AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

9 June 2020

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

E-Meeting and Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the City of Vincent (City) for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  The City disclaims any liability for any loss however caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council Briefing or Council Meeting does so at their own risk.

In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning or development application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by an Elected Member or Employee of the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the City.  The City advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the City must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Council in respect of the application.

Copyright

Any plans or documents contained within this Agenda may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction.  It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright.  A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
•	All Ordinary and Special Council Meetings are electronically recorded except when the Council resolves to go behind closed doors;
•	All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records produced by the Public Records Office;
•	A copy of the recorded proceedings and/or a transcript of a particular section or all of a Council meeting is available in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.4 – Council Meetings – Recording and Web Streaming. 
•	Ordinary Meetings of Council and Council Briefings are streamed live on the internet in accordance with the City’s Policy – 4.2.4 - Council Meetings Recording and Web Streaming. It is another way the City is striving for transparency and accountability in what we do.
•	The live stream can be accessed from  http://webcast.vincent.wa.gov.au/
•	Images of the public gallery are not included in the webcast, however the voices of people in attendance may be captured and streamed.
•	If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Governance Team on 08 9273 6500.
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 
The Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 and the City of Vincent Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 set out the requirements for persons to make statements or ask questions at Ordinary and Special Council Meetings and Committee Meetings and the process to be followed. 
Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council Meeting can relate to matters that affect the City.  Questions or statements made at a Special Meeting of the Council or a Committee Meeting must only relate to the purpose for which the meeting has been called.
The City’s Council Briefings, Ordinary Council Meetings, Special Council Meetings and COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee Meetings are currently held electronically (as eMeetings) and live streamed via the City’s website - http://webcast.vincent.wa.gov.au/
The following conditions apply to public questions and statements: 
1.	Questions/statements are to be emailed to governance@vincent.wa.gov.au by 3pm on the day of the Briefing/Meeting.  
2.	The email and question/statement is to be addressed to the Mayor (Presiding Member at Briefings/ Meetings).
3.	Questions/statements are to be made politely in good faith and are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely or be defamatory on an Elected Member or City Employee.
4.	You must provide your full name and suburb in your email.  
5.	The question/statement will be read out and responded to, as appropriate, during public question time at the Briefing / Meeting. The maximum duration for the question/statement is 3 minutes. 
6.	Questions/statements and Administration’s responses, as appropriate, will be included in the Minutes of the Council/Committee meeting.
7.	Where practicable, responses to questions will be provided at the meeting.  Where the information is not available or the question cannot be answered, it will be “taken on notice” and a written response will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the person asking the question.  A copy of the reply will be included in the Agenda of the next Ordinary meeting of the Council.
8.	It is not intended that public speaking time should be used as a means to obtain information that would not be made available if it was sought from the City’s records under Section 5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (FOI Act). The CEO will advise the member of the public that the information may be sought in accordance with the FOI Act.


Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 5

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 5

3          Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 5

4          Declarations of Interest 5

5          Strategy & Development 6

5.1             Nos. 539-545 (Lots: 9, 10 and 30; D/P: 1477 and 49374) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Mixed Use Development (Amendment to Approved) 6

5.2             No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth - Proposed Two Grouped Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings. 76

5.3             No. 50 (Lot: 412 D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Single House. 146

5.4             Outcomes of Advertising Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form; Appendix No. 16 Design Guidelines for Perth; and Appendix No. 18 - Design Guidelines for William Street 213

6          Infrastucture & Environment 797

6.1             Traffic Management at the Intersection of Walcott Street and Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley. 797

6.2             Department of Transport Long Term Cycle Network Endorsement 800

7          Community & Business Services. 806

7.1             Petition - Friends of ANZAC Cottage. 806

7.2             Investment Report as at 30 April 2020. 812

7.3             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 April 2020 to 30 April 2020. 820

7.4             Financial Statements as at 30 April 2020. 843

7.5             Differential Rating Strategy. 914

8          Chief Executive Officer 915

8.1             Annual Review of Council Delegations and proposed amendments to the Execution of Documents Policy [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 915

8.2             Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 - 2021/22 - Quarterly Update. 1042

8.3             Outcomes of advertising and adoption of new policies - Elected Members Continuing Professional Development Policy, Council Proceedings - Recording and Web Streaming Policy and Risk Management Policy [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 1055

8.4             Appointment of a CEO Performance Review Consultant 1077

8.5             Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group - Administrative Amendment to Council Decision. 1080

8.6             Information Bulletin. 1083

9          Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 1182

10        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 1182

11        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 1183

11.1           Leederville Gardens Inc. - Request for Reimbursement of Overpayment 1183

12        Closure. 1184

 

1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

4            Declarations of Interest

              4.1          Cr Castle declared a financial interest in  Item 7.1  Petition – Friends of ANZAC Cottage.                 The extent of her interest is that she Friends of ANZAC Cottage are an ongoing client of                      her business.  She is not seeking approval to participate in the debate or to remain in                           Chambers and vote on the matter.

 

 

             


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

5            Strategy & Development

5.1          Nos. 539-545 (Lots: 9, 10 and 30; D/P: 1477 and 49374) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Mixed Use Development (Amendment to Approved)

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Location and Consultation Plan

2.       Council Minutes and Approved Plans

3.       Development Plans

4.       Landscaping Plan

5.       Development Perspectives

6.       Summary of Submissions  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for development approval for a proposed Mixed Use Development (Amendment to Approved) at Nos. 539-545 (Lots: 9, 10 and 30 D/P: 1477 and 49374) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3 subject to the following conditions:

1.       All conditions and advice notes detailed on the development approval 5.2018.473.1 granted on 25 June 2019 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1     Condition 3.10 is amended to read as follows:

3.10   A minimum of 24 bicycle racks shall be provided for within the development. Bicycle racks shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and installed prior to occupation to the satisfaction of the City. Eight of these bicycle racks shall be located to be accessible for visitors of the Multiple Dwellings and customers of the Shop and Office uses;

1.2     Condition 9.1 is amended to read as follows:

9.1     A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge, to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100, prepared generally in accordance with the landscaping plan dated 28 May 2020 and show the following:

·        The location and type of proposed trees and plants;

·        Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·        The installation of mature planting along the western balconies with a minimum height of 1.6 metres and be of a sufficient amenity to provide screening to the adjacent properties. Planters shall have a minimum width of 0.7 metres and shall be provided around the perimeter of Apartments 4 to 6 and 10 to 12;

·        The appropriate selection of tree species (consistent with the City’s Tree Selection Tool) to be located within the on-structure planting areas to maximise the provision of canopy coverage; and

·        Maximising on-structure planting opportunities through:

-      Increasing minimum planter widths to 0.7 metres;

-      The use of consolidated planters in the corners of balconies as opposed to individual planters; and

-      Additional tree planting along each balcony on the western frontage, the northern frontage of the balconies along Level 2, and the balconies along the eastern and southern frontages on Level 7;

 

 

1.3     A new Condition 7.5 is added to read as follows:

7.5     Prior to the issue of the building permit, amended plans shall be submitted which demonstrate that the fire hydrant booster doors are fully contained within the subject site and not within the road reserve, to the satisfaction of the City; and

1.4     A new Advice Note 9 is added to read as follows:

9.       Pursuant to Schedule 4, Clause 4.2 of the Clause 78H Notice of Exemption from Planning Requirements During State of Emergency, a further two years is added to the date by which the development shall be substantially commenced. This additional two years is added on to the date of the original approval that was issued on 25 June 2019. The substantial commencement period for the development, inclusive of this amendment, is 25 June 2023.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an amendment to the previous approval for an eight storey Mixed Use Development at Nos. 539-545 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The current application proposes to make the following amendments to the previously approved development plans. Some of these changes result in the proposal not meeting the Acceptable Outcomes of the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2) and include:

 

Key Changes

 

·       Building Height – increased from 25.9 metres to 26.5 metres for the overall building height, and increased from 26.4 metres to 27.6 metres to the top of the lift overrun;

·       Landscaping – the number of trees provided within the landscaping plan has reduced from 58 to 34. There is no change to the previously approved amount of on-structure planting, being 18.5 percent (171.5 square metres);

·       Basement – modification to Store 10 and relocation of Store 12;

·       Ground Floor – reduction in the width and area of the retail tenancies to accommodate a new service corridor, fire exit and services including the water pump room;

·       First Floor - removal of Store 21 and increasing the size of Store 20;

·       Fourth and Fifth Floors – conversion of external storerooms for Apartments 16, 17, 21 and 22 into ensuites for these apartments, which results in an additional 22.5 square metres of plot ratio; and

·       Second to Seventh Floor – reconfiguration of balcony areas.

 

The acceptability of these changes are discussed in the Comments section below.

 

Other Changes

 

There are also a number of other changes which largely relate to internal building modifications. These changes remain consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes and Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 and include:

 

·      Basement 2 – removal of this level with the servicing rooms (such as water pump room and fire tank room) redistributed throughout the upper floors;

·      Basement 1 – increase in the size of Store 3, addition of new Stores 11, inclusion of a new fire stair and additional access ramp;

·      Ground Floor – relocation of 13 and 16, inclusion of a new Store 17, swapping the location of the bin store and bicycle store, and replacement of the landscaping strip to Harold Street with external services. The ground floor spaces have been reconfigured to accommodate the cleaner, communications and switch rooms;

·      First floor - modifying the entry and floor area of the ‘Office 1’ tenancy, and removal of one car bay to meet the requirements for the provision of an accessible car bay;

·      Second Floor – conversion of Apartment 5 into a two bedroom apartment, Store 21 reduced to accommodate one store rather than two, and a new Store 22 added;

·      Third Floor – conversion of Apartment 11 into a two bedroom apartment;

·      Sixth Floor – inclusion of new Stores 25 and 26; and

·      A number of minor changes through the reconfiguration of internal spaces that result in changes to the floor areas of some apartments, as well as some external changes to the location of openings fronting Beaufort Street.

 

The proposed development plans are included in Attachment 3 and the proposed landscaping plans are included as Attachment 4. Perspectives of the development are included in Attachment 5.

Background:

Landowner:

Bronze Penny

Applicant:

Baltinas Architecture

Date of Application:

6 December 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Commercial        R Code: No R Code

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Commercial Development

Proposed Use Class:

Dwellings (Multiple)

Shop

Office

Lot Area:

927.1 square metres

Right of Way (ROW):

3.2 metres wide, paved and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Beaufort Street and Harold Street, and abuts an existing ROW to the north-west and an existing two-storey commercial building to the north-east. A location plan is included in Attachment 1. Beaufort Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is generally characterised by predominantly two-storey buildings. Opposite the subject site there is an existing four to five-storey building at Nos. 544 – 552 Beaufort Street and a three-storey building at No. 153 Harold Street.

 

The properties fronting Beaufort Street, including the subject site, are zoned Commercial under the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Activity Corridor area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). On the north-western side of the ROW there is existing residential development which is zoned Residential R50 under LPS2 and vary between single and three-storeys in height.

 

Council at its 25 June 2019 Ordinary Meeting approved, subject to conditions, a development application on the subject site for an eight storey Mixed Use development comprising of four Shop tenancies, two Office tenancies, 26 apartments and 60 parking bays accessed from Tramway Lane. The development plans approved by Council are included as Attachment 2. An amendment sought to this previously approved development is the subject of this report.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Built Form Policy and State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2) which relates to multiple dwelling developments and the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The R Codes Volume 2 provides guidance for multiple dwellings 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.


 

Consideration of Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes

 

The R Codes Volume 2 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.

Detailed Assessment

The proposed amendments the subject of this application have been assessed against the relevant Acceptable Outcomes and Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 and the City’s Built Form Policy. 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 3.1 – Building Height

 

C2.1.1 Maximum Building Height

Top of Concealed Roof: 20.5 metres

 

 

 

Top of Concealed Roof: 26.5 metres to top of building and 27.6 metres to top of lift overrun.

 

The application proposes to increase the previously approved building height by 0.6 metres to the top of the building and 1.2m to the top of the lift overrun.

Plot Ratio

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.5 - Plot Ratio

 

A2.5.1 1.0 (927.1 square metres)

 

 

3.0 (2,803.8 square metres)

 

The application proposes to increase the previously approved plot ratio by 22.5 square metres.

Private Open Space and Balconies

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.3 – Size and Layout of Dwellings

 

A 4.4.1 Each dwelling has private open space accessed directly from a habitable room with dimensions in accordance with:

·       3 bedroom – 12 square metre minimum area.

 

 

 

Apartments 9, 15 and 20 each have a balcony which is 11.0 square metres in area.

 

The application proposes to reduce the previously approved balcony areas for these three apartments by 1.0 square metre.

Storage

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.6 – Storage

 

A 4.6.1 Each dwelling has exclusive use of a separate, ventilated, weatherproof, bulky goods storage area. These can be located either internally or externally to the dwelling with a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres.

 

 

Store 10 – varies between 1.0 metre and 1.5 metres;

Store 12 – varies between 0.5 metres and 1.7 metres; and

Store 20 – varies between 1.1 metres and 1.6 metres.

 

The application proposes to:

·       Increase the size of Store 10 which was approved with an area of 4.0 square metres and a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres, to an area of 5.7 square metres;

·       Reduce the size of Store 12 which was approved with an area of 5.3 square metres and a minimum width if 1.5 metres, to an area of 4.0 square metres; and

·       Increase the size of Store 20 which was approved with an area of 4.0 square metres and a minimum width of 1.5 metres, to an area of 7.0 square metres.

Façade Design

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 1.4

 

C1.4.13 Ground floor spaces with a width between 7.5 metres to 9 metres

 

 

‘Retail 2’ – 6.4 metres wide

‘Retail 3’ – 5.1 metres wide

 

The application proposes reduce the width of these tenancies by 0.3 metres for ‘Retail 2’ and 1.6 metres for ‘Retail 3’.

 

An assessment of how the proposal meets the Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 is discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 28 April 2020 to 11 May 2020. The method of consultation was 61 letters mailed out to adjoining landowners and occupiers surrounding the site (shown in Attachment 1) and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of six submissions were received, comprising of one in support, four in objection, and one which expressed concerns but did not specifically support or object to the proposal. The main issues raised in the submissions relate to the following matters:

 

·      The additional height being out of character with the existing streetscape and impacting on the privacy of surrounding properties; and

·      The reduction of on-structure landscaping.

 

A summary of the submission received and Administration’s comments with respect to these is provided in Attachment 6. The applicant has also provided a response to these submissions which is included in Attachment 7.

 

The proposal was advertised with the provision of on-structure landscaping being 15.1 percent (139.9 square metres) and the number of on-structure trees being 17. Following community consultation the applicant provided amended plans which increased the provision of on-structure landscaping to 18.5 percent (171.5 square metres), and the number of on-structure trees being 34. These amended plans are included in Attachment 4 with the amount of on-structure landscaping consistent with the previous approval. The applicant also provided amended development plans removing the second basement level and relocating the service rooms previously located in this space between the first basement and ground floor. These amended plans are included in Attachment 3.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

 

The previous application that was ultimately approved by Council was presented to the DRP prior to and following lodgement.

 

The current application was not referred to the DRP as the proposed changes to the previously approved plans would not result in a significant change to the building design.

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 7.1 – Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

·      Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·      Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

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 concluded on 22 November 2019. The amendments are not certain or imminent in coming into effect in their advertised form.

 

The submissions from community consultation for the amended Built Form Policy have been included in this Ordinary Meeting agenda to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter has been referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the application is an amendment to a development approval that was determined by Council and includes proposed changes that do not meet the Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2.

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:

Key Changes

 

Building Height

 

The development proposes to increase the previously approved building height by 0.6 metres to the top of the building and 1.2m to the top of the lift overrun. The top of the building is proposed to have a height of 26.5 metres and the top of the lift overrun a height of 27.6 metres. There is no change to the previously approved number of storeys, being eight.

 

The applicant has advised that the modifications to the building height are required as a result of undertaking further detailed design. This is summarised as follows:

 

·      In order to accommodate the necessary acoustic and thermal insulation, the thickness of the slab between each apartment level is required to be increased. Increasing the thickness of the slab would have resulted in decreased ceiling heights and reduced amenity for each apartment if the overall building height does not increase to accommodate these changes. To maintain amenity for future occupants the overall height has been proposed to increase in order to maintain the floor to ceiling heights as previously approved whilst accommodating the necessary insulation; and

·      An increase to the lift overrun is required to safely facilitate maintenance and is not visible from the street.

 

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

 

·      The upper floors are stepped in from the side and rear boundaries, with the seventh and eighth storeys setback so that they are not visible from Beaufort and Harold Street. When viewed from the street the height is six storeys, which is consistent with the six-storey deemed-to-comply standard within the Built Form Policy for the area;

·      The lift overrun is centrally located within the roof of the development and will not be visible from the street level; and

·      The building design allows for articulation with balconies and landscaping provided for each apartment. The development does not restrict access to daylight or result in overshadowing for the residential development located to the west of the subject site. The building height provides for celling heights of 3.0 metres to 3.2 metres, allowing for future adaptability of the commercial tenancies and increased amenity for the residential apartments.

 

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas

 

The landscaping plan submitted (included as Attachment 4) proposes a reduction in the number of on-structure trees to be planted from 58 to 34, and proposes the removal of 3.0 metre deep concrete planters, of which there were previously 10. The Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 requires 20 percent on structure planting given there is no deep soil areas provided on site.  There has been no proposed reduction in the overall on-structure landscaping compared to that previously approved, being 18.5 percent (171.5 square metres).

 

The applicant has advised that the modifications to the concrete tree planters have occurred as a result of undertaking detailed design which identified a number of issues including:

 

·      Damage to the concrete pots as a result of the tree root system would require removal by a crane to undertake repairs, becoming a costly exercise for the strata in the future; and

·      Over time if the drainage system were to become blocked, the additional weight from holding water would create a significant structural weight issue.

 

The proposed modifications to the on-structure landscaping are consistent with the objectives of Element 3.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal maintains previously approved amount of on-structure landscaping, being 18.5 percent (171.5 square metres). The incorporation of landscaping and tree planting along the edge of the balconies for each apartment to provide amenity for occupants and to assist with softening the built form when viewed from the public realm is an alternative means to providing deep soil areas;

·      In reviewing the landscaping plan, and in consultation with the City’s Parks team, there are opportunities for on-structure landscaping to be maximised. These opportunities include the increase of planter widths in the locations indicated in Attachment 4 to have a minimum width of 0.7 metres to provide for a greater soil area and opportunities for root growth, and the use of larger planters in the corners of the balconies rather than smaller individual pots to increase continuous and consolidated planting areas.  There are also a number of locations whereby tree planting could be maximised, including:

-      Along the eastern, western and southern balconies of Level 7 where there is no building above; and

-      Along the northern balcony of Level 2 where there is minimal tree planting and a long continuous line of planters.

The City’s Park’s team has advised that planting in these locations would maximise opportunity of canopy across the site and in the proposed conditions would receive adequate sunlight and have sufficient space to grow. To ensure these opportunities are maximised Administration recommends Condition 9.1 be amended to account for these;

·      Condition 9.1 of the development approval requires planting to the western balconies to have a minimum height of 1.6 metres to Apartments 4-6 and 10-12 to provide screening to the adjacent properties. The current planter boxes have a height of 0.9 metres, with planting in these to have a height of 0.7 metres to achieve the specified 1.6 metre height. Administration recommends this condition remain unaltered;

·      The landscaping infrastructure is integrated into the design of the building in relation to materiality and located in key functional areas to provide amenity for residents and surrounding properties; and

·      The overall landscape amenity would provide an effective contribution to the City’s green canopy, landscape amenity and reduce the impact of the urban heat island effect in the immediate locality.

 

The amended proposal also removes the 1.5 square metre landscaping strip on the ground floor fronting Harold Street. This had a width of 0.3 metres and did not contribute towards any deep soil zones or on-structure planting on the site. This has been replaced by external services including water, gas and fire hydrant booster. The fire hydrant booster doors are shown to open within the Harold Street road reserve. Development is to be contained within the site itself. Administration has recommended a condition of development approval to ensure this.

 

Plot Ratio

 

The development proposes an additional plot ratio of 22.5 square metres. This is a result of converting the external storerooms to Apartment 16 and 17, and 21 and 22 on the fourth and fifth floors respectively into ensuites for each apartment.

 

The proposed modification to the plot ratio is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy. This is because the conversion of the storerooms into ensuites does not result in any additional building bulk impact or changes to the building footprint. For the purposes of calculating plot ratio under the R Codes Volume 2, storerooms are not included in the plot ratio area, while ensuites are. The development as a whole maintains the setting back of the upper floors, provision of articulated facades through the use of major openings and balconies, the incorporation of landscaping around the perimeter and varying textures and colours to mitigate building bulk impacts. The storerooms for these apartments are proposed elsewhere within the development.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies

 

The development proposes to modify the area of the balconies of Apartments 1, 3-7, 9-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20-25. Through these modifications the balcony areas vary between 1.0 square metres and 13.0 square metres. The balcony for Apartment 26 is also proposed to be decreased in size by 31.0 square metres, to have an area of 193.0 square metres. The modifications to the balconies of Apartments 9, 15 and 20 do not meet the Acceptable Outcome of the R Codes Volume 2 in respect to having a minimum area of 12.0 square metres. The other modified balconies are consistent with the respective Acceptable Outcomes.

 

The proposed modifications to the balconies are consistent with the objectives of Element 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 as each dwelling is provided with access to a balcony through living areas which provide a high level of amenity for residents. The location of balconies remains unchanged and have been designed to receive good daylight access and natural ventilation, and landscaping remains incorporated around the perimeter to improve aesthetic appeal. The balconies remain integrated with building design and form part of the architectural detail of the façade.

 

Storage

 

The development proposes to modify the size and location of storerooms across the development. This includes increasing the size of Storerooms 3 and 6, relocating Storerooms 10-13, 16, 20, 22, 25 and 26, and reducing the size of Storeroom 21.  The modifications to Stores 10, 12 and 20 do not meet the Acceptable Outcome of the R Codes Volume 2 in respect to having a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres. The other modified storerooms are consistent with the respective Acceptable Outcomes.

 

The proposed modifications to the storerooms are consistent with the objectives of Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 as a storage area with a functional dimension and size is provided for each apartment. The storage areas are located throughout the building with some positioned adjacent to the balconies of dwellings to provide convenient access, but also integrated with the building design so as to not be visually obtrusive to the public realm. The remaining storage areas are located next to parking areas to provide easy access from vehicles, and in close proximity to the stairwell and lift to ensure easy access by residents.

 

Façade Design

 

The development proposes to reduce the width of the ground floor ‘Retail 2’ and ‘Retail 3’ tenancies by 0.3 and 1.6 metres respectively to accommodate a new service corridor and fire escape.

 

The proposed modification to the building facade is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.10 of the R Codes Volume 2 and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy as the design of the ground floor tenancies maintains an active presentation to the street. Each tenancy has its own distinguishable entrance provided directly from Beaufort Street, while the pedestrian awning provides weather protection. Glazing and articulation is provided to each of the tenancies to facilitate interaction and street surveillance.

 

Other Changes

 

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

The development proposes to reduce the number of on-site parking bays from 60 to 59 to accommodate the provision of an accessible car parking bay on the first floor. The car parking requirements for the development has reduced from 48.4 bays to 44.0 bays as a result of the changes to the floor areas of the non-residential tenancies.

 

The development also required a minimum of 26 bicycle parking spaces to satisfy the requirements of the R Codes Volume 2 and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy). This was included as Condition 3.10 of the current development approval. The bicycle parking requirements for the development has reduced to 24 spaces as a result of the changes to the floor areas of the non-residential tenancies.

 

The proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives of Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 and the objectives of the Parking Policy for the following reasons:

 

·      Condition 3.1 requires the provision of a minimum of 41 parking bays for residents, and four parking bays each for visitors, the Office tenancies and the Shop tenancies. There is no change proposed to this allocation which would result in a surplus of on-site car parking of six bays. This provides flexibility for the remaining six bays to be allocated to either the residential or non-residential components. The development provides for adequate on-site parking to meet the demands of the site; and

·      Condition 3.10 requires the provision of 26 bicycle spaces to satisfy the acceptable outcome requirements of the R Codes Volume 2 and the Parking Policy. As a result of the changes to the non-residential component, it is proposed to amend this condition to reduce the requirement to 24 bicycle spaces to reflect the modification.

 

Size and Layout of Dwellings

 

The development proposes to modify the internal layout of Apartments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-23 and 26. Through these changes the floor area of these apartments would vary between 66.0 square metres and 215.0 square metres Apartments 5 and 11 are also proposed to be increased from one bedroom to two bedrooms, which each of these apartments increasing by 16.0 square metres.

 

The changes to the size and layout of dwellings are consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2, and meet the objectives of Element 4.3 as they are of a size and layout which is functional, appropriately proportioned and maximises opportunity for natural daylight and ventilation.

 

Dwelling Mix

 

The development proposes to modify Apartments 5 and 11 from one-bedroom to two-bedroom apartments. This has changed the dwelling mix of the development to consist of four one-bedroom apartments, four two-bedroom apartments and 18 three-bedroom apartments.

 

The changes to the dwelling mix are consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 and meet the objectives of Element 4.8 as the development provides for a mix of apartments to cater for different household types, and alternative options to suit the future needs of occupants.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



PDF Creator




 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020


 


 



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

5.2          No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth - Proposed Two Grouped Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Proposed Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Supporting Information

4.       Deferred Development Plans

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

7.       Design Review Panel Minutes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for proposed Two Grouped Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings at No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed development is contrary to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Residential zone objectives as the alterations and additions to the existing Multiple Dwellings would not facilitate high quality design, built form and streetscape within the locality. The design and siting of the car parking results in a visual dominance to the streetscape that negatively impacts the prevailing amenity and character of the neighbourhood;

2.       As a consequence of the scale and intensity of the proposal, the development does not meet the Element Objectives of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments as:

2.1     The design and location of car parking does not minimise negative visual impacts on the amenity and the adjoining public domain and is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood streetscape character and dominates the interface of the development (Element 3.6, Element 3.9 and Element 4.6);

2.2     The location of Car bay 2 is directly adjacent to the internal living area of Unit 1, resulting in negative visual and amenity impacts to the future occupants (Element 3.9);

2.3     The provision of screening devices to the private open spaces of Unit 6 and Unit 7 reduce the external outlook from the balcony and adjoining living spaces, resulting in decreased residential amenity for occupants (Element 3.5  and Element 4.4); and

2.4     Units 5 – 8 are not provided with well-designed, functional and conveniently located storage areas, resulting in a decreased amenity on-site (Element 4.6);

3.       The proposal as a whole results in a bulk, scale and appearance that is not compatible with its setting in the Residential zone (Clause 67(m) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

4.       As a consequence of the car parking located within the front setback area, the proposal would detract from the amenity and character of the residential locality (Clause 67(n) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two new Grouped Dwellings and alterations and additions to eight existing Multiple Dwellings at No. 17 Florence Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two new double storey Grouped Dwellings located to the rear of the development site. Each Grouped Dwelling contains three bedrooms, three bathrooms, one study, one kitchen, one dining room and two activity/living rooms. One car bay is allocated to each Grouped Dwelling.

 

The application also proposes to retain the existing two-storey building on the subject site that contains eight single bedroom Multiple Dwellings. Alterations and additions to upgrade the existing two-storey building on the subject site involve the re-location of existing parking and service facilities in order to accommodate the proposed new buildings to the rear of the development site.

 

The eight single bedroom Multiple Dwellings in the existing building on site include four units located on the ground floor and four units located on the upper floor. The application proposes the following upgrades to these eight units:

 

·       Internal renovation of each unit. The renovation does not involve any increase in floor area of these units;

·       Provision of private open space areas to each existing unit;

·       Provision of outdoor storerooms for the use of Units 1 – 4;

·       Provision of a new bin store;

·       Provision of eight car bays for the use of the existing units;

·       Provision of four bicycle bays for the use of the existing units;

·       New front fence;

·       Amended pedestrian access to the upper floor units;

·       Upgrade to the external appearance of the building, including new paintwork to the existing face brick walls and tiled roof; and

·       Additional landscaping.

 

The subject site currently consists of one lot containing eight existing Multiple Dwellings. The application indicates that the site is intended to be subsequently subdivided with the existing Multiple Dwellings being on Strata Lot 1, and the proposed two Grouped Dwellings being on Strata Lots 2 and 3. A portion of common property is proposed between the three strata lots to facilitate vehicle manoeuvring. A right of carriageway easement is also proposed over Strata Lot 1 to provide vehicle access to Strata Lots 2 and 3. The configuration of the intended future strata lot layout is illustrated on the development plans which are included in Attachment 2. Any such future subdivision is subject to a separate subdivision application process through the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

 

The proposed development plans subject of this report are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s supporting information is included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

R M Piller

Applicant:

Ecologic Homes

Date of Application:

8 April 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Multiple Dwellings

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings

Lot Area:

1,013.22m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 17 Florence Street, West Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. There are eight existing Multiple Dwellings on the subject site.

 

The site immediately adjoins a mix of Single Houses and Grouped Dwelling developments. The broader area is generally characterised by single storey and two storey Single Dwelling and Grouped Dwelling developments with some Multiple Dwelling developments also within the area.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties are zoned Residential with a density coding of R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site and adjoining properties along Florence Street are within the Residential built form area and have a building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

A sewer line runs through the rear of the site and is a constraint on development due to its location and being unable to be built over. The proposed development at the rear of the site is in the form of two buildings to avoid building over the sewer line.

 

Ordinary Meeting of Council 17 March 2020

 

The application was previously presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 March 2020 for determination. Administration recommended that Council refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed four new Multiple Dwellings are not permitted under Clause 32(1) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

 

2.       The proposed development is contrary to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Residential zone objectives as the alterations and additions to the existing Multiple Dwellings would not facilitate high quality design, built form and streetscape within the locality. The design and siting of the car parking results in a visual dominance to the streetscape that negatively impacts the prevailing amenity and character of the neighbourhood; and

 

3.       As a consequence of the scale and intensity of the proposal, the development does not meet the Element Objectives of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments as:

 

3.1     The design and location of car parking does not minimise negative visual impacts on the amenity and the adjoining public domain and is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood streetscape character and dominates the interface of the development (Element 3.6, Element 3.9 and Element 4.6);

 

3.2     The provision of screening devices to the private open spaces of Unit 6 and Unit 7 reduce the external outlook from the balcony and adjoining living spaces, resulting in decreased residential amenity for occupants (Element 3.5  and Element 4.4); and

 

3.3     Units 5 – 8 are not provided with well-designed, functional and conveniently located storage areas, resulting in a decreased amenity on-site (Element 4.6).

 

After consideration of the application, the following procedural motion was carried by Council:

 

That the motion be DEFERRED for a period of no more than 90 days in order to address the concerns relating to the development.

 

The development plans presented to Council on 17 March 2020 that resulted in the deferral are included as Attachment 4.

 

Key Changes

 

The applicant submitted amended development plans to the City on 8 April 2020, in accordance with Council’s procedural motion to defer the item. The amended development plans sought to address the aforementioned deferral reasons cited by Council. These amended plans have since been revised during the course of assessment by Administration. The extent that the final set of amended development plans address Administration’s reasons for refusal are set out below.

 

Refusal Reason One:

 

The amended development plans sought to address Administration’s recommended refusal reason number one by incorporating the following changes:

 

·       Removal of kitchenette facilities provided on the ground floor of Units 9 and 10;

·       Removal of an internal wall and doorway between the ‘entry’ and ‘activity’ rooms on the ground floor of Units 9 and 10; and

·       The amended plans did not result in changes to the external appearance of Units 9 or 10.

 

The changes provided to the internal layout of Units 9 and 10 remove the ability for the upper and lower floors to operate independently to the other. This is because the second kitchen is removed from each unit, and the removal of the internal door and wall between the ground floor ‘entry’ and ‘activity’ rooms would ensure that the upper floor and ground floor could not be independently accessed. These changes provided would ensure that the layout is not conducive to separate accommodation between the upper and ground floors and is instead shared accommodation.

 

Based on the modified layout of each building, Units 9 and 10 now meet the definition of ‘Grouped Dwellings’ under State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1), in lieu of ‘Multiple Dwellings’, as previously determined by Administration in its report to Council on 17 March 2020.

 

Administration is satisfied that the modified floor layout of Units 9 and 10 appropriately address recommended refusal reason number one, as set out in its report to Council on 17 March 2020.

 

The appropriateness of the Grouped Dwellings built form is discussed in further detail under the relevant headings in the Comments section of this report.

 

Refusal Reasons Two and Three:

 

The amended development plans did not seek to address Administration’s recommended refusal reasons two and three in relation to the alterations and additions to the existing eight Multiple Dwellings. The resultant built form of the alterations and additions to the existing eight Multiple Dwellings remains the same to that presented to Council on 17 March 2020.

 

The appropriateness of the alterations and additions to the existing Multiple Dwellings is discussed in further detail under relevant headings in the Comments section of this report.

 

Permissibility of Multiple Dwellings

 

The eight existing Multiple Dwellings on the site are afforded non-conforming use rights under Clause 22(1)(a) of LPS2 that states:

 

“Unless specifically provided, this Scheme does not prevent –

 

a)       the continued use of any land, or any structure or building on land, for the purpose for which it was being lawfully used immediately before the commencement of this Scheme”

 

The City is able to consider a development application for alterations to these eight existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 23(1)(b) of LPS2 which states that:

 

“A person must not, without development approval –

 

b)       erect, alter or extend a building used for, or in conjunction with, a nonconforming use of land”.

Details:

Detailed Assessment

Grouped Dwellings Detailed Assessment

 

The proposed new two Grouped Dwellings have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the R Codes Volume 1 which relates to single and grouped dwelling developments. In each instance where the proposal for two Grouped Dwellings requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment table below.


 

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 – Clause 5.4.1

 

6.0m cone of vision setback required from kitchens to lot boundaries

 

4.5m cone of vision setback required from bedrooms to lot boundaries

 

 

Unit 9 Kitchen provides a 5.8m cone of vision setback to the southern lot boundary

 

Unit 10 Bedroom 1 provides a 2.7m cone of vision setback to the western lot boundary

 

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

 

Multiple Dwellings Detailed Assessment

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the eight existing Multiple Dwellings have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of requirements of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments which relates to multiple dwelling developments.

 

The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides guidance for the development of 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.

 

The R 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.

 

As the application proposes alterations and additions to the existing multiple dwellings only, not all Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments are applicable. The detailed assessment has been completed against applicable Element Objectives only.

 

Side and Rear Setbacks

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.4

 

A2.4.1 Development complies with the side and rear setbacks set out in Table 2.1, except where:

(b)   a greater setback is required to address 3.5 Visual Privacy

 

 

Greater setbacks are required to address 3.5 Visual Privacy for the Unit 5 Balcony to the north and Unit 8 Balcony to the south. Refer to ‘Visual Privacy’ design element of this table for the setbacks proposed.

Building Separation

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.7

 

A2.7.1 Development complies with the separation requirements set out in Table 2.7

 

To adjoining property boundaries

Ground floor to fourth storey as per ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’

 

 

Building setbacks proposed to the northern and southern lot boundaries as set out in the ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’ design elements contained within this table.

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.3

 

A3.3.5 One medium tree and small trees to suit area

 

 

Nine small sized trees provided

Visual Privacy

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.5

 

A3.5.1 Cone of vision from unenclosed outdoor living areas setback 7.5m

 

 

Northern boundary

·      Unit 5 Balcony setback 6.0 metres

 

Southern boundary

·      Unit 8 Balcony setback 6.5 metres

 

A3.5.2 Balconies are unscreened for at least 25% of their perimeter

Unit 6: Balcony is screened for 100 percent of its perimeter

Unit 7: Balcony is screened for 100 percent of its perimeter

 

A3.5.3 Living rooms have an external outlook from at least one opening that is not obscured by a screen

Unit 6: Privacy screen restricts the external outlook from the living room

Unit 7: Privacy screen restricts the external outlook from the living room.

Public Domain Interface

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.6

 

A3.6.2 Car parking is not located within the primary street setback area

 

 

Three car parking spaces located within the primary street setback area

Car and Bicycle Parking

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.9

 

A3.9.4 Car parking areas are not located within the street setback and are not visually prominent from the street

 

A3.9.6 Car parking is designed, landscaped or screened to mitigate visual impacts when viewed from dwellings

 

 

Three car parking bays located within the street setback area. Parking behind the street setback area is visually prominent from the street

 

Car bay 2 is directly adjacent to the living room major opening of Unit 1.

Private Open Space and Balconies

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.4

 

A4.4.2 Where private open space requires screening to achieve visual privacy requirements, the entire open space is not screened. Privacy screening is designed such that it does not obscure the outlook from adjacent living rooms

 

 

Balconies provided to Units 6 and 7 are screened in full. The screening has been designed to obscure the outlook from adjacent living rooms.

Circulation and Common Spaces

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.5

 

A4.5.1 Circulation corridors are a minimum 1.5 metres in width

 

 

A4.5.5 Bedroom windows and major openings to living rooms do not open directly onto circulation or common spaces and are designed to ensure visual privacy and manage noise intrusion

 

 

The proposed external walkway/corridor servicing the upper floor units has a minimum width of 1.1 metres

 

The Unit 5 living room door opens directly onto the proposed upper floor walkway/corridor.

Storage

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.6

 

A4.6.1 Each dwelling has exclusive use of a separate, ventilated weatherproof, bulky goods storage area. Minimum area is 3 square metres with a 1.5 metres minimum dimension

 

 

Units 1 – 4 storerooms:

Minimum dimension: 0.7 metres

Storage area: 1.5 square metres

 

Units 5 – 8 storerooms:

Storerooms are provided within the bedroom of each unit

Minimum dimension: 1.2 metres

Storage area: 3.0 square metres

 

An assessment of the proposal against the Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments is contained in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 9 October 2019 and concluding on 22 October 2019. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners and occupiers (shown in Attachment 1) and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received five submissions by the conclusion of the consultation period, all of which objected to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       Concerns that the new buildings would be used as Multiple Dwellings which are not permitted in this location;

·       Overdevelopment of the site is proposed;

·       Development results in building bulk to the street and adjoining properties;

·       Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

·       Overlooking to adjoining properties;

·       Overshadowing to adjoining properties;

·       Development is not consistent with the established streetscape and surrounding locality;

·       The number of car bays is insufficient for the scale of the development;

·       Insufficient amenities and services such as storerooms, bin stores and laundry services have been provided; and

·       Lack of canopy cover and the impact this would have on local amenity.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 5. The applicant also provided a written response to the submissions received, as provided in Attachment 6.

 

Community consultation was not undertaken following deferral of the application at Council’s 17 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting. This is because the amended proposal does not result in any additional departures to the City’s LPS2 or relevant planning framework to those previously considered.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development has been referred to the DRP on two occasions on 5 June 2019 and 2 October 2019 following lodgement of the application. Refer to Attachment 7 for an extract of the minutes from each meeting.

 

Following the 2 October 2019 DRP meeting, further changes were made to the plans by the applicant. In relation to the alterations and additions proposed to the existing building and its surrounds, the applicant sought to address the DRP comments by undertaking the following:

 

·       Providing additional storerooms for the use of each unit;

·       Amending the location of the bin store area;

·       Providing private open space areas to each unit;

·       Providing additional landscaping; and

·       Reviewing the pedestrian access between the front building and the rear buildings.

 

In relation to the new buildings to the rear of the development, the applicant sought to address the DRP comments by undertaking the following:

 

·       Providing amendments to the internal layouts of the new buildings involving the removal of laundry facilities on the upper floors;

·       Providing additional landscaping;

·       Increasing surveillance to the common property; and

·       Changes to balcony and major opening locations to enable greater access to northern light.

 

These amended plans received on 2 December 2019 were referred to the City’s DRP Chairperson and DRP member with Urban Design expertise for comment. The DRP Chairperson and member advised that previous concerns and comments had not been suitably addressed in the amended plans, and that the Ten Principles of Good Design have not been achieved. The following concerns were raised:

 

·       The proposed communal storeroom and bin store location is inconvenient and occupants of the development would be required to walk through car bay 2 or out onto the footpath within the road reserve to access this area. The pedestrian path to this area should be clearly identified;

·       It is unclear how individual security of the communal storeroom would be managed;

·       The location of storerooms within the upper floor bedrooms of existing Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be appropriate for the nature of items stored;

·       Car bay 2 is directly in front of a major opening into the living area of Unit 1. There are privacy, amenity and security concerns with the proximity of this car bay to this habitable room;

·       There is no clear and legible walking path to the two proposed grouped dwellings to the rear of the site from the street. This raises concerns regarding safety; and

·       Aesthetically the design does not come together. There is a disconnect between the upgraded existing building and the proposed new buildings. Whilst the design of the buildings could contrast one another, there needs to be synergy between the existing and new buildings which is not currently achieved.

 

Amended plans received by the City on 4 February 2020 removed a communal storeroom provided for the use of Units 5 – 8.

 

The amended plans received following the 17 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council were not required to be referred to the DRP for comment given they did not result in any external built form changes.

 

The below table demonstrates how the proposal has progressed through the DRP process in accordance with the Ten Principles of Good Design.

 

Design Review Progress

 

Supported

 

Pending further attention

 

Not supported

 

No comment provided

 

DRP 1

14/08/2019

DRP 2 

02/10/2019

Referral to DRP Chairperson and DRP member

14/01/2020

Principle 1 – Context & Character

 

 

 

Principle 2 – Landscape Quality

 

 

 

Principle 3 – Built Form and Scale

 

 

 

Principle 4 – Functionality & Built Quality

 

 

 

Principle 5 – Sustainability

 

 

 

Principle 6 – Amenity

 

 

 

Principle 7 – Legibility

 

 

 

Principle 8 – Safety

 

 

 

Principle 9 – Community

 

 

 

Principle 10 – Aesthetics

 

 

 

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 1;

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

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

Administration sought legal advice in relation to whether there is an ability to contemplate the alterations proposed to the existing Multiple Dwellings under LPS2. The legal advice concluded that Clause 32(1) of LPS2 would not act to prevent the continuation of non-conforming use rights afforded to the eight existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 22(1)(a) of LPS2, nor would it act to prevent the ability for the City to grant development approval for alterations to these existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 23(1)(b) of LPS2.

 

Administration’s assessment of the proposal has been undertaken on the basis of this legal advice.

 

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 concluded on 22 November 2019. The amendments 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 have been included in this Ordinary Meeting agenda to consider the draft Policy’s acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination at the request of the applicant.

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:

Grouped Dwellings Assessment Comments:

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out additional deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the WAPC and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

 

The Built Form Policy requires 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. Unit 9 proposes 27.0 percent canopy cover and Unit 10 proposes 16.3 percent canopy cover.

 

The proposed landscaping meets the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       Each unit proposes the installation of two trees to the respective sites, with additional planting and smaller shrubs also proposed to each site. The landscaping provided positively contributes to the overall landscape amenity of the development site as well as the development when viewed from adjoining properties;

·       The landscaping also includes portions of canopy cover which extend outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the reduction of the impact of urban heat island effect and increase of the urban air quality of the locality, as well as additional shade to adjoining properties;

·       The proposal has incorporated a variety of species, including native species, which create interest and soften the building edge when viewed from the adjoining residential properties;

·       Both Unit 9 and Unit 10 provide more than 15 percent of the relevant site areas as deep soil zones. If approved, a condition of any development approval would be recommended requiring the submission of a landscaping plan that maximises the amount of canopy coverage at maturity within deep soil areas on site. The City’s Technical Officers have reviewed the species proposed to Unit 10 and have advised that additional canopy could be achieved by way of alternative species choice. Unit 10 would have the ability to achieve 22 percent canopy cover if the Bradford Pear tree were to be replaced with a Chinese Tallow tree. Both the Bradford Pear and Chinese Tallow species are shallow root trees that would not impede on the Ministers Sewer line that runs through the rear of Unit 10. These species are also consistent with Water Corporation’s tree species guide for planting near sewer lines; and

·       There is an existing mature tree located on the adjoining property at No. 96 Carr Street, West Perth. The application has been designed to ensure this canopy can be maintained. The canopy from the mature tree provides shade to the hardstand driveway while providing a good level of landscaping amenity for residents.

 

Visual Privacy

 

Southern Boundary

 

The Unit 9 Kitchen provides a 5.8 metre cone of vision setback to the southern lot boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 6.0 metres.

 

The cone of vision from the Unit 9 Kitchen falls into the rear of the southern adjoining property at No. 96 Carr Street, West Perth. There is a large mature tree located to the rear boundary of No. 96 Carr Street, West Perth, that screens all overlooking from the kitchen window. There would be no adverse impact on any habitable rooms with major openings or active open spaces to the southern adjoining property at No. 96 Carr Street, West Perth. For these reasons, Kitchen as proposed meets the design principles relating to visual privacy of the R Codes Volume 1.


 

Eastern Boundary

 

The Unit 10 Bedroom 1 provides a 2.7 metre cone of vision setback to the western lot boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 4.5 metres.

 

The cone of vision from the Unit 10 Bedroom 1 falls onto the roof of a shed located to the rear of No. 100 Carr Street, West Perth. The cone of vision does not extend to No. 42a Cleaver Street, West Perth. There would be no adverse impact on any habitable rooms with major openings or active open spaces to any of the western adjoining properties. For these reasons, the Bedroom 1 as proposed meets the design principles relating to visual privacy of the R Codes Volume 1.

 

Multiple Dwellings Assessment Comments:

 

Side and Rear Setbacks & Building Separation

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.4 and Element 2.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed upper floor balconies are separated from the adjoining southern properties by the vehicle access leg and the setback of these balconies to the adjoining properties would be sufficient to reduce amenity impacts of bulk and scale;

·       The proposed upgrades to the existing Multiple Dwellings development would provide for additional deep soil areas and canopy coverage to what currently exists within the side setback areas; and

·       The proposed building separation between the upper floor balconies and the adjoining properties to the south is appropriate in the context of the two storey building height.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies & Visual Privacy

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 3.5 and Element 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments due to the design the private open space to Units 6 and 7, and the extent of privacy screening necessary to these areas.

 

The proposal results in the removal of all existing communal open space that was previously afforded to the existing eight Multiple Dwellings. Private open space areas have been proposed for the exclusive use of each unit. The private open space areas for all units have been provided in accordance with the minimum dimension and area requirements specified within Table 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

 

Private Open Space Design

 

·       Private open space areas have been provided to Units 1 – 4 that are appropriately sized, accessed and oriented to enhance the liveability of residents;

·       The balconies provided to Units 5 and 8 provide less than 25 percent of their respective perimeters as privacy screening. These balconies have been designed to retain good external outlook from the internal living spaces and from the private open space. The balconies have also been designed to enhance residential amenity and are integrated into the overall architectural form; and

·       The Units 6 and 7 balconies are screened for their entire perimeter. While screening protects the privacy of the applicable units and adjoining properties, the residential amenity of both Units 6 and 7 is diminished as the privacy screens restrict daylight access and outlook for both the balcony and adjoining habitable rooms. These are the only outdoor open space areas that can be used by occupants for passive recreation as the development does not provide separate communal open space areas to compensate for the decreased amenity provided to these balconies. The Units 6 and 7 balconies have not been sited and designed to enhance residential amenity or liveability for residents; and

·       The City’s DRP does not support the provision of screening to entire private open space areas of Units 6 and 7. This is because the screens result in enclosed outdoor living areas with reduced amenity and useability, while also reducing opportunities for access to City views and ventilation.

 

Visual Privacy: Northern Boundary

 

·       The front balcony of Unit 5 is not setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The Unit 1 balcony overlooks the adjoining northern property’s front setback area and front porch. The balcony does not result in any direct overlooking to the adjoining northern property’s major openings or primary outdoor living area, which is located to the rear of the site. The areas to which the Unit 1 balcony overlooks can also be clearly viewed from the public domain.

·       The setbacks provided ensure adequate separation between properties and provide no direct overlooking to habitable rooms with major openings and outdoor living areas. The design also reduces all direct overlooking to major openings to habitable rooms and primary outdoor living areas which are considered to be sensitive areas within the subject site; and

·       All other major openings to habitable rooms facing the northern adjoining properties are as existing.

 

Visual Privacy: Southern Boundary

 

·       The balcony of Unit 8 is not setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The Unit 8 balcony overlooks the rear of the southern adjoining property’s backyard area. This area is extensive garden area and is not the primary outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property. There are a number of mature trees located on the southern adjoining property that reduce vision from the Unit 8 balcony to the primary outdoor living area of the this southern property. The balcony does not result in any direct overlooking to the adjoining southern property’s major openings or primary outdoor living area; and

·       All other balconies and major openings facing south are setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments or have been provided with privacy screens to restrict all overlooking to the southern adjoining properties. The setbacks provided ensure adequate separation between properties and reduce the extent of direct overlooking to habitable rooms with major openings and outdoor living areas. The design also does not result in direct overlooking to major openings to habitable rooms and primary outdoor living areas which are considered to be sensitive areas within the subject site.

 

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas

 

The proposed tree canopy and deep soil areas are consistent with the objectives of Elements 3.3 and 4.12 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes 15.9 percent (99.8 square metres) deep soil area to Strata Lot 1, which exceeds the prescribed requirement of 10 percent as detailed within Table 3.3 of the R Codes Volume 2. Deep soil zones have been provided within the front setback area and adjacent to the side lot boundaries which would positively contribute to the landscape amenity and visual appeal of the site;

·       The application proposes one small sized tree to be provided within each private open space area of Units 1 – 4 as well as within the front setback area, providing shade to open car bays. The adjoining southern property also contains mature planting along the shared boundary that shades some of the driveway. The trees are provided in a range of species and in locations that would facilitate substantial landscaping visible from adjoining properties and the public domain, while contributing to the amenity of the development site;

·       The landscape quality is substantially improved when compared to the current condition of the development site and improves the outlook for residents on the subject site and adjoining properties; and

·       If approved, Administration would recommend a condition of development approval requiring the provision of one medium sized tree to be provided in accordance with Table 3.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The application currently proposes a surplus of small trees. The condition should require a medium tree to be provided within the front setback area adjacent to the uncovered car bays. If approved, a medium tree in this location would assist in softening the built form and reducing visual impacts of the car parking within the front setback area. Comments from the DRP also supported increased canopy coverage to the open air car park.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking & Public Domain Interface

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 3.6 and Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The development proposes six residential car parking bays and two visitor car parking bays, which is consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes prescribed by Table 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. Three of the proposed car parking bays provided are located within the front setback area of the development site. In addition to the bays located within the front setback area, Car bays 3 and 4 are also visually prominent from the street;

·       The cumulative impact of the car bays and privacy screen between Car bay 2 and the Visitor Car bay reduces street surveillance from the ground floor and detracts from visual appeal of the site when viewed from the street;

·       While the application proposes deep soil areas and four trees within the front setback area that would assist in offsetting impacts of the car bays, more than 50 percent of the front setback area remains as hardstand areas. The grass pavers provided to the car bays does not offset the adverse impact of parked cars being visually prominent and detracting from the street. Administration does not support grass pavers for parking areas within common property as they generally deteriorate as a result of vehicle movements and limited access to sunlight from parked vehicles shading, are difficult to maintain with respect to the strata arrangement, and would result in a poor amenity outcome. The City’s DRP also do not support the grass pavers in this location given the southern orientation and difficulty to maintain the grass at a high standard;

·       The provision of Car bay 2 directly adjacent to the Unit 1 major opening would provide adverse amenity and visual impacts to the occupants of this unit. The location of this car bay may diminish the sense of security and privacy of Unit 1;

·       Written justification submitted by the applicant contends that the car parking within the front setback area is consistent with the established Florence Street streetscape. There are some existing developments on Florence Street with car parking within the front setback area. There is only one apartment complex located at No. 37-43 Florence Street, West Perth that has car parking within the front setback area. This apartment complex pre-dates the implementation of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The Acceptable Outcomes and Objectives of Element 3.6 and Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments does not give regard to the established streetscape when considering car parking located in the front setback area. The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments instead seeks to establish a desired outcome for developments whereby car parking is not within the front setback area, regardless of the existing streetscape. The car parking within the front setback area would set an undesirable precedence for similar multiple dwelling developments in the broader district and for and low rise grouped dwelling developments that would be possible within the immediate locality; and

·       The City’s DRP has also raised concerns in relation to the siting of the car bays and their impact on the street and the amenity of the units.

 

Circulation and Common Spaces

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The corridor layout is simple and legible and does not contain excessive or unnecessary changes of direction. The proposed upper floor corridor would be of an adequate size to service the four upper floor units of the existing Multiple Dwellings building on this basis;

·       The upper floor corridor would allow for casual social interaction between occupants of the units and would contribute to increased amenity for occupants in this respect; and

·       Whilst the Unit 5 living space does open out onto the communal corridor, this portion of the corridor services Unit 5 only and there would be negligible amenity impact on the occupants of that unit.

 

Storage

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The existing building in its current from does not provide any meaningful storage areas for the eight units. As the application proposes to upgrade the amenities on site, storerooms are required to be provided in accordance with current planning requirements, specifically Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

·       Units 1 – 4 have been provided with storerooms within the respective private open space areas. These storerooms do not meet the required areas and dimensions as specified in Table 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. While they do not meet the minimum area and dimension requirements specified, the storerooms have been accommodated in lieu of no storage space previously provided for the one bedroom units. The storerooms for Units 1 – 4 are conveniently located and have been provided at dimensions that allow them to accommodate larger and less frequently accessed items. These storerooms are also not visible from the street and are secure;

·       Units 5 – 8 are not provided with any external storerooms for bulky-good storage. The application instead provides storage areas within the bedroom of each unit. These areas within the bedrooms do not fall under the definition of ‘storage’ under the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The definition of ‘storage (inside apartments)’ specifically excludes storage located within bedrooms. The definition of ‘storage (external to apartments)’ requires storage areas to be in addition to any internal storage in bedrooms. The storage area proposed within the bedrooms are also not provided in addition to a separate wardrobe within the bedrooms. Whilst Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments allows for storage areas to be located internally to the dwelling, the location of the storage area within the bedroom is not well-designed, functional nor convenient and results in a decreased amenity to the units; and

·       The City’s DRP confirmed that the location of storerooms within the upper floor bedrooms of existing Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be appropriate for the nature of items stored.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020


 



 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020


 



 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

5.3          No. 50 (Lot: 412 D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Single House

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       3D Perspectives

4.       Applicant's Written Justification

5.       Superseded Advertised Plans

6.       Detailed Streetscape Analysis  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for the proposed Single House at No. 50 (Lot: 412; D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley, in accordance with the plans in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed primary street setback does not satisfy the Local Housing Objective of Clause 5.2 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form and the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The setback of the building from Barlee Street would result in building mass that has not been mitigated due to the massing, materials and detailing of the building design. This appearance of building bulk and scale associated with the development would not contribute to, preserve or enhance the existing streetscape;

2.       The proposed building height does not satisfy the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.6 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (P5.6.1, P5.6.2 and P5.6.5) and the Design Principle of Clause 5.1.6 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The building height and overall building design would result in building bulk and scale that would have an adverse impact on, and is inconsistent with the existing streetscape;

3.       As a consequence of the street setback, building height and building design (relating to massing, materials, detailing and roof form), the proposal:

3.1     Would result in a bulk, scale and appearance that is not compatible with its setting in the Residential zone (Clause 67(m) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

3.2     Would detract from the amenity and character of the residential locality (Clause 67(n) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

4.       The proposed development would not provide for adequate landscaping on site and would not result in a high quality landscaping outcome (Clause 67(p) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a Single House at No. 50 Barlee Street, Mount Lawley (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a three storey Single House on a vacant lot with frontages to Barlee Street and Kaata Lane. The front door of the dwelling would face Barlee Street and vehicle access would be from Kaata Lane.

 

The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s written justification is included as Attachment 4.

Background:

Landowner:

Davor Nikolic

Applicant:

Davor Nikolic

Date of Application:

27 November 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant Lot

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

253m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 6 metres wide where it abuts the subject site, reducing to 3 metres minimum along portions of the ROW further to the north;

City owned; and

Drained and sealed.

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is currently vacant and is bound by Barlee Street to the south west, Kaata Lane to the north-west, vacant lots to the north-east and south-east and a two storey single house which is currently under construction to the east. There is an existing five storey mixed use development on the north-western side of Kaata Lane. The subject site is located approximately 40 metres to the west of Beaufort Street. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties on the south eastern side of Kaata Lane are zoned Residential R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The adjoining properties on the north western side of Katta Lane are zoned District Centre under LPS2 and have direct frontage to Beaufort Street.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties on the south eastern side of Kaata Lane are within the Residential built form area and have a building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining properties on the north western side of Katta Lane are within the Town Centre built form area and have a building height limit of six storeys under the Built Form Policy.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setback

ü

 

Building Height

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

ü

 

Developments on Rights of Way

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.2

 

No deemed-to-comply standard, as there are no adjoining properties to allow for the calculation of an average street setback. Design principle assessment required.

 

 

Ground Floor: 2.0 metres

 

Upper Floor and Loft: 3.0 metres to dwelling and 1.2 metres to balcony.

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.6

 

Storeys

Two storeys

 

 

 

 

Three storeys

Overall Height

Maximum pitched roof wall height of 6 metres

 

Maximum pitched roof wall height of 6.8 metres

Outdoor Living Area

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.3.1

 

Minimum dimension of 4 metres

 

 

3.6 metre minimum dimension

 

Directly accessible from a habitable room of the dwelling

The ground floor courtyard is accessible via the laundry and store.

Developments on Rights of Way

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form – Clause 5.31

 

Development must be setback 1 metre from a right of way. If the site is subject to right of way widening, the setback is measured from the new lot boundary after the widening is applied

 

 

0.1 metres

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 23 January 2020 and concluding on 6 February 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification with 72 letters being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period the City received one submission in support of the proposal. No objections were received.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

Administration referred the initial development plans which are included in Attachment 5 to the DRP Chairperson for comments in relation to the design quality of the proposed development. This includes consideration of built form and scale, and functionality to inform the acceptability of the proposed development and design elements where discretion is being sought.

 

The following key comments and suggestions were provided by the DRP Chairperson with respect to the proposal as originally submitted:

 

·       The proposal appears to be an overdevelopment of the site on the basis that it does not meet the site planning requirements of open space and landscaping but also seeks a third storey and balconies with nil street setbacks;

·       The sizes of internal rooms could be reduced and setbacks from Barlee Street and Kaata Lane could be provided to assist in satisfying the open space and landscaping requirements;

·       The building design and roof form would not be compatible with the immediate streetscape character and should be given further consideration, specifically:

o   The cantilevered first floor balconies with masonry piers, steel posts and long lengths of unsupported balcony edge result in a building character which is inconsistent with the surrounding context;

o   The proposed landscaping beneath the south facing balcony is not likely to survive in this location;

o   The habitable rooms in the loft are not likely to meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) due to the proposed roof form and resultant percentage of room area with a ceiling height of less than 2.4 metres;

o   The roof form with ‘random’ pitch changes and large areas of roof span would result in a roof form which would be convoluted and inconsistent with the surrounding context; and

o   The loft plan indicates that the majority of rooms would receive natural lighting and ventilation through large skylights rather than external windows which is not considered to be a desirable outcome with regard to building character, relationship to surrounding context or the provision of adequate natural lighting and ventilation; and

·       There would be scope to consider the third storey and balconies with nil street setbacks due to the site’s location in close proximity to the District Centre zone and Beaufort Street, provided that the abovementioned concerns regarding open space, landscaping and building design were addressed through amended plans.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the DRP Chairperson’s comments. These amended plans provided open space that meets the deemed-to-comply standard and increased landscaping by setting the dwelling back from Barlee Street, as well as reconfiguring the loft floor plan to address the BCA considerations.

 

The amended plans did not address the concerns raised in relation to the cantilevered balconies or roof form. The application was referred back to the DRP Chairperson to confirm whether the amendments to the appropriately responded to the previous concerns. The following comments were provided:

 

·       Consider a contemporary approach to the design;

·       The site planning, architectural expression and materials and detailing should be given further consideration as the design currently creates massing that would have a detrimental impact on Barlee Street, Kaata Lane, adjoining lots and is visually prominent from Beaufort Street. Specific design elements which should be given further consideration to address concerns relating to massing include the roof form and the cantilevering of the upper floor balcony with bulky brick piers;

·       Consider a stacking approach to the plan that steps away from the adjoining properties at the upper floor levels;

·       Consider simplifying the roof by using simple pitched roofs or a flat roof;

·       The development should be informed by the character of the street, materials, roof forms and the strong floating tree canopies to create a contemporary solution;

·       The transition of the roof from Barlee Street to Kaata Lane is not well resolved and creates an awkward transition from Barlee Street to Kaata Lane; and

·       The proposed landscaping is purely “infill”.

 

Concerns with the proposed building design that have been identified by Administration and that the DRP Chairperson shares have been communicated with the applicant during the course of the application’s assessment. Administration has suggested to the applicant and provided opportunity to the applicant to improve the building design. The applicant has advised that they are seeking a determination of the plans as proposed.

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 1;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

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 concluded on 22 November 2019. The amendments 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 have been included in this Ordinary Meeting agenda to consider the draft Policy’s acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a height of three storeys or more and does not meet the deemed-to-comply building height.

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:

Street Setback

 

The applicable deemed-to-comply provision under the Built Form Policy relating to street setback states that:

“The primary street setback is to be the average of the five properties adjoining the proposed development”.

 

The R Codes defines ‘adjoining property’ as being:

 

“Any lot:

 

·       on which any dwelling for which provision is made in the R Codes may be constructed under the scheme; and

·       which shares a boundary or portion of a boundary with a lot on which there is a proposed residential development site or is separated from a lot by a right of way, vehicle access way, pedestrian access way, access leg of a battleaxe lot or the equivalent not more than 6m in width.”

 

The subject site adjoins a vacant residential lot to the south east, with a public street (Roy Street) beyond this. The subject site is also adjacent to a mixed use development to the north west, separated by a 6 metre laneway (Kaata Lane). This means that the subject site does not have five adjoining properties for the purposes of calculating a deemed-to-comply street setback. A design principle assessment is required on this basis.

 

The application proposes that the ground floor would be setback 2.0 metres, the upper floor and loft would be setback 3.0 metres, and the upper floor and loft balconies would be setback 1.2 metres from Barlee Street.

 

The applicant has provided written justification in support of the proposed street setback which is included in Attachment 4 and summarised as follows:

 

·       The development would not appear bulky and the setback should be supported due to the site’s location adjacent to the existing six storey mixed use development with a nil setback;

·       The development would provide a gradual step down from the high rise mixed use development into the residential portion of the street;

·       The development reflects a standard European house design which would complement the surrounding streetscape given that Beaufort Street reflects coffee strips in many European cities; and

·       The proposed dwelling reflects the federation style to achieve a “heritage look” that is compatible with the surrounding area. Barlee Street is filled with various designs including old colonial, federation and several modern new builds and additions.

 

The proposed primary street setbacks do not satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed street setback and building design would not effectively mitigate the appearance and impact of bulk and scale on the existing streetscape given that the upper floor and loft balconies would cantilever forward of the ground floor, would be setback 1.2 metres from the street boundary and would be imposing as viewed from Barlee Street;

·       The cantilevered upper floor balconies with masonry piers, steel posts and long lengths of unsupported balcony edge would result in a building character which is inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape;

·       The proposed development would not result in a high quality landscaping outcome given that the majority of canopy coverage would be located in the narrow setback areas on the south side of the three storey building and would not reach maturity. The proposed 1.2 metre primary street setback would be inadequate in providing areas of landscaping that would reduce and soften the appearance of the building mass from the street and adjoining properties;

·       The amount of internal floor space at the upper floor and loft floor would result in these levels being the most prominent as viewed from the street and contributes to building mass and form which appears disproportionate, top heavy and unbalanced;

·       The proposed roof pitch changes and large areas of roof span would result in a convoluted roof form which is inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape;

·       Barlee Street is generally characterised by single storey character dwellings with some examples of more modern two storey dwellings. The existing dwellings in the streetscape typically have simple roof forms, visually permeable front fencing and landscaped primary street setback areas. Where an existing dwelling has a second storey element it is in line with or behind the building line of the ground floor below. The proposed dwelling would not be consistent with the existing streetscape. A detailed streetscape analysis prepared by Administration is included in Attachment 6;

·       The comments provided by the DRP Chairperson advised that there would be scope to consider the proposed street setbacks due to the site’s close proximity to the District Centre zone, Beaufort Street and the existing six storey mixed use development on the opposite side of Kaata Lane, provided that concerns regarding open space, landscaping and building design were addressed. The applicant submitted amended plans which provide increased open space but do not adequately respond to concerns relating to landscaping and building design; and

·       The final comments provided by the DRP Chairperson were not supportive of the proposed design and concluded that the site planning, architectural expression and materials and detailing create massing which would have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape. The DRP Chairperson also advised that the landscaping outcome would be poor and would not effectively mitigate the bulk and scale created by the massing.

 

Building Height

 

The dwelling is proposed to be a height of three storeys and a maximum height of 6.8 metres to the top of the pitched roof wall in lieu of the two storey height limit and maximum height of 6 metres deemed-to-comply standard in the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The applicant has provided written justification in support of the proposed building height which is included in Attachment 4 and states that the development should be assessed as a two storey dwelling with a loft rather than a three storey dwelling.

 

The R Codes Volume 2 defines ‘storey’ as being:

 

“The portion of a building which is situated between the top of any floor and the top of the floor next above it and if there is no floor above it, that portion between the top of the floor and the ceiling above it but does not include:

 

·       A basement

·       A space that contains only a lift shaft, stairway or meter room

·       A mezzanine

·       A loft.”

 

The R Codes Volume 2 defines ‘loft’ as being:

 

“A room or space within the roof space of a building.”

 

The portion of the proposed dwelling referred to by the applicant as a ‘loft’ would not be consistent with the abovementioned R Codes Volume 2 definition of a loft. This is because it contains more than one room or space and it contains two balconies that are located outside the roof space of the building. The portion of building in question constitutes a third storey.

 

The building height proposed does not satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy and is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The upper floor and loft levels cantilever forward of the ground floor and have not been designed to conceal or reduce the appearance of building bulk and scale as viewed from the street. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the streetscape given that it does not provide a sufficient street setback to allow the growth of meaningful landscaping to effectively mitigate the appearance and impact of the building bulk and scale;

·       The cantilevered upper floor balconies and irregular roof form would not be complimentary to the existing streetscape;

·       Barlee Street is generally characterised by single storey character dwellings with some examples of more modern two storey dwellings. There are no examples of existing three storey dwellings on land zoned Residential R50 along Barlee Street;

·       The comments provided by the DRP Chairperson advised that there would be scope to consider the third storey due to the site’s close proximity to the District Centre zone, Beaufort Street and the existing six storey mixed use development on the opposite side of Kaata Lane, provided that concerns regarding open space, landscaping and building design were addressed. The applicant submitted amended plans which provide increased open space but do not adequately respond to concerns relating to landscaping and building design; and

·       The final comments provided by the DRP Chairperson were not supportive of the proposed design and concluded that the site planning, architectural expression and materials and detailing create massing which would have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape. The landscaping outcome would also be poor and would not effectively mitigate the bulk and scale created by the massing.

 

Outdoor Living Area

 

The primary outdoor living area for the dwelling is the ground floor courtyard. The R Codes deemed-to-comply standards in relation to outdoor living areas set out a minimum dimension of 4 metres that is to be directly accessible from a habitable room. The proposed courtyard has a minimum dimension of 3.6 metres and is directly accessible from the ground floor laundry and store which are both non-habitable rooms.

 

The proposed outdoor living area meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The outdoor living area is open to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight;

·       The outdoor living area has a total area of 16.7 square metres, exceeding the 16 square metre deemed-to-comply standard specified by the R Codes;

·       The outdoor living area would be capable of use with the ground floor games rooms which is a habitable room of the dwelling. This is because the laundry facilities are recessed into the wall and the laundry area serves as a short corridor between the courtyard and the games room;

·       The development provides a balcony on the upper floor with an area of 34.0 square metres, and two balconies on the loft floor with areas of 9.3 square metres and 4.0 square metres. This would equate to an aggregate balcony area of 47.3 square metres. The development also provides a ground floor alfresco with an area of 21.7 square metres which is adjacent to Kaata Lane. These balconies and alfresco are capable of use in conjunction with habitable rooms of the dwelling and serve as secondary outdoor living areas in addition to the courtyard;

·       The outdoor living area is located to the rear of the dwelling which will allow privacy from the street; and

·       The outdoor living area is provided with 6.4 square metres of deep soil area and two new frangipani trees which would increase amenity for occupants of the dwelling.

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

 

The Built Form Policy requires 15 percent of the site provided as deep soil zones and 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 11.5 percent deep soil zones and 13.8 percent canopy coverage at maturity.

 

The applicant has provided written justification in support of the proposed landscaping which is included in Attachment 4 and summarised as follows:

 

·       The deemed-to-comply requirements are not consistent with other residential properties within the area. Hardly any properties in the area provide trees on site and most trees are located within the verge; and

·       Amended plans have been submitted which provide additional landscaping along the south side of the proposed dwelling.

 

The proposed landscaping does not meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and design principles of the R Codes and is not supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes upper floor and loft balconies which would be imposing as viewed from Barlee Street given that they would cantilever forward of the ground floor and would be setback 1.2 metres from the street boundary. The application proposes six dwarf fruit trees in the 1.2 metre street setback area. The City’s Parks team has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and advised that these trees would not reach maturity. This is because the species require full sunlight but would be in shade for most of the day given their location on the south side of the three storey dwelling. The proposed landscaping would not effectively reduce the impact of the development on Barlee Street;

·       The development would not deliver a high quality landscaping outcome. This is because the majority of canopy coverage would be located in the front and side setback areas on the southern side of the proposed three storey building with limited access to natural sunlight, and within deep soil zone areas that would be a maximum width of 1.2 metres adjacent to Barlee Street and 1.5 metres adjacent to the south eastern lot boundary. The landscaping proposed in this these areas would not reach maturity. The landscaping has been proposed around portions of the building envelope rather than being integrated into the design of the development and within larger consolidated areas of deep soil area with favourable orientation;

·       The comments provided by the DRP Chairperson are consistent with those provided by the City’s Parks team, raising concern that the landscaping provided on the south side of the three storey dwelling would not survive and/or reach maturity; and

·       The proposed landscaping would not be sufficient to mitigate the adverse impact of the development on its residential setting and the amenity and character of the locality. There has not been adequate provision made for high quality landscaping on site, which is a due regard matter under Clause 67(p) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Developments on Rights of Way

 

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standard specifies that development shall provide a 1 metre setback from a ROW and that this setback is to be measured from the new lot boundary after ROW widening has been applied. The proposed development provides a 0.1 metre setback to the ROW which has a width of 6 metres and does not require any further widening.

 

The proposed setback to the ROW meets the design principles of the Built Form Policy and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed setback would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape given that the existing development on the opposite side of the ROW has a nil setback to the ROW from the ground floor to the fourth floor (being the first five storeys);

·       The reduced setback is to the balcony which is an open structure and would not result in excessive building bulk as viewed from the ROW. The dwelling itself has a setback of 1.2 metres from the ROW; and

·       Pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Barlee Street which is a dedicated road with suitable space for service areas and waste management.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator




PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

5.4          Outcomes of Advertising Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form; Appendix No. 16 Design Guidelines for Perth; and Appendix No. 18 - Design Guidelines for William Street

Attachments:             1.       Advertised Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

2.       Advertised Amended Appendix 16 - Design Guidelines for Perth

3.       Advertised Amended Appendix 18 - Design Guidelines for William Street

4.       Summary of Submissions

5.       Design Review Panel Comments

6.       Proposed Amendment No. 2 to LPP 7.1.1 - Built Form with Modifications (Tracked Changes)

7.       Proposed Amendment No. 2 to LPP 7.1.1 - Built Form with Modifications (Clean)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES Administration’s responses to submissions received during advertising of Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth; and Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street included in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5;

2.       PROCEEDS with:

2.1     Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form with modifications included as Attachment 7, pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development  (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

2.2     the proposed modifications to Policy Manual Appendix 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth included as Attachment 2, pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development  (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

2.3     the proposed modifications to Policy Manual Appendix 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street included as Attachment 3, pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development  (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

3.       FORWARDS Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form included as Attachment 7 and any required documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Part 7, Clause 7.3.2 of Volume 1 and Part 1, Clause 1.2.3 of Volume 2 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes; and

4.       NOTES that Administration will publish a notice of Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth; and Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street in a local newspaper pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

 

·       The outcomes of community consultation on Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth and Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street; and

·       Proceeding with Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), Amendment No. 2 to Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth and Amendment No. 2 to Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street with minor modifications.

Background:

Council, at its meeting on 23 July 2019 resolved to prepare Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy for the purpose of advertising for public comments (Item 9.9). A copy of Amendment 2 is included as Attachment 1. Amendment No. 2 proposed seven key changes to the Built Form Policy to align it with Design WA and improve requirements. The seven key changes included:

 

1.       Changing the format of the Policy to have three Volumes in line with State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes. Volume 1 applies to Single Houses, Volume 2 applies to Apartments and Multiple Dwellings and Volume 3 applies to solely Commercial development.

 

2.       Modifying Volume 2 and 3 of the Policy to align with a performance based assessment approach. This includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes in line with Design WA.

 

3.       Introducing requirements for Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings that require all upper storeys to be setback behind the ground floor building line and clarify that garages may only be a maximum of 50% of the width of the lot.

 

4.       Modifying the landscaping provisions to align more closely with Design WA while still retaining the City’s Canopy Cover requirements and introducing a new requirement that existing mature trees be retained in certain circumstances.

 

5.       Adjusting setback requirements to be more responsive to their site context ensuring that there is appropriate distance between large and small scale development but allowing smaller setbacks between developments at a similar scale.

 

6.       Introducing a new requirement for an Urban Design Study to be submitted with a development application that identifies characteristics of existing development and recommends the incorporation of those characteristics by using a variety of materials, finishes and architectural elements to reduce its impact on adjoining properties and appropriately complement the local area.

 

7.       Introducing an Acceptable Outcome in Volume 2 and 3 that development achieve the recommendations in their environmentally sustainable design reports.

 

Amendment No. 2 was publicly advertised between 16 October 2019 and 22 November 2019 through the following methods:

 

·       Written notification was sent to surrounding Local Governments, relevant State Government agencies, previous submitters on the Built Form Policy and key industry stakeholders;

·       A notice was published in the Perth Voice and Eastern Reporter once per week for four week;

·       Officers met with the City’s Design Review Panel to discuss their comments; and

·       A notice was published on the City’s Imagine Vincent engagement portal including a survey on the proposed changes.

 

The City scheduled an open day in each ward where members of the public and industry stakeholders could meet with the City’s planners to discuss the Policy, however due to lack of interest in this offering the City instead offered one on one meetings to interested stakeholders.

 

In addition, Council adopted Amendment No. 2 to Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth and Amendment No. 2 to Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street for public comment at its meeting on 18 September 2018 (Item 9.6). A copy of the amendment to the Perth Design Guidelines is included as Attachment 2 and the amendment to the William Street Guidelines is included as Attachment 3. The purpose of these amendments was to bring these guidelines in line with the broader heights in the areas. These amendments were advertised between 2 April 2020 and 6 May 2020 by way of:

 

·       Written notification to surrounding Local Governments, relevant State Government agencies and residents and landowners within the design guideline areas;

·       A notice was published in the Perth Voice and Eastern Reporter once per week for four week; and

·       A notice was published on the City’s Imagine Vincent engagement portal including a survey on the proposed changes.

Details:

Built Form Policy

 

The City received twelve submissions on the Built Form Policy during the consultation period. There were three key issues raised, as summarised below. A full summary of submissions and responses to those submissions is included as Attachment 4.

 

1.       Onerous Policy Provisions

 

Amendment No. 2 to the Built Form Policy proposes the following:

 

·       Provision for single houses and grouped dwellings to demonstrate that they are able to achieve Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) requirements;

·       Provision for the recommendations of an environmentally sustainable report to be carried out and adhered to for multiple dwellings, mixed use and commercial developments; and

·       Provision for development applications to submit an urban design study that would demonstrate how the design elements of the locality have been interpreted in the proposed development.

 

Submitters raised that these draft provisions would increase the cost of preparing a development application and felt that these requirements would be overly onerous and costly to implement.

 

Administration acknowledges that the landscaping and urban design requirements may involve additional work for developers. However, it is considered that landscaping and urban design elements of a proposal are critical in achieving high quality development outcomes. It is recommended that these requirements are retained.

 

Administration also acknowledges that the ESD requirements may incur additional up-front costs for developers through preparing a report. However, it is considered that the imposition of the requirements are likely to result in energy efficient developments that deliver medium- to long-term savings to the end user that outweigh the upfront costs. The proposed provisions require developments to consider a more holistic and direct approach to ESD, rather than considering ESD retrospectively once most of the building design is completed. It is recommended that the ESD requirements are retained.

 

While an urban design study may also require additional up-front work for applicants, a satisfactory study is likely to result in higher quality applications being submitted, thereby reducing the number and scale of amendments required post lodgement and reducing the overall timeframe for the City to determine applications. Administration will prepare a supporting document to guide applicants and home owners in preparing an urban design study.

 

2.       Excessive Landscaping Requirements

 

Amendment No. 2 proposes changes to the existing landscaping requirements. These include:

 

·       A modification to the definition of deep soil areas;

·       Incentives and requirements to retain existing healthy mature trees; and

·       The introduction of a new definition and requirement for planting areas, which would account for planting on structures like rooves, podiums, balconies or within alternative areas such as basements.

 

Submitters raised concerns that the proposed requirements are excessive and unattainable for many development sites. Submitters also considered that developers and/or landowners should not be required to retain existing trees within the lot boundary of an application site.

 

Administration has identified that development on privately owned property is a major contributor to the loss of tree canopy within the City. The loss of tree canopy directly contributes towards an increase in urban heat island effect, and the loss of vegetation directly impacts the City’s carbon emissions. It is a specific objective of the City’s Greening Plan and Sustainable Environment Strategy to try and improve canopy cover on private land. Administration have identified the Built Form Policy as a key document to achieve this outcome and recommend that the landscaping requirements, as proposed, are retained to ensure high quality outcomes are achieved for all development.

 

Administration acknowledges that the landscaping requirements may not be achievable on all sites. In those cases, development assessment can be undertaken on a performance-based approach. Where development does not, or cannot, meet the relevant Acceptable Outcome, it must be demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with the Local Housing Objectives, Element Objectives, and the Design Principles contained within Appendix 1 of the Policy.

 

3.       Complexity of the Document

 

The new State Planning Framework separates State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes into two volumes. Volume 1 applies to development of ‘Single Houses’ and ‘Grouped Dwellings’ while Volume 2 applies to development of ‘Multiple Dwellings’ in areas coded R40 and above (including the dwelling components of mixed use development and activity centres).

 

To align with the new State Planning Framework Administration proposes to reformat the Built Form Policy into three volumes, while still maintaining the Built Form Areas within each volume. The proposed volumes for the Built Form Policy are:

 

Volume 1 – Single Houses & Grouped Dwellings;

Volume 2 – Multiple Dwellings & Mixed Use Development; and

Volume 3 – Commercial Development.

 

Submitters raised concern that the proposed format of the document and its overall size is confusing and overly complicated.

 

While Amendment No. 2 has increased the Built Form Policy’s size, it is considered that the document, as proposed, is more clear and concise than the existing policy. As the document has been split into three volumes, applicants should only need to refer to one volume for any given application. Therefore, only one third of the Built Form Policy will normally be applicable at any one time. Administration recommends that the proposed format be retained.

 

In addition to the submissions the City met with the Design Review Panel (DRP) early in 2020 to discuss the proposed amendments. The main items discussed related to building design, environmentally sustainable design and character dwellings. The DRP members provided comments, with Administration’s response and recommendations included as Attachment 5.

 

Design Guidelines

 

The Built Form Policy does not currently apply building height limits to the areas subject to the Design Guidelines for Perth and William Street as those Design Guidelines already contain height limits.

 

The Design Guidelines were proposed to be modified to amend the height limits to generally match the height limits of surrounding properties in the Built Form Policy. These modifications were advertised between 2 April 2020 and 6 May 2020. Three submissions received related to:

 

4.       The need for Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth:

 

Concern was raised with the need for the guidelines and whether the provisions should be transferred to the built form policy.

 

There is worthwhile provisions and context which guide development within the Design Guidelines. Complete removal of the policy would remove the important intent described within the guidelines. It is recommended that the guidelines remain in place to guide discretion in decision making.

 

5.       Focus on mixed use in the area of Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth:

 

The submitter supported the amendment however raised that there should be a focus on a variety of uses in the area for non-residents to support activity. The land use zoning allows for a variety of uses. This is also supported in the Design Guidelines. It is recommended that no changes be made.

 

6.       Protection of facades in the area of Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street

 

The submitter supported the proposal and wanted to ensure that there were protections for the William Street facades.

 

There are properties within the area on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The Design Guidelines provides for this and ensures adjoining properties are sensitively developed.

 

No further changes are proposed to the Design Guidelines. Administration recommends the Design Guidelines for Perth and William Street be supported as advertised (included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively).

Consultation/Advertising:

If Council resolves to proceed with the Policy, the City would advertise a notice of the decision and the amended Built Form Policy in a local newspaper and on the City’s website and social media. A letter will also be sent to submitters and key stakeholders advising of the outcome.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       State Planning Policy 7.0 – Design of the Built Environment;

·       State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

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

·       Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its power to amend a local planning policy.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Sensitive Design

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

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

Policy Modifications

 

In response to all submissions and further internal review, Administration proposes a number of modifications to Amendment No. 2. These modifications do not require re-advertising as they are considered minor and primarily relate to providing additional clarity of policy requirements, rather than altering the intent or outcome of those requirements. A track changed version of the Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 6, showing all changes made after advertising of Amendment No. 2. The proposed final version of the Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 7. It is recommended that Council proceed with Amendment No. 2 with the proposed modifications.

 

WAPC Approval

 

If Council resolves to proceed with the proposed Amendment No. 2, the following clauses would require approval of the WAPC before coming into effect, pursuant to clause 7.3.2 of SPP 7.3 – Volume 1 and clause 1.2.3 of SPP 7.3 – Volume 2:

 

·       Clauses 1.2, 4.2, 5.2 – Lot boundary setbacks;

·       Clauses 1.4, 4.5, 5.8 – Landscaping;

·       Clauses 1.4, 4.3, 5.3 – Tree canopy and deep soil areas;

·       Clause 1.7 – Car and bicycle parking; and

·       Clause 1.10 – Energy Efficiency.

 

If Council proceed with Amendment No. 2 Administration will seek the necessary approvals from the WAPC.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               9 June 2020


 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

6            Infrastucture & Environment

6.1          Traffic Management at the Intersection of Walcott Street and Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the significant reduction in traffic accidents at the intersection since the introduction of the ‘right turn bans’ in 2017;

2.       SUPPORTS making the ‘right turn bans’ permanent; and

3.       ADVISES Main Roads WA and the City of Stirling of its decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To seek Councils support to make the current ‘trial’ of the right turn bans at the intersection of Beaufort and Walcott Streets, Mt Lawley, permanent based upon the significant reduction in traffic accidents since its introduction in 2017.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting held on 18 October 2016, Council considered a report on Proposed Safety Improvements at the Intersection of Walcott and Beaufort Streets, Mt Lawley.

 

The report sought Council’s approval, in conjunction with the City of Stirling and Main Roads WA, for a 12 month trial of a right turn ban on all four approaches of the intersection.

 

Prior to the introduction of the right turn bans in 2017 the intersection had long featured in the Metropolitan Perth’s top 10 Black Spot locations based upon both the frequency and severity of accidents.  Since the ban was introduced it has dropped to number 95. 

 

The trial was never officially concluded and the ‘right turn bans’ have remained since.

Details:

The right turn bans at the intersection were introduced in early 2017, which occurred around the same time as the 40km/h speed zone was introduced on Walcott Street between Roy Street and Raglan Road.

 

The intersection is controlled by traffic signals and has a fully protected pedestrian crossing phase.  Prior to the total ban on right turns the only approach at which you couldn’t turn right was from Beaufort Street north bound into Walcott Street south-east bound.

 

In assessing the success of the changes the crash data dating back to 1997, as well as traffic count data for local roads and the intersection, was reviewed in consultation with the City of Stirling.

 

Crash Data

 

·       There has been a 65% reduction in average annual crash frequency, reducing from 28.8 crashes per year between 1997-2016 (i.e. prior to the changes) to just 10 crashes per year between 2017-2018 (i.e. following the changes).

 

·       There has been a 62% reduction in crash severity, reducing from 5.3 KSI* crashes per year between 1997-2016 to 2.0 KSI crashes per year between 2017-2018.

 

*Killed or seriously injured.

 

·       The rolling 5-year crash frequency has reduced from 128 crashes (between 2012-2016) to 89 crashes (between 2014-2018). This downward trend will likely continue when the updated crash data for 2019 calendar year becomes available.

 

Traffic Surveys

 

·       Traffic surveys at four adjacent local street most likely to be affected, Roy, Gerard, Curtis and Barlee Streets, have not shown a significant increase in traffic volumes as a result of the right turn bans.

 

In fact, Curtis and Gerard Streets has seen a reduction in traffic, approx. 30% and 15%, respectively, while Roy* and Barlee Street have seen an average 15% increase, but are still below a 1,000 vehicles per day average weekday’

 

*Roy Street increased from 529 to 604 vehicles per day.

 

In addition to the impact of the right turn bans there are also seasonal factors, as well as local events and attractions that will influence traffic volumes.

 

Traffic Signal Volume

 

§ Comparison of SCATS* counts between December 2016 and November 2019 indicates a minimal reduction in total vehicles through the intersection (combined all four approaches), from 39,075 to 37,232 vehicles per weekday.  The decrease in volume through the intersection (and on local roads) may be attributable to either motorists choosing alternative routes well in advance of the intersection (i.e. William Street), or possibly an increase in public transport patronage (prior to COVID-19) on Beaufort Street, particularly since the introduction of dedicated peak hour bus lanes for the entire length of the road.

 

*Main Roads traffic signals control system.

 

Given the delay in finalising the trial the City sought an indication from both Main Roads WA and the City of Stirling on their respective views on making the bans permanent.

 

City of Stirling

 

The City of Stirling provided the following response:

 

‘From Stirling’s perspective, there has been a significant decrease in crash frequency and severity, and there has been no adverse displacement of traffic to adjacent parallel roads. As such, the continuation of the right turn bans and 40km/h zones on all approaches is strongly supported by the City of Stirling.’

 

Main Roads WA

 

MRWA advised:

 

“Main Roads supports making the right turn bans permanent.”

Consultation/Advertising:

The residents of the aforementioned streets were consulted prior to the commencement of the trial.  While several responses were received at the time, essentially concerned about the potential increase in traffic volumes the City has received very few comments, related to the trial or traffic in general, since.

Legal/Policy:

Walcott and Beaufort Streets are District Distributor A Roads under the care and control of the respective Local Governments.  As a result the decision to make the ‘right turn bans’ permanent resides with the Cities of Vincent and Stirling.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  The introduction of the ‘right turn bans’ has seen a significant reduction in accidents at this location resulting in a tangible public benefit.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Accessible City

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

In 2016 the City consulted with the residents and businesses in the streets immediately surrounding the intersection.  While there were some misgivings expressed at the time the trail proceeded in 2017.

 

A review (of the trial) was dependent upon the Cities of Vincent and Stirling and Main Roads agreeing a suitable assessment period upon which to evaluate the success, or otherwise, of the trial, with the consensus being that 12 months was not sufficient.  As a result the trial was allowed to drift and the ‘right turn bans’ have been accepted as the norm.

 

As the trial had not been officially ‘closed out’ the City wrote to Main Roads and the City of Stirling seeking their respective views.  As can be seen in the body of the report both organisations support making the ‘right turn bans’ permanent.

 

Further, in light of significant reduction in traffic accidents, the limited impact upon traffic volumes, and the lack of any community commentary, either before or against the ‘right turn bans’, it is recommended that they be made permanent.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

6.2          Department of Transport Long Term Cycle Network Endorsement

Attachments:             1.       Final Draft Long Term Cycle Network May 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the aspirational Long Term Cycle Network as proposed by the Department of Transport;

2.       CONFIRMS support for Local and State Government agencies to work together in delivering the aspirational Long Term Cycle Network; and

3.       INFORMS the Department of Transport of the City’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the Department of Transports (DoT) Long Term Cycle Network (LTCN) and an understanding of how routes have been identified.

Background:

In 2016 as part of the State Governments long term transport strategy (Transport @3.5M – link here) the Transport Portfolio released the Cycling Network Plan.

 

The aspirational bicycle network identified within this Plan was based on a robust methodology of connecting all key activity centres. However, this Plan was developed by DoT in-house with little consultation with local governments due to the time constraints needed to deliver the project.

 

In 2017-18 DoT were successful in receiving funding across a two year period to deliver the LTCN project – to go through detailed engagement with 33 local governments across Perth and Peel to agree a long term aspirational bicycle network for the region that supports and addresses local and regional bicycle connections. This project is due to completed by June 2020 when it will have been endorsed by all 33 local governments across Perth and Peel.

Details:

The DoT is working with 33 Local Government authorities in the Perth and Peel regions to agree on bicycle routes that link parks, schools, community facilities and transport services, to make bike riding a convenient and viable option.

 

The aim of the Long Term Cycle Network project is to develop an aspirational blueprint to ensure State and Local Governments work together towards the delivery of one continuous bicycle network that crosses City boundaries, providing additional transport options, recreational opportunities and support for tourism and commercial activity – creating a bicycle network catering for all ages and abilities.

 

DoT is now seeking Council endorsement of the agreed LTCN across all 33 Local Governments, including City of Vincent, and moving forward the agreed long term network will guide funding allocated through the WA Bicycle Network Grants Program administered by DoT. Council endorsement is considered necessary for the DoT to demonstrate region wide agreement of the LTCN – which in particular may assist in any Federal funding discussions/applications.

 

The final draft Long Term Cycle Network for Vincent can be seen in attachment 1.

 

The LTCN has been endorsed by 15 LGAs (City of Armadale, Town of Claremont, City of Cockburn, Town of Cottesloe, Town of East Fremantle, City of Fremantle, City of Kalamunda, City of Kwinana, City of Melville, Town of Mosman Park, Shire of Murray, Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale, City of Subiaco, Town of Victoria Park, Shire of Waroona) and is scheduled to be presented to a further 16 LGAs in June 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

DoT and local government officers have worked together to identify LTCN routes, and categorise routes using a new simplified three tier route hierarchy of Primary Routes, Secondary Route and Local Routes. The categorisation of routes has been based on the function of a given route within the network and based on DoT guidelines outlined link here.

 

City of Vincent officers met with DoT in July 2019 to discuss the Long Term Cycle Network and we have provided input and advice based on the City of Vincent Bike Network Plan and draft Integrated Transport Plan.

 

This long term network has been agreed between DoT and local government officers, and the network was subject to a review by Main Roads and PTA/Metronet teams in relation to any routes within or crossing State controlled assets.

 

DoT will be updating the guidance for local governments in relation to developing local bicycle plans. It is expected that the new guidance will require local governments to review their endorsed LTCN as part of the process of developing/updating their bicycle plan. The City of Vincent Bicycle Network Plan was written in 2013 and budget has been allocated to develop a new plan in 2021.  As part of the process to develop this new plan the City will conduct public consultation to enable the community to assist in shaping the Plan and will seek community comment on the aspirational LTCN within this process. As part of this consultation (and any future bicycle plans) the City and DoT can work together to modify the endorsed LTCN:

 

·       New routes can be added to reflect land use changes/new development

·       Existing routes can be realigned to parallel corridors if details are known which excludes a route from being considered in the future to accommodate bicycle infrastructure (engineering constraints/land tenure issues/etc.).

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       At this time Council is only being asked endorse the aspirational Long Term Cycle Network as proposed by the Department of Transport.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Accessible City

Our pedestrian and cyclist networks are well designed, connected, accessible and encourage increased use.

 

Connected Community

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The LTCN supports the following outcomes of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024

·      Public and active transport are the modes of choice for staff and community

·      Car dependency is reduced

Financial/Budget Implications:

Future funding from the State government will only be granted for routes identified in the Long Term Cycle Network.

Comments:

The Long Term Cycle Network is aspirational in nature and whilst only routes identified in the plan will be eligible for any future State funding their identification does not necessitate future cycle routes being built there. Future cycle routes inside the City will still be identified based on their strategic importance, connectivity, usage and community input. The LTCN has been designed with an understanding that these priorities will change over time and that routes that are not possible now may be in the future.

 

The final draft shows a secondary route along Walcott St. This was not supported by City of Stirling, who favour a route to the north. Administration recommends following the Department of Transports advice to include Walcott Street as a secondary route given the lack of direct, alternative east/west routes and the aspirational nature of the plan. Both sides acknowledge that it would require significant changes before any cycle route could be accommodated on Walcott Street.

 

The Department of Transport have included a secondary route through Hyde Park despite the Administration advising that it was unlikely to be possible/supported. The DoT see the Norfolk/Lake St route as a key north/south route directly into the CBD. Again the DoT understands that whilst the route through Hyde Park is not currently possible they reiterated the aspirational nature of the LTCN and believe that community attitudes and funding may change in the future.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

7            Community & Business Services

7.1          Petition - Friends of ANZAC Cottage

Attachments:             1.       Petition - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the petition received at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 April 2020 (Attachment 1) in regard to the property located at 38 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, more commonly known as ANZAC Cottage;

2.       ADVISES the lead petitioner and the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. that the City has no legal basis to intervene as requested in the petition as:

2.1     the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia WA (VVAAWA) has exclusive possession and occupation rights to ANZAC Cottage pursuant to a lease, which is secured by a caveat registered in favour of VVAAWA on the Certificate of Title to ANZAC Cottage;

2.2     the VVAAWA is currently occupying ANZAC Cottage in accordance with the terms of the lease and there is no subsisting breach of the lease terms by VVAAWA; and

2.3     the lease has a further six years of its initial term to run, until 30 September 2026, followed by three further option terms of five years each, the last of which will expire on 30 September 2041;

3.       NOTES:

3.1     the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. advised that they had made a decision to withdraw from direct activities at ANZAC Cottage amid ongoing tensions with the VVAA WA;

3.2     the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer have offered support to both parties to resolve the dispute in the best interest of ANZAC Cottage and the community; and

3.3     that, given recommendations 3.1 and 3.2, the status of the Memorandum of Understanding between the VVAAWA, Friends of Anzac Cottage and the City, dated May 2018, is uncertain; and

4.       ADVISES the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. and the VVAAWA that the City is willing to assist in the review of the Memorandum of Understanding to allow the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. to resume community engagement at the Cottage, if the parties advise that they have reached an agreement as to its operation and terms.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide Council with a response to the petition presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 April 2020 from the Friends of ANZAC Cottage (Friends).

Background:

Heritage Significance of ANZAC Cottage

 

ANZAC Cottage, 38 Kalgoorlie Street, Mt Hawthorn is owned by the City of Vincent.  The cottage has a number of heritage listings:

 

·       Register of Heritage Places (State Government listing);

·       National Trust Classification (Non-Government listing);

·       Town Planning Scheme (Local Government listing);

·       Municipal Inventory (Local Government listing); and

·       Register of the National Estate (National Government listing).

 

ANZAC Cottage has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

 

·       the place was the first war memorial built in Australia to commemorate the participation of Australian troops in World War I;

·       the place is representative of the effect that Australia's role in World War I, and the role of the Anzacs in particular, had on the Western Australian community in the immediate aftermath of the Gallipoli campaign;

·       the place is a rare example of an architect designed workers' cottage. While the internal arrangement is a conventional configuration, the combination of materials and detailing is unusual for workers' cottage from the era;

·       the place is a good example of a modest residential building constructed in suburban Perth in the 1910s, which is made exceptional by virtue of the circumstances of its construction by the Mount Hawthorn community as a war memorial and as a result has come to represent the values that are associated with the Anzac tradition in Australia; and

·       the technical innovation and achievement of constructing a brick and tile cottage with the trades and skills of over 200 people from the Mount Hawthorn community in a single day in 1916 is a significant accomplishment.

 

Ownership and Leasing of ANZAC Cottage

 

Prior to 2006, the Cottage was owned by the Vietnam Veterans Association Australia WA Branch (VVAAWA). 

 

On 19 April 2005, the City (then Town of Vincent) received a letter from Kott Gunning Lawyers acting on behalf of the VVAAWA. The letter outlined the proposal relating to the future of the cottage.

 

Subsequently, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 17 January 2006, Council endorsed the following:

 

“That the Council;

(i)       NOTES the outcome of the lease negotiations between the Town and the Vietnam Veterans Association relating to Anzac Cottage as detailed in this report;

(ii)      APROVES the transfer of ownership of Anzac Cottage 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mt Hawthorn from the Vietnam Veterans Association to the Town subject to a pre-purchase

(iii)     APPROVES of a lease between the Town and the Vietnam Veterans Association for the subject property for a period of twenty-one (21) years with three, five year options; and

(iv)     AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to sign the lease and affix the Council Common Seal.”

Pursuant to the above decision, a lease between the City of Vincent as lessor and VVAAWA as lessee was entered into on 24 January 2006 (Lease). The Lease remains on foot, it has an initial term of 21 years (expiring 30 September 2026) and three further option terms of five years each, the final term expiring on 30 September 2041.

 

The VVAAWA registered a caveat over the Certificate of Title to the property to secure the terms of the lease. This prevents the property being sold, transferred or otherwise dealt with without the VVAAWA’s consent, as the VVAAWA would be required to withdraw the caveat in order for any dealing on the property to be completed.

 

VVAWA retains exclusive occupation and possession rights in respect of ANZAC Cottage in compliance and accordance with the Lease terms.

 

Restoration of ANZAC Cottage

 

In the 1980’s and then in 1992, a cohort of Vietnam Veterans embarked on a project to restore the cottage, enlisting the assistance from Private Porter’s daughter Marjorie Williams.  Mrs Williams was born in the front room of ANZAC Cottage and served with the Australian Women’s Army Service in World War II.  Mrs Williams saved the cottage from demolition in 1989 by using her war widow’s pension to fund a legal ruling, which deemed it be vested in the State.

 

Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc are formed

 

The Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. (Friends) were formed in 2006 to assist with the accessibility and interpretation of ANZAC Cottage, and in particular, to promote and facilitate public access to and awareness of ANZAC Cottage.

 

The volunteers of Friends are dedicated to preserving and sharing the remarkable story of ANZAC Cottage.  They have worked tirelessly to share the stories and community spirit that embraces it.

 

From 2008 until February 2020, Friends actively promoted the cottage through:

 

·       Monthly notices promoting the Open Day through 6 newspapers, 10 radio stations and 21 websites; and

·       Friends’ website and Facebook platforms, with posts being made on average of 2-3 times week.  These posts promoted upcoming events or information that had been uncovered through the Friends extensive research.

 

This culminated in the Friends welcoming over 2000 visitors to ANZAC Cottage annually.

 

In order to ensure ANZAC Cottage’s story and the ANZAC legacy continued to be voiced, the engagement of the younger generation was seen to be crucial.  Friends achieved this engagement by:

 

·       Holding free wreath making workshop and poppy making on special commemorative occasions for children who then play an active role in the ceremony;

·       Forming a strong relationship with the 57 Australian Cadet Unit and the Ngaru Pou Maori Cultural Group. 

·       Attracting more than 600 children through school visits each year along with scout groups to the Cottage; and

·       Established a bursary program in 2014 whereby a student from Mount Hawthorn Primary School is awarded the $250 Marjorie Williams/ANZAC Cottage Bursary annually for demonstrating the ANZAC spirit.

 

Friends undertook additional events and community engagement including;

 

·       Monthly Open Days – this would involve Friends opening the Cottage on the first Sunday every month for the public to visit, with themed opening days focussing on different aspects of the Cottage’s history and ANZAC history more broadly;

·       Conducting Commemorations and ANZAC Day Sunset Ceremonies;

·       Hosting Remembrance Day Commemorations;

·       Actively involved in the ‘Open House Perth’ annual program that enables visitors from across Perth to visit and explore the history of the building;

·       Hosting of Seniors Week events with afternoon teas; and

·       Engaging at local events such as Mt Hawthorn Streets and Laneways Festival to promote ANZAC Cottage.

 

The Friends programming included activities aimed at all ages encompassing workshops and activities for children through to historical workshops and events that specifically catered for seniors.  In addition, Friends co-ordinated and installed murals on two (2) City bus stops depicting historical scenes of ANZAC’s and Vietnam Veterans along with the installation of a mural at the rear of ANZAC cottage.

 

Creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between VVAAWA and the Friends

 

In 2015, the City was made aware that there were ongoing tensions between the VVAAWA and the Friends growing and after consultation with both groups, it was determined that a MOU should be drafted to clearly outline each group’s roles, rights and responsibilities. The draft was amended to include the City as a third party in order to assist with any mediation should this fail between the groups. The Memorandum of Understanding - Operation & Management of ANZAC Cottage, No 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (May 2018) (MOU) was executed on 7 June 2018.

 

Both the Friends and the VVAAWA have curated displays at the Cottage highlighting the history of the cottage and the history of military conflict in Australia.

 

The Friends use of ANZAC Cottage was subject to the permission of the VVAAWA as the legal tenant.

 

VVAWA and Community Engagement

 

The VVAAWA played a minor role in community engagement of ANZAC Cottage, as per the agreed terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

 

However, as the lease holder, they were responsible for ensuring the upkeep and maintenance, whilst enabling Friends access to perform their community engagement role.

 

VVAAWA also undertakes projects that educate the community on the military conflict of Australia, with a particular focus on the Vietnam War.

 

As the State body representing all West Australian Vietnam Veterans, VVAAWA also represents the broader interests of WA Vietnam Veterans and are responsible for the management of the Vietnam Veterans Pavilion in Kings Park.  Services are held at the pavilion on Anzac Day and on the Sunday before Vietnam Veterans Day. 

Details:

Issues arise between VVAAWA and the Friends

 

In October 2019, the City was advised by Friends that ‘since the inception of the MOU significant issues which have had a negative impact on the Friends of ANZAC Cottage and the implementation of its community engagement role as mandated by the MOU and the City of Vincent have been revealed.’

 

The City commenced investigations into the situation, reviewed the MOU, and met with relevant stakeholders. 

 

As the dispute was unable to be resolved through negotiation, the dispute was referred to the City’s Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor, in accordance with clause 9 of the MOU.  Dispute resolution was unsuccessful. 

 

The Friends Continue with Community Engagement

 

The City received confirmation from the Friends on 17 February 2020 that they had ceased all community engagement programs at ANZAC Cottage and returned their keys to the property.

 

Friends have continued with education and engagement activities relating to ANZAC Cottage in an online capacity. These initiatives have included:

 

·       An ANZAC Sunset Service (online broadcast)

·       ANZAC activities and educational posts in the lead up to ANZAC Day

·       ‘Tales at 2pm’ program of educational online talks

·       ‘Heritage Hounds’ Online educational activities for young people

 

In addition to the above, the Friends have continued to promote the history of ANZAC Cottage and other ANZAC related information through a number of social media channels. The Friends have indicated their intention to hold face-to-face events at Castellorizian House once COVID-19 restrictions permit, by agreement with the Castellorizian Association of Western Australia.  

 

VVAWA host Open Days at ANZAC Cottage

 

The Vietnam Veterans Association of WA have now commenced a program of Open Days at ANZAC Cottage.  The last Open Day was held in March 2020 and further events have been suspended following the COVID-19 restrictions.  VVAAWA have advised of their intent to resume hosting Open Day events once Government advice permits.

 

VVAAWA also advised of their intent to host school tours and other programs at ANZAC Cottage in the future.

 

Petition received from the Friends

 

The Friends petition requests the City to facilitate the Friends return to the Cottage ‘unencumbered’ by other groups.

 

VVAAWA gifted ANZAC Cottage to the City on the condition that the City enter into a lease with VVAAWA. As noted above, VVAAWA has exclusive possession and occupation of ANZAC Cottage pursuant to the Lease, the Lease remains on foot with further option terms still to run and the VVAAWA is complying with the Lease terms.

 

The Lease does not allow the City to terminate it without due cause, i.e. VVAAWA is in breach of the Lease and fails to rectify the breach within 28 days of the City providing notice to rectify. Any attempt to terminate the Lease by the City (other than in accordance with the Lease) would provide VVAAWA with the grounds for legal action against the City for breach of Lease/contract. Therefore, as VVAAWA is not in breach of the Lease, the City cannot assist the Friends with their request without significant risk of legal action being commenced against the City.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City has had extensive discussions with both VVAWA and Friends to determine the most effective method for the management of ANZAC Cottage, within the context of the existing MOU and its dispute resolution process.

 

Both Friends and VVAAWA have been advised of the 9 June 2020 Council Briefing meeting and have been provided the opportunity to provide statements.

 

At the request of the Friends, this Agenda paper was withdrawn from the May 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting to enable them adequate time to consult their members about the paper and to provide a statement in response.

Legal/Policy:

·       Lease of ANZAC Cottage, 38 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, between the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia WA Branch Incorporated and the Town of Vincent, dated 24 January 2006.

 

·       Memorandum of Understanding - Operation & Management of ANZAC Cottage, No 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (May 2018)

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       It is low risk for the City to abide by the terms of the lease for ANZAC Cottage and the spirit and intent of the MOU.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City.

Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The Friends have a unique relationship to ANZAC Cottage and their community engagement programs have significantly contributed to preserving and sharing the history of the Cottage.

 

The City commends the dedication and commitment the Friends has demonstrated over many years to promote the City’s local history and heritage.

 

It is not possible for the City to meet the request of this petition due to the legal obligations that the City has under the Lease entered into with VVAAWA.

 

The City is willing to facilitate an amended Memorandum of Understanding if fully supported by both sides in a spirit of harmony and cooperation in the best interests of the Cottage and the community.  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

7.2          Investment Report as at 30 April 2020

Attachments:          1.       Investment report as at 30 April 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 30 April 2020 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 30 April 2020 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 April 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $30,832,893 compared to $36,427,902 for the period ending 30 April 2019.

 

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 April 2020 is $25,975,451 compared to $31,019,902 for the period ending 30 April 2019. The total term deposit and fund amounts have reduced compared to last year for cash flow management purposes to cover operating and capital expenditure requirements.

 

In addition, the City foresees that investments in the short term will decline to ensure the City’s short to medium term liquidity position is sustainable during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

 

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

$46,846,286

$37,782,515

November

$44,188,761

$42,678,504

$46,118,236

$36,123,083

December

$40,977,846

$38,667,039

$38,557,295

$34,633,796

January

$42,109,674

$35,225,189

$37,915,806

$33,773,707

February

$44,227,308

$36,178,794

$35,377,640

$33,681,961

March

$39,157,958

$32,739,750

$33,969,162

$28,466,025

April

$36,427,902

$31,019,902

$30,832,893

$25,975,451

May

$33,384,520

$29,469,158

 

 

June

$30,503,765

$25,613,648

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 April 2020 is:

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Budget Adopted

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$370,000

$308,330

$271,890

88.18%

Reserve

$278,688

$232,240

$200,683

86.41%

Subtotal

$648,688

$540,570

$472,573

87.42%

Leederville Gardens Incl. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$89,687

0.00%

Total

$648,688

$540,570

$562,260

104.01%

 

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

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 1.67% for current investments including the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for April 2020 is 0.17%.

 

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 April 2020, $9,550,016 (31%) 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 table below.

 

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

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

  A1+

30%

19.4%

30%

Nil

90%

47.66%

A1

25%

2.6%

30%

Nil

80%

13.42%

A2

20%

14.3%

n/a

Nil

60%

38.92%

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                                                                                               9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

7.3          Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 April 2020 to 30 April 2020

Attachments:             1.       Payments by Direct Debit April 20

2.       Payments by EFT, BPAY and Payroll April 20  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 April 2020 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT and BPAY payments, including payroll

 

$4,649,898.84

Cheques

 

$0.00

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$165,701.99

 

 

 

Total payments for April 2020

 

$4,815,600.83

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 April 2020.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 2.2.18) the power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

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

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 April 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2530 - 2538

$3,571,710.31

Payroll by Direct Credit

April 2020

$1,078,188.53

Sub Total

 

$4,649,898.84

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

 

$0.00

Sub Total

 

$0.00


 

 

 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$15,994.26

Loan Repayments

$100,782.60

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$42,159.57

Credit Cards

 

$6,765.56

Sub Total

 

$165,701.99

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$4,815,600.83

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

“13.    Lists of Accounts

 

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

 

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

 

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Management systems are in place that establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions. Financial reporting to Council increases transparency and accountability.

 

 

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:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All municipal fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s annual budget.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              9 June 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             9 June 2020

7.4          Financial Statements as at 30 April 2020

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 30 April 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 30 April 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 April 2020.

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 April 2020:

 

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

6-53

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

54-59

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

60

7.

Rating Information and Graph

61-62

8.

Debtors Report

63

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

64

 

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’.

 

The City’s operations have been impacted by the measures imposed by the State and Federal Government to contain COVID-19. This has had a material impact on operating revenue and delivery of services and projects. The May budget review was adopted by council on the 19 May 2020 accounts for these adjustments and variances, and will be included in the May 2020 financial activity reporting.

 

Revenue by Program is tracking under budget compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $1,806,365 (9.3%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           An unfavourable variance of $886,702 due to a reduction in revenue as a result of the closure of Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and Culture);

·           An unfavourable variance of $922,023 materially contributed by a reduction in revenue generated from parking infringements and parking fees (Transport). 

 

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking under budget by $1,751,554 (3.2%) compared to the budgeted revenue. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           An unfavourable variance of $1,664,350 due to a significant reduction in revenue generated from fees and charges, mainly contributed by Beatty Park operations and parking revenue.

 

Expenditure by Program reflects an under spend of $3,960,645 (7.6%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           An under-spend of $1,551,848 mainly contributed by the timing of payment relating to waste collection and the delivery of operating projects & programmes (Community Amenities);

·           An under-spend of $1,033,772 mainly contributed by a timing variance of delivery of events and operating costs relating to Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and culture);

·           An under-spend of $346,496 mainly contributed by a timing variance of maintenance works relating to infrastructure maintenance and street lighting utility costs (Transport); and

·           An under-spend of $506,698 mainly contributed by timing variance in the delivery of works within multiple service areas (Other Property and Services).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $3,834,541 (7.3%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $2,690,660. This variance is mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within the following areas:

 

o   Waste collection Service - $932,030;

o   Events - $255,871;

o   Maintenance works - $229,021; and

o   Operating projects within multiple areas - $531,587.

 

The balance of the variance is a result of a cumulative underspend in multiple areas across the City. 

 

·           Employee costs reflects an under-spend of $173,398 largely contributed by casual staff being stood down at Beatty Park Centre.

 

·           Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $807,274 largely contributed by a timing variance in the delivery of works within different service areas.

 

Surplus Position – 2019/20

 

The surplus position brought forward to 2019/20 is $5,811,178 as per the City’s 2018/19 audited financials. The April closing position is $12,842,317 reflecting a favourable position of $6,209,886 compared to the April budget amount of $6,632,431.

 

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 Comprehensive Income 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 – 53)

 

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 54 - 59)

 

Below is a summary of the year to date expenditure of each asset category and the funding source associated to the delivery of capital works.

 

 

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Land and Buildings

                  2,714,730

                  2,193,730

                  1,520,395

44.0%

Infrastructure Assets

                  6,589,378

                  6,051,697

                  3,636,895

44.8%

Plant and Equipment

                  3,049,456

                  3,049,456

                  1,750,832

42.6%

Furniture and Equipment

                     864,277

                     756,062

                     241,423

72.1%

Total

               13,217,841

               12,050,945

                  7,149,545

45.9%

FUNDING

Revised Budget

YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Own Source Funding - Municipal

                  9,428,042

                  8,875,456

                  5,662,730

39.9%

Cash Backed Reserves

                  1,344,821

                  1,019,821

                     402,279

70.1%

Capital Grant and Contribution

                  1,889,978

                  1,745,668

                     796,547

57.9%

Other (Disposals/Trade In)

                     555,000

                     410,000

                     287,989

48.1%

Total

               13,217,841

               12,050,945

                  7,149,545

45.9%

 

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

 

6.         Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 60)

 

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 April 2020 is $9,417,476.

 

7.         Rating Information (Note 7 Page 61 - 62)

 

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:

 

 

Due Date

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 April 2020 is $1,685,125 including deferred rates ($103,602) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates. 

 


 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 63)

 

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 30 April 2020 are $2,294,297, of which $1,849,787 relates to outstanding debtors. 92% 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:

 

·        $1,699,025 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.

 

$971,183 of this amount has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion). Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, a provisional amount of $186,666 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a provisional amount of $196,072 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the non-current portion (greater than 12 months). This treatment is in accordance to the new requirements of the changes in the Accounting standards (AASB 9).

 

·        $160,190 (9%) 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.

 

In light of the expected impact of COVID-19, Administration will calculate a provision amount to reflect the probability of not collecting outstanding monies owed to the City. All debtor categories will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 

 

9.         Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 64)

 

As at 30 April 2020, the operating deficit for the centre is $97,498 (excluding depreciation) compared to a surplus position of $272,556 in March 2020. 

 

This position is favourable compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $159,593.

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 53)

 

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) (