019

TRIM Ref: D19/157370

Author: Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser: Rosslind Ellis, A/Executive Director Community & Business Services

Attachments: 1. Financial statements as at 30 September 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 30 September 2019 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 September 2019.

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 including the sources and applications of funds, as compared to the budget.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 30 September 2019:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-52
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	53-58
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	59
7.	Rating Information and Graph	60-61
8.	Debtors Report	62
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	63

Comments on the Statement of Financial Activity (as at Attachment 1)

Operating revenue is reported separately by ‘Program’ and ‘Nature or Type’ respectively. The significant difference between the two reports is that operating revenue by ‘Program’ includes ‘Profit on sale of assets’ and the report for ‘Nature or Type’ includes ‘Rates revenue’.

Revenue by Program is tracking slightly lower than the year to date budgeted revenue by $157,374 (2.5%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An unfavourable variance of $62,823 due to lower than anticipated revenue collected from development application fees (Community Amenities) and

· An unfavourable variance of $62,265 due to lower than anticipated revenue collected from parking infringement and fines (Transport).

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking slight lower than the budgeted revenue by $81,610 (0.4%). This was1 mainly contributed by revenue being slightly lower than anticipated.

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $816,026 (6.8%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $518,547 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to waste collection and tipping costs (Community Amenities); and

· A favourable variance of $187,974 mainly contributed by a budget phasing variance relating to the recovery of employee related on-costs (Other Property and services); and

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $799,797 (6.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $1,067,298. This variance is largely contributed by a timing variance in works within multiple service areas;

· Utility charges reflects an under-spend of $139,163 due to a timing variance of utility related invoices; and

· Employee costs reflects an over spend of $577,340 largely contributed by a timing variance. There were three pay periods in September; however, the budget was based on two pay periods. This timing variance is rectified in October 2019.

Opening Surplus Brought Forward – 2019/20

The provisional surplus position brought forward to 2019/20 is $7,857,741 compared to the adopted budget surplus amount of $5,929,991. The actual opening surplus figure will be adjusted once the end of year audit has been finalised.

Content of Statement of Financial Activity

An explanation of each report in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1), along with some commentary, is below:

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

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

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

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Nature or Type.

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

‘Net current assets’ is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities; less committed assets and restricted assets.

4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 52)

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by service unit including variance commentary.

5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 53 - 58)

The full capital works program is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 59)

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserves portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 30 September 2019 is $13,075,463.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 60 – 61)

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2019/20 were issued on 19 July 2019.

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

First Instalment	26 August 2019
Second Instalment	29 October 2019
Third Instalment	7 January 2020
Fourth Instalment	10 March 2020

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 30 September 2019 is $15,046,627 including deferred rates ($113,018) but excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 62)

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 30 September 2019 are $2,507,911, of which $2,096,563 relates to outstanding debtors. 86% of the outstanding debtors balance is over 90 days.

Administration has been regularly following up all outstanding items by issuing reminders when they are overdue and subsequently initiating a formal debt collection process when payments remain outstanding for long periods of time.

Below is a summary of the significant items that have been outstanding for over 90 days:

· $1,680,232 (92.7%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, a provision amount for doubtful debts was calculated last financial year and an amount of $1,066,403 has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion).

Administration has updated the provision based on the probability of recovering long outstanding monies owed to the City. The provision amount will be updated once the audited financials are approved.

· $170,485 (9.4%) relates to cash in lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay over a fixed term of five years.

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 63)

As at 30 September 2019, the operating surplus for the centre is $42,392 compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $124,954.

10. Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 52)

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $20,000 respectively. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget and where that variance exceeds $20,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2019/20 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 30 September 2019 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

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

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

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

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Provision of monthly financial reports to Council fulfils relevant statutory requirements and is consistent with good financial governance.

Strategic Implications:

Reporting on the City’s financial position is aligned with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Land to be exchanged	Current LPS2 Classification	Proposed LPS2 Classification
Portion of Lot 100 (to City)	Public Purpose – Primary School	Public Open Space
Portion of Lot 75 (to MPL)	Public Open Space – Restricted	Public Purpose – Primary School
Lot 37	Residential	Residential

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT and BPAY Payments	2466 - 2475	$3,361,960.14
Payroll by Direct Credit	October 2019	$1,255,664.12
Sub Total		$4,617,624.26

Cheques
Cheques	82543 - 82547	$1,356.19

Sub Total		$1,356.19
Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)
Lease Fees		$48,511.56
Loan Repayments		$150,005.89
Bank Charges – CBA		$54,486.44
Credit Cards		$6,103.06
Sub Total		$259,106.95

Total Payments		$4,878,087.40

Energy Efficiency	Roll out energy efficient lighting across the municipality.
Renewable Energy	Install renewable energy (solar PV and battery storage) on council buildings.
Transport	Ensure Council fleet purchases meet strict greenhouse gas emissions requirements and support the uptake of electric vehicles.
Transport	Support cycling through provision of adequate cycle lanes, bike parking and end-of-ride facilities.
Work Together and Influence	Set up meetings and attend events to work with other cities on tackling climate change.

Council Workshop	Council Briefing	Ordinary Meeting of Council
28 January (and AGM)	11 February	18 February
25 February	10 March	17 March
24 March	14 April	21 April
28 April	12 May	19 May
26 May	9 June	16 June
23 June	14 July	21 July
28 July	11 August	18 August
25 August	8 September	15 September
22 September	13 October	20 October
27 October	10 November	17 November
24 November	8 December	15 December

Meeting Occurrence:		When required
Date of Meeting:		When suitable
Time of Meeting:		When suitable, usually commencing at 9.30am with a duration of 30 minutes to 2 hours
Location of Meeting:		City of Vincent Administration and Civic Centre; or Department of Planning; or Other Local Government
No. of Meetings in 2019:		15 meetings to date (18 meetings in 2018)
Responsible Liaison Officer:		Executive Director Strategy & Place
Purpose of DAP:		Determining development applications where the likely cost of the development exceeds a specified dollar value. For the City of Vincent, any proposal over $7 million in value would be determined by the DAP.
Fees for DAP Members:		1. Fee for presiding member per meeting to determine development applications	$500
		2. Fee for any other member per meeting to determine development applications	$400
	3. Fee per meeting for presiding member to determine applications to amend or cancel determination			$100
	4. Fee per meeting for any other member to determine applications to amend or cancel determination			$50
	5. Fee for presiding member attending proceeding in State Administrative Tribunal			$500
	6. Fee for any other member attending proceeding in State Administrative Tribunal			$400
	7. Fee for Training			$400
	· Please note that eligibility for payment of DAPs sitting fees is guided by the Premier’s Circular 2010-02
Other Membership:	· Three (3) members with specialist knowledge in the areas of town planning, architecture, or other related disciplines. · Director Planning Services · Manager Planning and Building Services · Other City Officers (as required)