AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

23 March 2021

 

Time:

6.00pm

Location:

E-Meeting and at the 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 
The City’s Council Briefings, Ordinary Council Meetings, Special Council Meetings and COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee Meetings are held in the Council Chamber located upstairs in the City of Vincent Administration and Civic Centre. Physical distancing measures are in place. Meetings are also held electronically (as eMeetings), and live streamed so you can continue to watch our meetings and briefings online at  https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/livestream
Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council Meeting can relate to any matters that affect the City.  
Questions or statements made at a Council Briefing, Special Meeting of the Council or a Committee Meeting can only relate to the items on the agenda or the purpose for which the meeting has been called. 
Public Questions will be strictly limited to three (3) minutes per person.
The following conditions apply to public questions and statements: 
1.	Questions and statements can be made in person or by emailing governance@vincent.wa.gov.au with the questions prior to 3pm on the day of a Council Briefing or Meeting or prior to 10am on the day of a Committee Meeting. Please include your full name and suburb in your email. 
2.	Questions emailed will be read out by the CEO or his delegate during public question time if they relate to an item on the agenda.  If they do not relate to an item on the agenda they will answered outside of the meeting.  Statements will not be read out. 
3.	Shortly after the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member will ask members of the public to come forward to address the Council and to give their name and the suburb in which they reside or, where a member of the public is representing the interests of a business, the suburb in which that business is located and Agenda Item number (if known).
4.	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.
5.	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.
6.	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.
RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
•	All Council proceedings are recorded and livestreamed in accordance with the Council Proceedings – Recording and Web Streaming Policy. 
•	All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.
•	All livestreams can be accessed at https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/livestream
•	All live stream recordings can be accessed on demand at https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings
•	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.


 

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 6

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 6

3          (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 6

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice. 6

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 8

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 8

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 8

8          Declarations of Interest 8

9          Strategy & Development 9

9.1             No. 38 (Lot: 18; D/P:2001) Summers Street, East Perth - Proposed Office. 9

9.2             No. 48 (Lot: 202; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House. 196

9.3             No. 48A (Lot: 201; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House. 263

9.4             No. 104 (Lot: 79; D/P: 555) Eton Street, North Perth - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House (Carport) 331

9.5             Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants Application – Forrest Park Croquet Club. 356

9.6             Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation. 370

9.7             Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas. Relating to Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street 414

9.8             City of Vincent Rebound Plan - Quarterly Update. 535

10        Infrastructure & Environment 546

10.1           Tender no IE105/2020 Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at City of Vincent Sites. 546

10.2           Waste Strategy Project - 2 Bulk Hard Waste Options Appraisal 551

10.3           E-Permits Implementation Update. 614

11        Community & Business Services. 617

11.1           Management Agreement - Leederville Toy Library - Portion of the Loftus Community Centre, 99 Loftus Street, Leederville. 617

11.2           Adoption of Community Funding Policy - Student Citizenship Awards. 621

11.3           Investment Report as at 31 January 2021. 648

11.4           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2021. 657

11.5           Financial Statements as at 31 January 2021. 672

11.6           Mid Year Budget Review. 738

11.6           Mid Year Budget Review [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 738

12        Chief Executive Officer 761

12.1           Outcome of advertising and adoption of new policy - Attendance at Events Policy. 761

12.1           Outcome of advertising and adoption of new policy - Attendance at Events Policy [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 761

12.2           Amendment of Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy. 765

12.3           Repeal of City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2020. 770

12.3           Repeal of City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2020 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 770

12.4           Adoption of Council Member, Committee Member and Candidates Code of Conduct and CEO Standards and approval of amendments to the Council Election Period Policy. 775

12.4           Adoption of Council Member, Committee Member and Candidates Code of Conduct and CEO Standards and approval of amendments to the Council Election Period Policy [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 775

12.5           Adoption of Election Signs Policy. 805

12.6           Results of community consultation - Future use of 10 Monmouth Street, Mount Lawley. 806

12.7           Minutes and motions from the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 9 February 2021. 839

12.8           Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2021. 866

12.9           Local Government Statutory Compliance Audit Return 2020. 939

12.10        Information Bulletin. 958

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 996

Nil

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 996

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 996

16        Urgent Business. 996

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 996

Nil

18        Closure. 996

 

 

 


 

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            (A)         Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

These questions were received at the Council Meeting of 16 February 2021.

Dudley Maier - Highgate

1.         Who was given the contract to demolish the Alfred Spencer Pavilion in Beatty Park Reserve and how much were they paid?  Did the demolition contract contain any clause that required them to recover as much of the resources as they could, such as timber and bricks, or were they simply allowed to take everything to landfill?   

          The demolition was carried out by Devco and materials were recovered as part of the process.  The total cost was $32,538, including asbestos removal.  All bricks, concrete, masonry metals and wood were recovered for recycling.

2.         Expenditure reports up until 31 December 2020 show that 13 of the 16 COVID Arts projects have been paid in full including one that was paid twice the agreed amount; 2 have received no payments; and one has received half payment. Given that on page 513 of the agenda it says that only 4 of 16 projects have been completed, is it the acceptable practice to pay for projects before the project was complete? Is this treatment extended to any other suppliers? Who approved the payments?

          The Artist Agreements for the 16 Arts Relief projects all state that artists must provide an invoice for the full grant amount within 30 days of the Agreement being executed.

 

          This was to ensure the artists had cash flow to undertake the work.

4.              Can you confirm that work ‘Big Blue Head’ was allocated an amount of $655 yet the payment made to the ‘artist’ on 22 October 2020 was for $755.58? Why the difference?

 

          This payment consisted of $655 for the Arts Relief Grant and $120.58 for Fitness Instructor fees for 28.9.20 and 30.9.20

 

5.              Can you confirm that the “looking for eye contact” project was allocated $5,000 but the artist received two payments of $5,000 on 26 November 2020? Why the double payment?

 

          These payments related to two projects, each paid $5,000 each. ‘Looking for eye contact’ and ‘Mighty Raw – Social Commentary Box’.  Grant acquittal terms are defined in the grant contract and are strictly adhered to.

 

6.              Can you confirm that in 2019/20 street Christmas parties were funded under ‘Community Support Grants’ and that two grants were made for $283 and $132? 

          Refer to the answer at Q7.

7.              Can you confirm that in 2020/21 street Christmas parties were funded under ‘Festival and Events’ and received grants of $84, $84, $944, $2,776 and $2,582?  Why the change of grant category?

 

          Street parties are funded under Community Support Grants; the funding category has not changed.  We note the grants register has an incorrect category and this has been corrected.

 

8.              What exactly were the grants for $2,776 and $2,582 for, and were they assessed by the Arts Advisory Group as required by the policy?  Who approved these two grants?

          These grants were for local Street parties in line with the Street Activation Policy.  As stated above, it has been noted that the funding was placed in the wrong category on the grants register.  This has since been updated.  Given these grants were funded under the Community Support Grants, they were not required to be assessed by the Arts Advisory Group.

9.              Can you confirm that the process followed for naming the Leedy Laneway is not consistent with the city’s policies, guidelines and procedures? Given that the organisers have been working with the administration why has the ‘Vincent Identity’ category been dropped from the list of acceptable names, and why will Aboriginal words only be accepted from members of the Noongar community? Will the name suggested by the organiser be submitted to community feedback as required by the policy and guidelines?  Who in the administration approved this process? 

 

          The process followed for naming the Leedy Laneway is consistent with the City’s policies, guidelines and procedures.

 

          The organiser will be required to submit names to the City through the road name request form, as per the City’s road naming procedure. The City will then ensure suitability of the names submitted, including sufficient supporting documentation, prior to beginning community consultation. Community members will have the opportunity to comment on each name, and to submit suitable alternatives in line with the City’s procedure. These submissions will not be subject to the competition guidelines, but rather to the City’s. As such, a submission under Vincent Identity would be acceptable. Aboriginal words will still require consent of Traditional Owners as per the City’s road naming procedure.

 

10.           Can you confirm that the “Guide to the Preparation of Agendas and Minutes”, issued by the department of Local Government, Sports and Cultural Industries states that the minimum standard for reports to councils and committees should include the author’s name and position, and the reports should be authorised by a senior officer?  Why does the city continue to ignore these minimum standards? 

            Yes the DLGSC guideline does provide that the person “responsible” for reports / recommendations to Council should be included in the report.

The CEO is responsible for all the City’s reports and recommendations. Council Agendas list items under the relevant Directorate and the responsible Executive Director attends all Council Meetings to respond to questions raised by Elected Members or members of the public.

Council reports represent the City’s view as a whole and not that of any individual officer.  

There is a risk that a disgruntled applicant or member of the public who does not agree with a recommendation to Council could unfairly target a junior officer identified as being involved in preparing only some part of a Council report.  

 

All questions and comments about Council agendas should be directed to the CEO as the authorising officer and/or the responsible Executive Director.

 

11.           The Reports to be Actioned in the Information Bulletin states that support for the Uluru Statement, which was approved on 15 December 2020, will not be completed until 15 February 2021.  Why has it taken the administration 2 months to write a simple letter?   

 

The responsible staff members were on leave and Council was in recess in January. 

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

Mayor Cole requested a leave of absence from Thursday 8 April to Friday 16 April 2021, inclusive.

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

Barbara Joan Martin submitted a petition requesting that Council rescind the decision that the Special Needs Dental Clinic at 31 Sydney Street, North Perth must be vacated by 30th June 2021 and instead extend the lease until 2025, to mirror that of our adjoining neighbours at Kidz Galore.

Every petition complying with sub-clause (1) shall be presented to the Council by the CEO.

(3) The presentation of a petition shall be confined to the reading of the petition.

(4) The only motions that are in order are:

(a) that the petition be received; or

(b) that the petition be received and a report be prepared; or

(c) that the petition be received and be referred to a committee for consideration and report; or

(d) that the petition be received and be dealt with by the Council.

(5) Once Council has resolved that a petition be received pursuant to clause (4)(a) or (4)(b), the

CEO shall nominate an officer who will be responsible for dealing with the petition.

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 16 February 2021, with the changes as shown in red.

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest

8.1     Mayor Emma Cole declared an impartiality interest  in item 5.7 Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas. Relating to Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street.  The extent of her interest is that she has family members living at a residence on The Boulevarde.

 

8.2     Mayor Emma Cole declared an Impartiality Interest in Item 5.1 No. 38 (Lot: 18; D/P:2001) Summers Street, East Perth - Proposed Office.  The extent of her interest is that there may be a perception that her husband is associated with the WA Prison Officer’s Union, however he has not worked for the WA Prison Union there for more than three years.

 

8.3     Cr Dan Loden declared an impartiality interest in item 5.2 No. 48 (Lot: 202; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House and Item 5.3  No. 48A (Lot: 202; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House.  The extent of his interest is that he has a personal association with affected residents through his involvement in the Fathering Project.

 

8.4     Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in item 8.9 Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2021.  The extent of her interest is that her husband is a member of the Audit Committee.

 

8.5     Cr Topelberg declared a financial interest in the commercial waste portion of item 8.8 Minutes and motions from the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 9 February 2021. The extent of his interest is that he operates a business in the City that is directly impacted by the proposed changes to Commercial waste collections.  He is seeking approval to participate in the debate and is not seeking to vote. 

 

8.6     Cr Jonathan Hallett declared an impartiality interest in item 9.1 No. 38 (Lot: 18; D/P:2001) Summers Street, East Perth - Proposed Office.  The extent of his interest is that he is on the UnionsWA Executive in an unpaid role and WAPOU is a member union.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          No. 38 (Lot: 18; D/P:2001) Summers Street, East Perth - Proposed Office

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       3D Perspective Image

4.       Urban Design Study

5.       Transport Impact Statement and Parking Management Plan

6.       Acoustic Report

7.       Sustainable Design Report

8.       Waste Management Plan

9.       11 November 2020 Design Review Panel Minutes

10.     Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for an Office at No. 38 (Lot: 18; D/P: 2001) Summers Street, East Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 10:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for an Office as shown on the approved plans dated 2 March 2021. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       Use of Premises

This approval is for an Office as defined in the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2:

Office means premises used for administration, clerical, technical, professional or similar business activities.

3.       Building Design

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

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

4.       Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the occupation or use of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City.  The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick, or material as otherwise approved, to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       Landscaping

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

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

·          Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·          The provision of a minimum of 14.1 percent deep soil area and 1.1 percent planting areas as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

·          The provision of a minimum of 17 percent canopy coverage at maturity; and

5.2     Prior to the first occupation of the development, all works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 5.1 shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the City, at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

6.       Public Art

6.1     In accordance with City of Vincent Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Art the application is required to make a public art contribution of $15,000 being one percent of the $1.5 million value of the development.

In order to comply with the Policy, the owner(s) or applicant, on behalf of the owner(s) shall submit a statutory declaration prior to the lodgement of a Building permit stipulating the choice of:

Option 1: Owner/Applicant chooses to co-ordinate the Public Art project themselves or by engaging an art consultant

Or

Option 2: Owner/Applicant chooses to pay cash-in-lieu. Owner/Applicants who choose Option 2 will receive a 15 percent discount on the Percent for Art contribution;

6.2     The owner(s), or the applicant on behalf of the owner(s), shall comply with the City of Vincent Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Public Art:

(a)      in conjunction with the above chosen option:

(1)      Option 1:

prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the development, obtain approval for the Public Art Project and associated Artist; and

prior to the first occupation of the development, install the approved public art project, and thereafter maintain the art work;

Or

(2)      Option 2;:

prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit pay the above cash-in-lieu contribution amount;

7.       Car Parking, Access and Bicycle Facilities

7.1     Prior to the first occupation of the development, redundant or “blind” crossovers shall be removed and the verge and kerb made good to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant/owner’s full expense;

7.2     Prior to the commencement of the approved use, nine car parking bays and related access ways as shown on the approved plans shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1. The allocation of car parking bays shall be in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan;

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

7.4     Prior to the commencement of the approved uses, bicycle facilities shall be designed and installed on-site in accordance with AS2890.3 and installed in the following locations to the satisfaction of the City:

·       One (1) short term bicycle facility provided on-site; and

·       Four (4) long term bicycle facilities provided on-site;

8.       Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the issuing of a building permit (including demolition and/or forward works). The Construction Management Plan is required to address the following concerns that relate to any works to take place on the site:

·       Public safety, amenity and site security;

·       Contact details of essential site personnel;

·       Construction operating hours

·       Noise control and vibration management

·       Dilapidation Reports of nearby properties;

·       Air, sand and dust management;

·       Stormwater and sediment control;

·       Soil excavation method;

·       Waste management and materials re-use;

·       Traffic and access management;

·       Parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

·       Consultation plan with nearby properties; and

·       Compliance with AS4970-2009 relating to the protection of trees on the verge adjacent to the development site;

9.       Stormwater

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

10.     Signage

All signage is to be in strict accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising, unless further development approval is obtained;

11.     Acoustic Report

11.1   Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a revised Acoustic Report shall be lodged with and approved by the City in accordance with the City’s Policy 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation. This revised Acoustic Report shall include, but is not limited to, addressing any change in materials for the external walls of the building; and

11.2   All of the recommended measures included in the approved Acoustic Report identified in Condition 11.1 shall be implemented prior to the occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

12.     Waste Management

The approved Waste Management Plan prepared by Whitehaus Architects dated 11 December 2020 shall be implemented at all times to the satisfaction of the City;

13.     Schedule of Colours and Materials

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the details and annotations as indicated on the approved plans which forms part of this approval, to the satisfaction of the City; and

14.     Environmentally Sustainable Design

14.1   Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a revised Sustainable Design Report shall be lodged with and approved by the City. This revised Sustainable Design Report shall include, but is not limited to, addressing any change in materials for the external walls of the building; and

14.2   All of the recommended measures included in the approved Sustainable Design Report identified in Condition 14.1 shall be implemented to achieve a 4 star Green Star rating, prior to the occupation or use of the development.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an Office development at No. 38 Summers Street, East Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a three storey Office development on a vacant lot with pedestrian access from Summers Street and vehicle access from the right of way (ROW) at the rear. The development would contain 10 cubicle style offices and two meeting rooms. It is proposed that the Office would be the headquarters for the Western Australian Prison Officers Union of Workers (WAPOU) that intend to relocate from the City of Stirling.

Background:

Landowner:

Western Australian Prison Officers Union of Workers

Applicant:

Hemsley Planning Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

17 December 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Commercial        R Code: N/A

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Office ‘P’

Lot Area:

491m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 4 metres wide, City owned, sealed and drained

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Summers Street to the south, a vacant property to the east, a single storey office building to the west and a 4 metre wide ROW to the north. The subject site and adjoining properties on the north side of Summers Street are zoned Commercial under the City's Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2).

 

The surrounding development context generally consists of single and two storey commercial development. There is an existing three storey commercial development located to the east of the subject site at No. 30 Summers Street. The property adjoining the subject site to the east is vacant and does not have any current planning approvals for development on the site.

 

Built Form Area

 

Although the subject site and adjoining properties on the north side of Summers Street are zoned Commercial under LPS2, they are located within the Residential built form area and have a permitted building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

The applicant has noted that the site has not always been located within the Residential built form area under the Built Form Policy. The subject site and adjoining property to the west were located in the Transit Corridor built form area under the original version of the Built Form Policy that was adopted by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2016.

 

The first time that these sites were shown as being located within the Residential built from area was under the proposed Amendment 1 to the Built Form Policy which was adopted for the purposes of advertising by Council at its 18 September 2018 meeting but was never subsequently formally adopted by Council, as Amendment 2 to the Policy was pursued.

 

The sites were shown as Transit Corridor built form area in the version of Amendment 2 to the Policy that was approved by Council for the purposes of advertising. Following this, the built form area was formally changed from Transit Corridor to Residential when Council adopted Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy at its meeting on 16 June 2020. There was not any comment in relation to this change in either the 8 September 2018 or 16 June 2020 Council reports.

 

If the subject site was within the Transit Corridor built form area it would be subject to assessment against Volume 3, Section 4 of the current version of the Built Form Policy that prescribes development standards for commercial developments in the Transit Corridor built form area. In this section of the Policy, building heights of 3 storeys for R60 sites and 4 storeys for R100 sites along East Parade are permitted. This would not translate to the subject site given that it is zoned Commercial with no R Coding under LPS2.

 

The applicant has also identified that the subject site is still shown as being within the Transit Corridor built form area under Appendix 1 of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy).

 

East Perth Train Station and East Perth Power Station Sites

 

The subject site is located within close proximity of two significant future development sites. The East Perth Train Station (EPTS) site is located approximately 105 metres to the west of the subject site and the East Perth Power Station (EPPS) site is located on the opposite side of Summers Street to the south.

 

The EPTS site is reserved for Railways under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and this MRS reservation is replicated in LPS2. A public works proposal for the addition of a six storey office building to the site is currently being considered by the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) under the responsibility of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). The City serves as a referral agency in providing comments to the DPLH for the JDAP’s consideration of the application. The proposed building would provide critical operations infrastructure for the rail network and is part of the METRONET High Capacity Signalling Project. The applicant for the addition to the EPTS site has advised that the project is intended to commence operations in 2023.

 

The EPPS site on the southern side of Summers Street is under the control of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA), subject to the Central Perth Redevelopment Scheme (CPRS) and zoned Industrial under the MRS. The EPPS site has been identified for redevelopment and is a revitalisation project of Development WA. Under the CPRS, the site would be a multi-purpose site to support residential, employment, community and tourism growth, and the future development would deliver a pedestrian-friendly precinct supported by well-established connections to major arterial roads, rail and bus networks and cycle ways. The portion of the EPPS site across the road from the subject site is the Summers Street Precinct under the CPRS. This precinct is intended to provide a mix of residential, commercial and retail development and Summers Street itself would function as a neighbourhood “main street” environment, with retail uses, a pedestrian-friendly environment, and activated street edges. The CPRS does not specify a building height for this site. Similar to the EPTS site, the City would be a referral agency in any future planning application to Development WA seeking development approval for the site.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Building Height

 

ü

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks

ü

 

Landscaping

 

ü

Visual Privacy

 

ü

Car Parking

 

ü

Vehicle Access

ü

 

Bicycle Parking

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Universal Design

 

ü

Façade Design

 

ü

Roof Design

ü

 

Street Walls and Fences

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

ü

 

Garage Width

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

ü

 

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

ü

Developments on Rights of Way

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The acceptable outcomes assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 5.1

 

Storeys

Two storeys.

 

Concealed Roof

Maximum concealed roof height of 7 metres.

 

 

 

Three storeys.

 

 

Maximum concealed roof height of 12.4 metres.

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 5.2

 

Ground Floor

Ground floor primary street setback of 9.26 metres, being the average of the five adjoining properties on each side of the subject site.

 

Upper Floors

Walls on upper floors shall be setback a minimum of 2 metres behind the ground floor building line.

 

 

Balconies

Balconies on upper floors shall be setback a minimum of 1 metre behind the ground floor building line.

 

 

 

6.2 metres

 

 

 

 

First and second floor primary street setbacks ranging between 0.9 metres forward and in line with the ground floor building line.

 

 

Second floor terrace primary street setback 1.1 metres forward of the ground floor building line.

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 5.3

 

At least 30 percent of the site area is provided as canopy coverage at maturity.

 

 

17 percent

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 1.10; and

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

An Office within the Residential built form area shall provide 2.5 car parking spaces per 100 square metres of net lettable area (NLA), being 14 car parking spaces.

 

 

 

 

9 car parking spaces provided on-site, resulting in a 5 bay shortfall.

Façade Design

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 1.13

 

Commercial ground floor spaces shall have a minimum finished floor level to finished ceiling level height of 3.5 metres.

 

 

3.2 metres.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 1.17

 

Development shall demonstrate that it would be capable of achieving a 5 star Green Star rating (or equivalent).

 

 

The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sustainable Design Report which is included in Attachment 7. The report states that the development would achieve a 4 star Green Star rating.

Developments on Rights of Way

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 3, Clause 5.6

 

Development shall be setback 1 metre from the future ROW boundary. Accounting for 0.5m ROW widening, a 1.5 metre setback from the current ROW boundary is required.

 

 

0.5 metre setback from the current ROW boundary.

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified acceptable outcome 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 18 January 2021 and concluding on 2 February 2021. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification with 38 letters being sent to properties within a 100 metre radius of the site, as shown in Attachment 1, a notice on the City’s website and a sign on-site in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received three submissions in support of the proposal and no objections at the conclusion of the advertising period. The submissions in support of the proposal are summarised as follows:

 

·       Supportive of building height. Any development less than three storeys in this area would be an underdevelopment;

·       Supportive of proposed primary street setback given that no car parking is proposed in the primary street setback area;

·       Supportive of car parking shortfall given that the site is located in close proximity to East Perth Train Station;

·       Supportive of the setback and appearance of the development from the ROW; and

·       Support development of the lot which has been vacant for a long period of time.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The proposal was referred to the City’s DRP at its meeting on 11 November 2020 at the pre-lodgement stage, prior to the application being formally submitted. The 11 November 2020 DRP minutes are included in Attachment 9 and summarised as follows:

 

·       The building height and scale would be appropriate with respect to the surrounding context;

·       The building is well arranged and the proposed materials are robust;

·       The second floor terrace would provide an interactive frontage to Summers Street;

·       Public art on the front façade would be supported but the detailed design needs to be developed;

·       Consideration should be given to removing car parking from the primary street setback area to allow additional landscaping to be provided;

·       Landscaping proposed within the light well adjacent to the western lot boundary may struggle to reach maturity;

·       Further consideration should be given to the treatment of the western and eastern boundary walls;

·       Further details on lighting and security should be provided; and

·       The first floor offices would have no outlook to natural light.

 

The following changes were made to the plans by the applicant in response to the 11 November 2020 DRP minutes prior to lodgement of the development application:

 

·       Removal of car parking bay from the primary street setback area resulting in a reduction in hardstand area and increase in deep soil zone area;

·       Inclusion of 40 solar panels on the roof of the development;

·       Inclusion of feature painted walls to both side boundaries;

·       Security camera and sensor lighting added to the rear façade adjacent to the ROW;

·       Clarification provided that all first floor corridor facing offices would have floor to ceiling clear glazed walls and doors, the finish of the light well would be white to enhance the spread of light through the first floor corridor and inclusion of additional glazing adjacent to the first floor breakout space; and

·       Introduction of permeable paving around the light well planter bed.

 

Administration referred the amended proposal following lodgement of the development application to the DRP Chairperson. The comments provided by the DRP Chairperson are summarised as follows:

 

·       The proposed boundary wall treatment would be sufficient to reduce bulk and scale, and would be complementary with the surrounding context;

·       The increased landscaping in the front setback area and permeable paving around the light well planter bed are supported;

·       The amendments to the internal office layout result in improved internal amenity for future occupants; and

·       The amended proposal is designed with security in mind.

 

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 Meeting 1

11 November 2020

DRP Chair Comments

17 February 2021

Principle 1 – Context & Character

 

 

Principle 2 – Landscape Quality

 

 

Principle 3 – Built Form & Scale

 

 

Principle 4 – Functionality & Built Quality

 

 

Principle 5 – Sustainability *

 

 

Principle 6 – Amenity

 

 

Principle 7 – Legibility

 

 

Principle 8 – Safety

 

 

Principle 9 – Community

 

 

Principle 10 – Aesthetics

 

 

 

Comments below are provided in relation to principles of good design that are either identified as ‘pending further attention’ or where no comment from the DRP has been provided.

 

Sustainability

 

No comments or rating has been provided in relation to the sustainability design principle given that the City’s specialist DRP member’s company has been engaged by the applicant to prepare the Preliminary Sustainable Design Report which is included in Attachment 7.

 

The acceptability of the environmentally sustainable design response is detailed in the Comment section of this report.

 

Amenity

 

An orange rating for this principle would be acceptable given that the site is 491 square metres in size with a north-south orientation. This limits the ability to deliver the same level of natural light to all of the individual office spaces within the building. The applicant has implemented changes to the light well and internal wall designs to increase the amount of natural light within the building. Functional break out spaces proposed on the northern and southern ends of the building would provide access to natural light and ventilation that would be capable of use by future occupants.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Public Art;

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation;

·       Policy No. 7.5.22 – Construction Management Plans; and

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a height of three storeys 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:

The City has assessed the application against the environmentally sustainable design provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. These provisions are informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, which requires new developments to demonstrate best practice in respect to reductions in energy, water and waste and improving urban greening.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no finance or budget implications of this report.

Comments:

Street Setbacks

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcome relating to the ground floor primary street setback outlines that it is to be calculated by averaging the setback of the five adjoining properties, either side of the proposed development. The deemed-to-comply primary street setback for the development is 9.3 metres and the application proposes a setback of 6.2 metres.

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcomes relating to the upper floor primary street setback outlines that walls and balconies on upper floors are to be setback a minimum of 2 metres and 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line respectively. The application proposes first and second floor walls setback ranging from 0.9 metre forward to in line with the ground floor predominant building line, and a second floor terrace with a setback of 1.1 metres forward of the ground floor predominant building line.

 

The proposed primary street setbacks would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The established street setbacks of existing buildings along this portion of Summers Street is highly variable and the proposed street setback would be consistent with the established streetscape. There is one property to the west of the subject site and five properties to the east of the subject site that form the street setback assessment. These properties have a street setback ranging from 5.5 metres at No. 32 Summers Street to 13.5 metres at No. 102 East Parade. This property No. 102 East Parade is located immediately to the east of the subject site, while the immediately adjoining property to the east at No. 36 Summers Street is vacant and does not have any current approved development for the site. The proposed street setback would be within the range of street setbacks of existing buildings on Summers Street and would not set a new or undesirable precedent for the area;

·       Whilst the subject site is within the Residential built form area under the Built Form Policy, it is zoned Commercial under LPS2 and the majority of existing developments within the street comprise commercial land uses. Summers Street does not contain a strong established residential streetscape character to preserve or retain;

·       The proposed development incorporates contrasting materials, glazing, articulation and public art on the front facade of the building to effectively reduce the appearance of blank solid walls and associated building bulk. The glazing also increases surveillance and interaction between the development and the streetscape;

·       The proposed development does not contain any car parking within the primary street setback area, unlike existing developments within the streetscape at No. 102 East Parade and Nos. 28 and 30 Summers Street. The primary street setback area is proposed to be landscaped including two native frangipani trees and a range of shrubs. Two existing street trees in the verge adjacent to the subject site would also be retained. The landscaping provided in the primary street setback area would contribute positively to the streetscape and reduce the appearance of building bulk;

·       There is an existing three storey commercial development at No. 30 Summers Street which exhibits a similar built form to the proposed development. The proposed upper floor setbacks would be consistent with existing developments in the streetscape;

·       The proposed development provides vehicle access from the ROW and would not have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape in relation to garage doors and vehicle access points; and

·       The proposed street setback would provide a clear transition between the public and private realm.

 

Building Height

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcomes relating to building height outline that the development is to have a maximum height of two storeys and a maximum concealed roof height of 7 metres. The application proposes a maximum height of three storeys and a maximum concealed roof height of 12.4 metres.

 

The proposed building height would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The maximum height of 12.4 metres affects a portion of the proposed building located adjacent to the ROW at the rear of the site. This is because the site slopes down by approximately 1.5 metres from Summers Street to the rear ROW. The height of the proposed development as viewed from Summers Street would be 11.1 metres;

·       Summers Street is in an area of transition as residential land uses are replaced by commercial developments in accordance with the zoning under LPS2. There is an existing three storey commercial development at No. 30 Summers Street which exhibits a similar built form to the proposed development. This development was approved by Council at its meeting on 14 September 2010 with a concealed roof height of 12.3 metres as viewed from the ROW and 11.2 metres as viewed from Summers Street. The proposed development would not be setting a new or undesirable precedent for the area;

·       The proposed front façade and primary street setback area would provide contrasting materials, glazing, articulation, public art and landscaping to effectively reduce the appearance of blank solid walls and associated building bulk;

·       The proposed maximum height of 12.4 metres would facilitate functional internal ceiling heights without resulting in a development that dominates the existing streetscape;

·       Due to the favourable orientation of the lots with the road reserve primarily to the south, the proposed building height would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties’ access to direct sun; and

·       The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on access to views of significance for any existing adjoining properties.

 

Landscaping

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcomes relating to landscaping outline that of the site area the development is to provide at least 12 percent deep soil zone areas, 3 percent planting areas and 30 percent canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 14.1 percent deep soil zone areas, 1.1 percent planting areas and 17 percent canopy coverage at maturity.

 

The proposed landscaping would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes two new Honey Locust Trees in the primary street setback area that would maximise canopy coverage and that would be highly visible from Summers Street and adjoining properties;

·       Smaller shrubs and groundcovers are also proposed within the planting areas to complement the trees proposed and in order to contribute positively to the overall landscaping outcome on site;

·       The nil setbacks to the side lot boundaries are permitted under the Built Form Policy and appropriate for a commercial development on a narrow lot. The proposed landscaping outcome maximises canopy coverage at maturity with respect to the permitted building envelope;

·       Two planters on the roof terrace are proposed that would contribute to the overall landscaping outcome of the development and assist to soften the appearance of the building as viewed from Summers Street.

·       The development would contribute towards additional canopy coverage that falls outside of the lot boundaries, in addition to the 17.0 percent canopy coverage at maturity that would be provided on-site. This canopy that falls outside of the site boundaries would equate to 8.0 percent of additional canopy coverage that would benefit the locality;

·       The subject site is currently vacant with no existing established vegetation. The landscaping provided would contribute towards the City’s green canopy to reduce the impact of the urban heat island effect; and

·       Two existing street trees adjacent to the site would be retained as well as the proposed removal of the existing crossover within the Summers Street verge area. The removal of the crossover would allow that portion of the verge to be reinstated as additional landscaped area. The development does not propose any car parking within the primary street setback area.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The City’s Built Form Policy Volume 3 relating to commercial development provides element objectives which define the intended outcome for the design element as well as acceptable outcomes which are specific measures to assist in meeting the element objectives. The Built Form Policy does not prescribe acceptable outcomes in relation to visual privacy and so an assessment has been undertaken against the element objective.

 

The proposed development would satisfy the element objective of the Built Form Policy relating to visual privacy because the development does not abut an existing residential development on any lot boundary.

 

Car Parking

 

Appendix 1 of the City’s Parking Policy identifies the site as being located within the Transit Corridor built form area. This is inconsistent with the Built Form Policy that changed the built form area of the site from Transit Corridor to Residential under Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy.

 

The technical parking assessment has been undertaken against the Residential built form area standards that require a total of 14 car bays to be provided for the proposed Office land use. The proposed development provides for nine car parking spaces including one ACROD bay on the ground floor level with vehicle access from the ROW. This results in a five car bay shortfall based on the Parking Policy prescribed standards.

 

The applicant has submitted a Parking Management Plan as well as a Transport Impact Statement prepared by Move Consultants which are included as Attachment 5. The justification in these documents in support of the car parking proposed is summarised as follows:

 

·       There are approximately 28 on-street car parking spaces along Summers Street which would increase as a result of the removal of the existing crossover through the proposed development;

·       The subject site is located within close proximity to the East Perth Train Station which provides train services between Perth CBD and Midland as well as 177 car parking spaces. Pedestrian access between the East Perth Train Station and the subject site is available by way of a new at-grade pedestrian crossing over East Parade;

·       A bus stop is located on East Parade which provides half hourly services to and from the Perth CBD busport;

·       The development site is serviced by principle shared bike paths along East Parade;

·       The development proposes four secure bike parking spaces and end of trip facilities on level one;

·       The owner of the subject site would be responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of the parking area;

·       Visitors to the development would be via scheduled appointments and would be provided with parking instructions;

·       For ad-hoc training and AGM events, alternative transport modes such as bicycle or public transport would be promoted to attendees prior to attendance;

·       Service delivery could be accommodated using on-street parking bays along Summers Street during off peak periods; and

·       The total anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development is estimated to be 43 vehicle trips per day with 8 trips and 7 trips during morning and evening peak hours respectively. The daily increase in peak hour volumes would have a negligible impact on existing traffic conditions for the surrounding area.

 

The proposed car parking would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy and the objectives of the City’s Parking Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       Availability of train and bicycle facilities would reduce the demand for on-site car parking spaces by supporting the use of alternate modes of transport to and from the site, detailed as follows:

o   The East Perth Train Station is located approximately 105 metres to the west of the subject site and would provide direct access to and from the Perth CBD. Safe pedestrian access between the East Perth Train Station and the subject site is available through existing footpaths and a new at-grade pedestrian crossing over East Parade; and

o   The development would satisfy the Parking Policy requirements relating to bicycle parking, providing four long term and one short term bicycle parking facilities as well as end of trip facilities. The site is well located with respect to the Perth cycle path network with principle shared bike paths along East Parade. The inclusion of bicycle parking bays and end of trip facilities would support a shift towards a more active and sustainable transport mode;

·       A review of the City’s 2018 Street Parking Survey indicates that there are a total of 52 on-street car parking spaces available along Summers Street between East Parade and Joel Terrace. 12 of these bays have one hour time restrictions between 8:00am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday, and 8:00am to 5:30pm Saturday, and the remaining 40 bays are ticketed but with no time restrictions. These 52 on‑street car bays are within close proximity to the subject site, with the bay furthest away located approximately 90 metres away. The survey that was conducted between 28 November and 1 December 2018 indicates that the maximum occupancy of the on-street bays during the survey period was 96 percent on Wednesday morning between 9:00am and 11:00am, and 77 percent on Friday between 12:00pm and 2:00pm. This indicates that on-street parking is available in close proximity to the subject site, although is heavily utilised. The development would also contribute to an increase in the number of on-street parking spaces through the removal of the existing crossover from Summers Street. The proposed car parking shortfall would be effectively mitigated by the availability of alternative methods of transport outlined above, without relying on and without having an adverse impact on the on-street car parking availability in the immediate area which is limited on weekday mornings; and

·       The technical parking assessment has been undertaken against the Residential built form area requirements. With the site previously being identified within the Transit Corridor built form area, 11 on‑site car parking bays would be required when considered against the Transit Corridor built form area requirements. This would result in a two bay shortfall rather than a five bay shortfall.

 

The parking demand generated by the development would be reduced and can be accommodated without the need for a cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant for the proposed parking shortfall of five bays. This is because the subject site is well serviced by alternate modes of transport, specifically its close proximity to the East Perth Train Station accessible via footpaths, as well as cycle path network and on-site bicycle parking bays with end of trip facilities.

 

Universal Design

 

The City’s Built Form Policy Volume 3 relating to commercial development provides element objectives which define the intended outcome for the design element as well as acceptable outcomes which are specific measures to assist in meeting the element objectives. The Built Form Policy does not prescribe acceptable outcomes in relation to universal design and so an assessment has been undertaken against the element objective.

 

The proposed development would satisfy the element objective of the Built Form Policy relating to universal design given that the entry point to the building is at grade level, the corridors are 1.5 metres wide and the development plans include provision for a lift to allow ease of access for persons with limited mobility.

 

Façade Design

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcome outlines that commercial ground floor spaces are to have a minimum finished floor level to finished ceiling level height of 3.5 metres. The proposed development would provide a maximum ground floor finished ceiling height of 3.2 metres.

 

The proposed façade design would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The intent of the maximum ceiling height provision is to allow for the internal design of ground floor tenancies to be adapted to accommodate different land uses. The ground floor of the building is predominantly car parking facilities with a lobby, bicycle store and lift, and a 3.2 metre ceiling height would is adequate to support these functions;

·       The proposed building facade provides glazing at the ground floor level as well as a terrace on the second floor level to allow for interaction with, and surveillance of the street; and

·       The proposed front façade and primary street setback area would include contrasting materials, glazing, articulation, public art and landscaping to provide visual interest and effectively reduce the appearance of blank solid walls and associated building bulk.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcomes outlines that development is to demonstrate that it would be capable of achieving a 5 star Green Star rating (or equivalent). The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sustainable Design Report prepared by Cundall which is included in Attachment 7 and sets out that the development would achieve a 4 star Green Star rating.

 

Cundall have provided additional written justification outlining why a 4 star Green Star rating would be appropriate for a development of this scale which is summarised as follows:

 

·       The proposed building is small and has a budget of approximately $2 million. It is unlikely that a building of this size would be capable of achieving a 5 star rating due to geometrical and financial constraints;

·       Delivering a 5 star rating would result in a development that would not be financially viable for the developer and would entail additional report based credits which would not have any material sustainability benefits; and

·       The proposed development provides real sustainability outcomes through the delivery of sustainable construction methods, solar PV panels on the roof, a rainwater harvesting tank, bicycle and shower facilities, and low flow water fittings.

 

The City’s Sustainability Officer has reviewed the applicant’s Preliminary Sustainable Design Report and supporting justification and has advised that it would be acceptable to demonstrate that the development considers the whole of life environmental impact of the building and incorporates measures to reduce this impact. These measures include incorporating sustainable construction methods, solar PV panels on the roof, a rainwater harvesting tank, bicycle and shower facilities, and low flow water fittings. The proposed development satisfies the element objectives of the Built Form Policy on this basis and is supported.

 

Developments on Rights of Way

 

The Built Form Policy acceptable outcome specifies that development is to be setback 1 metre from the future ROW boundary. The site would be subject to 0.5 metre ROW widening in future, consistent with previous ROW widening requirements for properties elsewhere along Summers Street. This means that the proposed development should be setback 1.5 metres from the current ROW boundary. The proposed development is setback 0.5 metres from the current ROW boundary.

 

The proposed setback to the ROW would satisfy the element objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The existing ROW is characterised by commercial developments with nil setbacks and limited visual connectivity to the ROW. The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the existing or desired streetscape character;

·       The proposed development provides vehicle access from the ROW which is consistent with the acceptable outcomes of the Built Form Policy relating to vehicle access;

·       The proposed development provides surveillance to the ROW through the first floor tea room and second floor boardroom windows;

·       The proposed development provides a safe vehicle access point to the ROW which complies with the Australian Standards relating to vehicle manoeuvring; and

·       The proposed development is setback 0.5 metres from the ROW and would not prejudice future widening of the ROW to 5 metres.

 

Public Art

 

The development is subject to the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Public Art (Percent for Public Art Policy) in accordance with Clause 1.1 which applies to commercial developments. The City’s Percent for Public Art Policy prescribes a minimum of one percent of the total project cost to be allocated to the contribution of public art appurtenant to the development. This equates to a contribution of $15,000, being one percent of the $1.5 million value of the development.

 

The applicant proposes that the contribution will be met in the form of a 37.5 square metre artwork installation on the front façade of the building orienting towards Summers Street and spanning all three levels. No details of the artwork have been provided at this stage, aside from its location.

 

The Percent for Public Art Policy allows two options for public art to be provided, being either the payment of cash-in-lieu to the City or the owner/applicant coordinating the public art project in consultation with the City. A condition has been recommended requiring the public art contribution to be made.

 

Noise

 

The applicant has submitted an acoustic report prepared by Sealhurst Pty Ltd that is included within Attachment 6.

 

The report has been reviewed by the City and is acceptable. A condition has been recommended requiring the implementation of the recommendations of the Acoustic Report.

 


 

Waste Management

The applicant has provided a Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared by Whitehaus Architects that proposes private waste collection to service the development from the ROW. The WMP is included within Attachment 8.

 

The City supports the private waste collection arrangement for the commercial development. A condition has been recommended requiring the implementation of the WMP to ensure the proposed arrangements are maintained.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally.


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.2          No. 48 (Lot: 202; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Lodged Development Plans

3.       Development Plans

4.       Environmentally Sustainable Design Report & Template

5.       Urban Design Study

6.       Administration Streetscape Analysis

7.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

8.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Single House at No. 48 (Lot: 202; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated advice notes in Attachment 8:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for a Single House as shown on the approved plans dated 4 February 2021. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the occupation or use of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City.  The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick, or material as otherwise approved, to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       External Fixtures

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

4.       Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy or use of the development, all privacy screening shown on the approved plans shall be installed and shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions, to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       Colours and Materials

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the details and annotations as indicated on the approved plans which forms part of this approval;

6.       Landscaping

All landscaping works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans dated 4 February 2021, prior to the occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

7.       Stormwater

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

8.       Sight Lines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within 1.5 metre of where the driveway meets the right of way, unless the further approval of the City is obtained;

9.       Car Parking and Access

9.1     The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1;

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

9.3     No good or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within the access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; and

9.4     Prior to the first occupation of the development, redundant or ‘blind’ crossovers to Egina Street shall be removed and the verge and kerb made good to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant/owner’s full expense; and

10.     Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to issue of a building permit. This plan is to detail how construction will be managed to minimise disruption in the area and shall include:

·       Storage of materials and equipment on site;

·       Parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors;

·       The impact on traffic movement;

·       Notification to affected land owners;

·       Construction times; and

·       Measures to ensure the protection of the existing trees along the northern boundary of No. 46 Egina Street that are located adjacent to the proposed northern lot boundary wall.

The approved Construction Management Plan shall be complied with for the duration of the construction of the development.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a two storey single house at No. 48 Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the construction of a two storey single house at the subject site.

Background:

Landowner:

Colin and Corinne Roe

Applicant:

Integrity Developments (WA) Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

4 January 2021

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone:  Residential        R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

306m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Egina Street to the west, single dwellings to the south and east and a vacant green title lot to the north (No. 48A Egina Street), as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. Egina Street and the broader area surrounding the subject site is characterised by one and two-storey single houses.

 

The subject site is currently a vacant lot that has been cleared in preparation for development. The site forms part of two parallel green title lots created as part of a subdivision approval issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in 2017. The lots have since been created.

 

Previous Development Applications

 

At its meeting on 16 October 2018, Council refused a development application for two grouped dwellings to the parent lot of the subject site (No. 48 Egina Street). The reasons for refusal related to the impact of the proposed primary street setback and visual dominance of the proposed garages on the existing streetscape.

 

The applicant sought a review of this decision by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), and through this process the SAT invited Council to reconsider its decision. Prior to the application for reconsideration being presented to Council, Administration was provided with a copy of the Deposited Plan and Certificate of Title for the subdivided lots (Nos. 48 and 48A Egina Street) by the applicant. As a result, the application presented to Council for reconsideration was for two single houses, rather than two grouped dwellings.

 

Council reconsidered amended plans at its meeting on 5 February 2019 where it resolved to refuse the application. The refusal reasons related to:

 

·       The bulk, scale and visual dominance of the garages on the existing streetscape;

·       Compromised solar access to the subject and adjoining property as a result of the proposed landscaping and two storey boundary walls; and

·       Inadequate landscaping to reduce the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties and streetscape.

 

Following Council’s decision, the SAT dismissed the applicant’s application for review. This was on the basis that Landgate had issued the Deposited Plan and Certificate of Title for the two green title lots at No. 48A (Lot 201) Egina Street and No. 48 (Lot 202) Egina Street. SAT determined that this meant that Lot 5 (being the parent lot) no longer existed and a decision could not be made on the development application.

 

The applicant subsequently lodged two separate single house development applications for Nos. 48 and 48A Egina Street. Council refused the applications at its meeting on 20 August 2019 for reasons related to:

 

·       The bulk, scale and visual dominance of the garages on the existing streetscape;

·       Inadequate landscaping to reduce the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties and streetscape and resulting in compromised solar access to the subject and adjoining properties;

·       The bulk and scale impacts of the proposed two storey boundary wall and resulting restricted solar access; and

·       Compromised solar access to the adjoining property at No. 48 Egina Street.

 

The applicant lodged applications for review of Council’s decisions made on 20 August 2019 to the SAT. The matters proceeded to full SAT hearing on 6 November 2019 where the SAT affirmed Council’s decision to refuse the applications and dismissed the applicant’s application for review.

 

An application for review of SAT’s decision by a judicial member of the SAT under section 244 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to deal with questions of law was sought by the landowners. The SAT refused the application and affirmed Council’s refusal on 29 July 2020.

 

Current Development Applications

 

The applicant has submitted two separate development applications for single houses at both the subject site and No. 48A Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn.

 

The plans for the single house proposed for the subject site as part of this application are contained in Attachment 3.

 

The development application for a single house on No. 48A Egina Street is also on this Ordinary Meeting agenda for Council’s determination. Administration has assessed each application separately.

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

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Dining – Alfresco: 1.5 metres

 

Lot Boundary Walls

Boundary walls to two side boundaries to a maximum height of 3.5 metres and average height of 3 metres for up to two-thirds (22.08 metres) of the lot boundaries behind the front setback.

 

 

 

Dining – Alfresco: 1.2 metres

 

 

Portico – Kitchen to Southern Boundary:

Average Height – 3.05 metres

Maximum Height – 3.3 metres

Length – 18.0 metres

 

Garage to Northern Boundary:

Average Height – 3.2 metres

Maximum Height – 3.3 metres

Length – 6.0 metres

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 10 February 2021 and concluding on 23 February 2021. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, five submissions were received - all objecting to the proposed development. Concerns raised during the community consultation period relating to the proposed single house are summarised as follows:

 

·       The length and extent of boundary walls;

·       The adequacy of landscaping provided, including the amount of canopy coverage and ability for this to reach maturity;

·       The precedent for future development in respect to the lot configuration and corresponding built form outcomes; and

·       Construction management.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 7.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development plans that were submitted originally with the application, included as Attachment 2, were referred to a member of the City’s Design Review Panel for comment. The following comments and recommendations were provided:

 

·       Greater setback or indentation should be provided to the dining room to break up the wall length and improve solar access/ventilation to adjoining property;

·       The single storey nature of development at the rear of the dwelling to the living, dining and alfresco areas minimises the extent of overshadowing which falls onto the neighbouring property’s living spaces, which is supported;

·       The stepping of the upper floor back from the ground level is supported, and the stepping of the garage back from the main dwelling alignment is also positive and supported. Garage should be recessed further to 1 metre;

·       Consider improvements to the landscape and entry sequence to allow increased legibility to front entry areas. Delineate pedestrian and vehicle access;

·       Upper level walls clad with weatherboard may further differentiate ground and upper floors to one house for a more individual reading of the homes and to differentiate the design aspects;

·       Window proportions to the upper floor facing Egina Street are to be considered, taking cues from existing character homes;

·       Surface treatment/landscape does not differentiate between pedestrian entry and cars. Applicant to consider separate pedestrian entry to the dwelling and additional planting areas; and

·       The proposed colours/materials appear to be consistent with the palette of materials within the surrounding established streetscape.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the abovementioned DRP comments. These are the plans that the applicant is seeking approval for as included in Attachment 3 and incorporate the following key changes:

 

·       Removed the solid wall to the alfresco;

·       Increased setback of the garage additional 0.5 metres, to facilitate a 1.0 metre stepping of the garage behind the building line;

·       Introduced cladding to upper floor of the dwelling and revised roof form to a gable end;

·       Introduced window awnings and trims to the upper floor. Windows to front façade revised to a form and scale which reflects character homes in the area;

·       Reduced hardstand area associated with driveway in the front setback; and

 

These changes made by the applicant as well as other changes made to the adjoining proposed dwelling at No. 48A Egina Street respond to the comments and recommendations made by the Design Review Panel member and create a legible distinction between the subject and proposed neighbouring dwelling at No. 48A Egina Street.

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;

·      Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·      Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·      Policy No. 7.5.22 – Construction Management Plans.

 

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 would have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is referred to Council for determination as it relates to a matter previously considered by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City has assessed the application against the environmentally sustainable design provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. These provisions are informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, which requires new developments to demonstrate best practice in respect to reductions in energy, water and waste and improving urban greening.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no finance or budget implications of this report.

Comments:

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The application proposes a ground floor setback of 1.2 metres from the dining-alfresco portion of the dwelling to the southern boundary, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 1.5 metres.

 

The proposed lot boundary setback satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The southern elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple large openings to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property. The elevation incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick, horizontal banding and render that assists in breaking up the ground and first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

·       The upper floor of the dwelling is satisfies the deemed-to-comply lot boundary setback requirements, and is articulated so as to provide actual and perceived vertical and horizontal stepping of the dwelling. Building bulk is further alleviated by openings to bed 4/study, dining and alfresco to reduce the extent of solid walls;

·       In response to recommendations from the City’s Design Review Panel member, the applicant revised the proposal to an open alfresco on the south to mitigate the extent of solid walls as viewed from the neighbouring property;

·       The lot boundary setback is adjacent to an access leg, garage lot boundary wall and rear open space of the neighbouring property at No. 46 Egina Street. The reduced lot boundary setback would not impose undue bulk and scale to existing habitable rooms or outdoor living areas;

·       Major openings to the southern façade are appropriately screened to alleviate direct overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property; and

·       The proposed development satisfies the R Codes deemed-to-comply requirements relating to solar access for adjoining sites. The proposed lot boundary setbacks would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property’s access to direct sunlight or ventilation.

 

Lot Boundary Walls

 

The deemed-to-comply provisions of the Built Form Policy permits two boundary walls in length of up to 22.08 metres, with an average height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres.

 

The application proposes lot boundary walls to the northern and southern boundaries. The acceptability of the boundary walls are detailed below.

 

Southern Boundary

 

The boundary wall proposed from the portico to kitchen portion of the dwelling would have an average height of 3.05 metres.

 

The southern boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed wall meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for the length and maximum height. The length of wall proposed is 18.0 metres in lieu of the permitted 22.08 metres as per the deemed-to-comply standard. The 3.3 metre maximum height of the wall remains below the 3.5 metre maximum permitted as per the deemed-to-comply standard. This assists with reducing the scale and impact of the boundary wall as viewed from the neighbouring property and street;

·       The boundary wall is located behind the street setback to mitigate the extent of lot boundary walls visible upon approach to the dwelling. The face brick finish of the wall is consistent with the materials and finishes of neighbouring properties;

·       The boundary wall abuts the northern boundary of the neighbouring property at No. 46 Egina Street. The adjacent area on the neighbouring property is an access leg and garage lot boundary wall to the same side boundary, and are not habitable rooms or outdoor living areas; and

·       The proposed wall is located on the northern boundary and would not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling. The extent of overshadowing on the adjoining property is acceptable and satisfies the deemed-to-comply solar access requirement.

 

Northern Boundary

 

The boundary wall proposed for the garage would have an average height of 3.2 metres.

The southern boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed wall meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for the length and maximum height. The length of wall proposed is 6.0 metres in lieu of the permitted 22.08 metres as per the deemed-to-comply standard. The 3.3 metre maximum height of the wall remains below the 3.5 metre maximum permitted as per the deemed-to-comply standard. This assists with reducing the scale and impact of the boundary wall as viewed from the neighbouring property and street;

·       The boundary wall is located behind the street setback to mitigate the extent of lot boundary walls visible upon approach to the dwelling. The face brick finish of the wall is consistent with the materials and finishes of neighbouring properties;

·       The boundary wall abuts the southern boundary of the neighbouring property at No. 48A Egina Street. The boundary wall would abut a proposed boundary wall (portico to kitchen wall) of the same height and would therefore be concealed from view. The boundary wall would not affect habitable rooms or outdoor living areas on the adjoining property; and

·       The proposed wall is located on the northern boundary and would not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling. The adjoining property at No. 48A Egina Street located to the north of the subject site would also not be adversely impacted with respect to overshadowing the direction of shadow cast is to the south.

 

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 set 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 the provision of 30 percent canopy coverage, 12 percent deep soil zones and 3 percent planting areas. The application proposes 21.5 percent canopy cover and 17.1 percent deep soil zones that are also defined as planting areas under the Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed landscaping satisfies the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes three Flowering Plum trees, one Chinese Tallow and two Magnolia Trees on-site. The proposed tree species are capable of providing 3.0 to 6.0 metres of canopy each at maturity. Shrubs and plants proposed would also provide supplementary forms of landscaping to the site;

·       The proposed tree species are consistent with the City’s tree selection tool and are capable of growing to a greater height and canopy than that shown on the development plans. The City’s Parks and Urban Greening team has reviewed the proposal and confirmed the species and their location would enable all canopy to grow to full maturity;

·       The landscaping provided would soften the appearance of the proposed dwelling and reduce the overall impact of building bulk and scale when viewed from Egina Street and neighbouring properties. The landscaping proposed would contribute to the reduction of the urban heat island effect, increase urban air quality, provide a greater landscape amenity for the locality and create a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties;

·       The application proposes planting areas and deep soil zones greater than those required under the deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy. Additional planting zones allows for the owner/occupier to plant additional landscaping areas in the future;

·       The proposed landscaping includes portions of canopy which extends outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the provision of landscaping within the broader locality; and

·       The proposed landscaping to the lot does not inhibit vehicle use, with mature trees located away from proximity to the vehicle access point to maintain sufficient sight lines so as they are safe in use.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives for environmentally sustainable design. The applicant has submitted an energy efficiency report, demonstrating the dwelling achieves a minimum 8 star NatHERS rating (8.2 proposed) to satisfy local housing objective 1.8.6 of the Built Form Policy. A copy of the report and environmentally sustainable design template are included as Attachment 4 and identify the following built form and site planning measures in the sustainable design of the dwelling:

·       Limited stepping of rooms to the internal floor plan to ensure the dwelling is and remains universally accessible and can be easily modified to accommodate changing family size and circumstances. This would ensure the dwelling can evolve over time and remain in place for the future, rather than demolished should living arrangements and needs shift;

·       The siting and floor plan layout of the proposed dwelling is established in line with the north-south orientation of the subject site;

·       No additional structures, lot boundary walls or significant tree canopy is proposed to the northern elevation so as to not screen areas of north facing openings and open space for maximum natural light and access to winter sun;

·       Upper level windows are provided for access to year round natural light;

·       Climate moderation devices in the form of eaves and cantilevered upper floor to allow for winter solar penetration and summer shading;

·       Openable windows for cross ventilation;

·       North facing windows and living areas have been incorporated where practicable within the constraints of the site and R Codes provisions to aid in access to light;

·       Reduced scale of openings on the western elevation to moderate internal temperatures;

·       Living spaces and habitable rooms open to private open spaces for natural and cross ventilation, reducing the reliance on passive heating and cooling devices; and

·       The dwelling is constructed of earthy and neutral tones which assist with mitigating solar absorptance and urban heat island effect for the broader locality.

 

Administration has reviewed the proposal against the Built Form Policy local housing objectives and is satisfied that the development has incorporated environmentally sustainable design features to meet the intended built form outcomes of development within the City.

 

Urban Design Study

 

Clause 5.12 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives which applications are to consider as part of an urban design study. The applicant’s urban design study is included as Attachment 5 and details the key built form references and details of the streetscape and surrounding area considered in the design of the proposed development, including the following:

 

·       Pitched roof form with gable details to the façade;

·       Use of a light colour palette in the rendered finish of the dwelling façade and fixtures is consistent with the surrounding established streetscape;

·       Detailing of the roof forms and windows provide a visual link to existing character dwellings along Egina Street; and

·       Landscaping and canopy coverage provided in the front setback area.

 

Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of the site, included as Attachment 6, which demonstrates the variety of built form outcomes, colours and materials, and setbacks of existing dwellings within Egina Street.

 

The proposal satisfies the Built Form Policy local housing objectives relating to urban design study. The development has incorporated design features to ensure that it appropriately references the predominant streetscape and its built form context. This view has also been reflected in the DRP member’s comments on the appropriateness of the development proposal.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.3          No. 48A (Lot: 201; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Single House

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Lodged Development Plans

3.       Development Plans

4.       Environmentally Sustainable Design Report and Template

5.       Urban Design Study

6.       Administration Streetscape Analysis

7.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

8.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Single Dwelling at No. 48A (Lot: 201; D/P: 413236) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated advice notes in Attachment 8:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for a Single House as shown on the approved plans dated 4 February 2021. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the occupation or use of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City.  The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick, or material as otherwise approved, to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       External Fixtures

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

4.       Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy or use of the development, all privacy screening shown on the approved plans shall be installed and shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed-to-comply provisions, to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       Colours and Materials

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the details and annotations as indicated on the approved plans which forms part of this approval;

6.       Landscaping

6.1     All landscaping works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; and

6.2     A minimum of one Weeping Peppermint Tree of a 45 litre capacity shall be planted within the road verge adjacent to the subject site as shown in the approved plans at the expense of the owners/occupiers, prior to occupancy or use of the development and to the City’s satisfaction;

7.       Stormwater

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

8.       Sight Lines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within 1.5 metre of where the driveway meets the right of way, unless the further approval of the City is obtained;

9.       Car Parking and Access

9.1     The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1;

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

9.3     No good or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within the access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; and

10.     Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to issue of a building permit. This plan is to detail how construction will be managed to minimise disruption in the area and shall include:

·       Storage of materials and equipment on site;

·       Parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors;

·       The impact on traffic movement;

·       Notification to affected land owners; and

·       Construction times.

The approved Construction Management Plan shall be complied with for the duration of the construction of the development

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a two storey single house at No. 48A Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the construction of a two storey single house at the subject site.

Background:

Landowner:

Colin and Corinne Roe

Applicant:

Integrity Developments (WA) Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

4 January 2021

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone:  Residential        R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

307m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Egina Street to the west, single dwellings to the north and east and a vacant green title lot to the south (No. 48 Egina Street), as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. Egina Street and the broader area surrounding the subject site is characterised by one and two-storey single houses.

 

The subject site is currently a vacant lot that has been cleared in preparation for development. The site forms part of two parallel green title lots created as part of a subdivision approval issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in 2017. The lots have since been created.

 

Previous Development Applications

 

At its meeting on 16 October 2018, Council refused a development application for two grouped dwellings to the parent lot of the subject site (No. 48 Egina Street). The reasons for refusal related to the impact of the proposed primary street setback and visual dominance of the proposed garages on the existing streetscape.

 

The applicant sought a review of this decision by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), and through this process the SAT invited Council to reconsider its decision. Prior to the application for reconsideration being presented to Council, Administration was provided with a copy of the Deposited Plan and Certificate of Title for the subdivided lots (Nos. 48 and 48A Egina Street) by the applicant. As a result, the application presented to Council for reconsideration was for two single houses, rather than two grouped dwellings.

 

Council reconsidered amended plans at its meeting on 5 February 2019 where it resolved to refuse the application. The refusal reasons related to:

 

·       The bulk, scale and visual dominance of the garages on the existing streetscape,

·       Compromised solar access to the subject and adjoining property as a result of the proposed landscaping and two storey boundary walls; and

·       Inadequate landscaping to reduce the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties and streetscape.

 

Following Council’s decision, the SAT dismissed the applicant’s application for review. This was on the basis that Landgate had issued the Deposited Plan and Certificate of Title for the two green title lots at No. 48A (Lot 201) Egina Street and No. 48 (Lot 202) Egina Street. SAT determined that this meant that Lot 5 (being the parent lot) no longer existed and a decision could not be made on the development application.

 

The applicant subsequently lodged two separate single house development applications for Nos. 48 and 48A Egina Street. Council refused the applications at its meeting on 20 August 2019 for reasons related to:

 

·       The bulk, scale and visual dominance of the garages on the existing streetscape;

·       Inadequate landscaping to reduce the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties and streetscape and resulting in compromised solar access to the subject and adjoining properties;

·       The bulk and scale impacts of the proposed two storey boundary wall and resulting restricted solar access; and

·       Compromised solar access to the adjoining property at No. 48 Egina Street.

 

The applicant lodged applications for review of Council’s decisions made on 20 August 2019 to the SAT. The matters proceeded to full SAT hearing on 6 November 2019 where the SAT affirmed Council’s decision to refuse the applications and dismissed the applicant’s application for review.

An application for review of SAT’s decision by a judicial member of the SAT under section 244 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to deal with questions of law was sought by the landowners. The SAT refused the application and affirmed Council’s refusal on 29 July 2020.


 

Current Development Applications

 

The applicant has submitted two separate development applications for single houses at both the subject site and No. 48 Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn.

 

The plans for the single house proposed for the subject site as part of this application are contained in Attachment 3.

 

The development application for a single house on No. 48 Egina Street is also on this Ordinary Meeting agenda for Council’s determination. Administration has assessed each application separately.

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

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

 

ü

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Dining – Alfresco: 1.5 metres

 

Lot Boundary Walls

Boundary walls to two side boundaries to a maximum height of 3.5m and average height of 3 metres for up to two-thirds (22.08 metres) of the lot boundaries behind the front setback.

 

 

 

Dining – Alfresco: 1.2 metres

 

 

Average Height – 3.15 metres

Maximum Height – 3.3 metres

Length – 6.0 metres

Solar Access for Adjoining Sites

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Volume 1 Clause 5.4.2

 

35% overshadowing

 

 

48.2% overshadowing onto southern adjoining property

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 10 February 2021 and concluding on 23 February 2021. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, five submissions were received – four objecting to the proposed development and one expressing concern. Concerns raised during the community consultation period relating to the proposed single house are summarised as follows:

 

·       The length and extent of boundary walls;

·       The adequacy of landscaping provided, including the amount of canopy coverage and ability for this to reach maturity;

·       The precedent for future development in respect to the lot configuration and corresponding built form outcomes; and

·       Construction management.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 7.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development plans that were submitted originally with the application, included as Attachment 2, were referred to a member of the City’s Design Review Panel for comment. The following comments and recommendations were provided:

 

·       Greater setback or indentation should be provided to the dining room to break up the wall length and improve solar access/ventilation to adjoining property;

·       The single storey nature of development at the rear of the dwelling to the living, dining and alfresco areas minimises the extent of overshadowing which falls onto the neighbouring property’s living spaces, which is supported;

·       The stepping of the upper floor back from the ground level is supported, and the stepping of the garage back from the main dwelling alignment is also positive and supported. Garage should be recessed further to 1 metre;

·       Consider improvements to the landscape and entry sequence to allow increased legibility to front entry areas. Delineate pedestrian and vehicle access;

·       Upper level walls clad with weatherboard may further differentiate ground and upper floors to one house for a more individual reading of the homes and to differentiate the design aspects;

·       Window proportions to the upper floor facing Egina Street are to be considered, taking cues from existing character homes;

·       Surface treatment/landscape does not differentiate between pedestrian entry and cars. Applicant to consider separate pedestrian entry to the dwelling and additional planting areas; and

·       The proposed colours/materials appear to be consistent with the palette of materials within the surrounding established streetscape.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the abovementioned DRP comments. These are the plans that the applicant is seeking approval for as included in Attachment 3 and incorporate the following key changes:

·       Removed the solid wall to the alfresco;

·       Increased setback of the garage additional 0.5 metres, to facilitate a 1.0 metre stepping of the garage behind the building line;

·       Revised window forms to demonstrate building form relationship with adjacent properties; and

·       Reduced hardstand area associated with driveway in the front setback.

 

These changes made by the applicant as well as other changes made to the adjoining proposed dwelling at No. 48 Egina Street respond to the comments and recommendations made by the Design Review Panel member and create a legible distinction between the subject and proposed neighbouring dwelling at No. 48 Egina Street.

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;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No. 7.5.22 – Construction Management Plans.

 

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 would have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is referred to Council for determination as it relates to a matter previously considered by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City has assessed the application against the environmentally sustainable design provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. These provisions are informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, which requires new developments to demonstrate best practice in respect to reductions in energy, water and waste and improving urban greening.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no finance or budget implications of this report.

Comments:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The application proposes a 1.2 metre setback from the southern lot boundary to the dining – alfresco portion of the ground floor of the dwelling, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 1.5 metres.

 

The proposed lot boundary setback satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The southern elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple large openings to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property. The elevation incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick and render that assists in breaking up the ground and first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

·       The upper floor of the dwelling is satisfies the deemed-to-comply lot boundary setback requirements, and is articulated so as to provide actual and perceived vertical and horizontal stepping of the dwelling. Building bulk is further alleviated by openings to bed 4/study, dining and alfresco to reduce the extent of solid walls;

·       In response to recommendations from the City’s Design Review Panel member, the applicant revised the proposal to an open alfresco on the south to mitigate the extent of solid walls as viewed from the neighbouring property;

·       Major openings to the southern façade are appropriately screened to alleviate direct overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property;

·       A two storey single dwelling is proposed to the adjoining property to the south at No. 48 Egina Street, which is also listed on this Ordinary Meeting agenda for determination. The reduced lot boundary setback proposed would be located adjacent to the proposed outdoor living area at No. 48 Egina Street. A dividing fence would provide adequate screening to maintain privacy between the neighbouring properties; and

·       The single storey nature of the dining-alfresco would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property’s access to direct sunlight or ventilation or impose bulk and scale to neighbouring development.

 

Lot Boundary Walls

 

The deemed-to-comply provision of the Built Form Policy pursuant to the R Codes permits boundary walls to an average height of 3 metres. The garage boundary wall proposed to the northern boundary would have an average height of 3.15 metres.

 

The northern boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The garage abuts an existing boundary wall of the neighbouring property at No. 50 Egina Street. The neighbouring boundary wall also forms part of a garage which is constructed to a 2.8 metre height and 7.0 metre length. Given the siting of the boundary wall on the adjoining property and its greater length, the proposed garage is wholly concealed from view from the street and the neighbouring property, and its associated building bulk would be mitigated;

·       The proposed wall meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for the length and maximum height. The length of wall proposed is 6.0 metres in lieu of the permitted 22.08 metres as per the deemed-to-comply standard. The 3.3 metre maximum height of the wall remains below the 3.5 metre maximum permitted as per the deemed-to-comply standard. This assists with reducing the scale and impact of the boundary wall as viewed from the neighbouring property and street;

·       The boundary wall is located behind the street setback to mitigate the extent of lot boundary walls visible upon approach to the dwelling. The face brick finish of the wall is consistent with the materials and finishes of neighbouring properties; and

·       The proposed wall is located on the northern boundary and would not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling. The adjoining property at No. 50 Egina Street located to the north of the subject site would also not be adversely impacted with respect to overshadowing the direction of shadow cast is to the south.

 

Solar Access for Adjoining Sites

 

The application proposes 48.2 percent overshadowing of No. 48 Egina Street, in lieu of the 35 percent deemed-to-comply standard under the R Codes.

 

The overshadowing satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The shadow cast would fall to the ground floor openings of the kitchen, dining, living and alfresco of the proposed dwelling at No. 48 Egina Street. A single storey single house that met the deemed-to-comply standards and the dividing fence would also result in overshadowing that exceeds the prescribed deemed-to-comply overshadowing requirement. This is because of the orientation of the lot and the narrow lot width. The proposed dwelling has been designed to reduce the impact of overshadowing;

·       The extent of overshadowing would not impact major openings to habitable rooms on the upper floor of the proposed adjoining dwelling. The southern elevation of the dwelling is articulated and a reduced building footprint to the upper floor that would reduce the extent of overshadowing to the neighbouring property;

·       The proposed dwelling is reduced in height to single storey from the mid-point to rear of the site. This would minimise overshadowing impacts and would ensure the affected dwelling maintains good access to winter sunlight;

·       The overshadowing assessment is taken based on shadow cast at midday on 21 June, being the time of year when overshadowing to the south would be at its worst. This is not reflective of the extent of overshadowing that would be experienced at the adjoining property at all times;

·       The building height of the dwelling meets the deemed-to-comply requirements. The proposal does not seek discretion to the building height which would exacerbate the overshadowing and impact on the amenity of future occupants of No.48 Egina Street;

·       Limited canopy cover is proposed to the southern aspect of the subject site to ensure landscaping does not further exacerbate the shadow cast to the adjoining property; and

·       The proposed dwelling at No.48 Egina Street does not propose solar panels and therefore the overshadowing would not impact on any solar collectors.

 

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 set 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 the provision of 30 percent canopy coverage, 12 percent deep soil zones and 3 percent planting areas. The application proposes 21.5 percent canopy cover and 17.1 percent deep soil zones that are also defined as planting areas under the Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed landscaping satisfies the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes three Flowering Plum trees, one Chinese Tallow and two Magnolia Trees on‑site. The proposed tree species are capable of providing 3.0 to 6.0 metres of canopy each at maturity. Shrubs and plants proposed would also provide supplementary forms of landscaping to the site;

·       The proposed tree species are consistent with the City’s tree selection tool and are capable of growing to a greater height and canopy than that shown on the development plans. The City’s Parks and Urban Greening team has reviewed the proposal and confirmed the species and their location would enable all canopy to grow to full maturity;

·       The landscaping provided would soften the appearance of the proposed dwelling and reduce the overall impact of building bulk and scale when viewed from Egina Street and neighbouring properties. The landscaping proposed would contribute to the reduction of the urban heat island effect, increase urban air quality, provide a greater landscape amenity for the locality and create a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties;

·       The application proposes planting areas and deep soil zones greater than those required under the deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy. Additional planting zones allows for the owner/occupier to plant additional landscaping areas in the future;

·       The proposed landscaping to the lot does not inhibit vehicle use, with mature trees located away from proximity to the vehicle access point to maintain sufficient sight lines so as they are safe in use;

·       The proposed landscaping includes portions of canopy which extends outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the provision of landscaping within the broader locality; and

·        The verge in front of the subject lot currently contains a Weeping Peppermint Tree which is proposed to be removed to facilitate the provision of a crossover. This tree was planted in January 2018 prior to creation of the green title lots through subdivision and therefore the tree is not mature. The City’s Parks and Urban Greening team has advised the removal and replacement of the existing verge tree can be supported, provided the replacement of the tree is at the cost of the applicant. The new verge tree is to be planted in line with the existing verge trees on neighbouring properties. The landscaping plan submitted with the application includes the provision of a replacement verge tree. Administration has recommended a condition be imposed for the implementation of the landscaping plan.


 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives for environmentally sustainable design. The applicant has submitted an energy efficiency report, demonstrating the dwelling achieves a minimum 8 star NatHERS rating (8.2 proposed) to satisfy local housing objective 1.8.6 of the Built Form Policy. A copy of the report and environmentally sustainable design template are included as Attachment 4 and identify the following built form and site planning measures in the sustainable design of the dwelling:

 

·       Limited stepping of rooms to the internal floor plan to ensure the dwelling is and remains universally accessible and can be easily modified to accommodate changing family size and circumstances. This would ensure the dwelling can evolve over time and remain in place for the future, rather than demolished should living arrangements and needs shift;

·       The siting and floor plan layout of the proposed dwelling is established in line with the north-south orientation of the subject site;

·       No additional structures, lot boundary walls or significant tree canopy is proposed to the northern elevation so as to not screen areas of north facing openings and open space for maximum natural light and access to winter sun;

·       Upper level windows are provided for access to year round natural light;

·       Climate moderation devices in the form of eaves and cantilevered upper floor to allow for winter solar penetration and summer shading;

·       Openable windows for cross ventilation;

·       North facing windows and living areas have been incorporated where practicable within the constraints of the site and R Codes provisions to aid in access to light;

·       Reduced scale of openings on the western elevation to moderate internal temperatures;

·       Living spaces and habitable rooms open to private open spaces for natural and cross ventilation, reducing the reliance on passive heating and cooling devices; and

·       The dwelling is constructed of earthy and neutral tones which assist with mitigating solar absorptance and urban heat island effect for the broader locality.

 

Administration has reviewed the proposal against the Built Form Policy local housing objectives and is satisfied that the development has incorporated environmentally sustainable design features to meet the intended built form outcomes of development within the City.

 

Urban Design Study

 

Clause 5.12 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives which applications are to consider as part of an urban design study. The applicant’s urban design study is included as Attachment 5 and details the key built form references and details of the streetscape and surrounding area considered in the design of the proposed development, including the following:

 

·       Pitched roof form with gable details to the façade;

·       Use of a light colour palette in the rendered finish of the dwelling façade and fixtures is consistent with the surrounding established streetscape;

·       Detailing of the roof forms and windows provide a visual link to existing character dwellings along Egina Street; and

·       Landscaping and canopy coverage provided in the front setback area.

 

Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of the site, included as Attachment 6, which demonstrates the variety of built form outcomes, colours and materials, and setbacks of existing dwellings within Egina Street.

 

The proposal satisfies the Built Form Policy local housing objectives relating to urban design study. The development has incorporated design features to ensure that it appropriately references the predominant streetscape and its built form context. This view has also been reflected in the DRP member’s comments on the appropriateness of the development proposal.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.4          No. 104 (Lot: 79; D/P: 555) Eton Street, North Perth - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House (Carport)

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Supporting Documentation

4.       Administration's 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 proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House (Carport) at No. 104 (Lot: 79; D/P: 555) Eton Street, North Perth, as shown in the plans in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed street and lot boundary setbacks of the carport do not satisfy the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.2 and 5.4 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the Design Principles of Clauses 5.1.2, 5.1.3 (P3.2) and 5.2.1 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The bulk, scale and setback of the carport would not be consistent with the established streetscape, would detract from the character of the streetscape and the appearance of the dwelling, and would not preserve or enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape;

2.       The proposed carport does not satisfy the Design Principles of Clause 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1 relating to the design of car parking spaces and vehicle access. The carport and driveway do not comply with the Australian Standards (AS2890.1) and would result in an insufficient vehicle manoeuvring area which is not capable of being conveniently accessed by current and/or future occupants of the dwelling. It would result in a driveway and crossover with insufficient separation from the street corner which would compromise safety for vehicle access and movement; and

3.       As a consequence of the street and lot boundary setbacks of the carport, the proposal:

3.1     Would not be compatible with its setting (Clause 67(m) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015);

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

3.3     Would not enhance the amenity and character of the existing neighbourhood and is not compatible with the established area (objective of the Residential zone under Clause 16 of the Local Planning Scheme No. 2).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a carport at No. 104 Eton Street, North Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at No. 104 Eton Street, North Perth as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1.

 

The application proposes a new double carport fronting Eton Street. There is an existing vehicle access point from Eton Street. The proposed development would use this existing vehicle access point to provide access to two covered car parking bays, with part of the existing fence being removed.

 

The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s supporting documentation, including written justification and perspectives, is included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Anthony Attwood and Kristina Attwood

Applicant:

Patio Living

Date of Application:

6 August 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R20

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Dwelling (Single House)

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Single House)

Lot Area:

543.7m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Eton Street to the west, Loch Street to the south and residential properties to the north and east.

 

The subject site is located at the corner of Eton Street and Loch Street. The dwelling is orientated towards Eton Street with Loch Street being its secondary street frontage. There is an existing single width crossover to Eton Street providing vehicle access to a single garage with a hardstand area in front which is used as an uncovered parking bay. A single width crossover exists to the site from Loch Street but this is not used for vehicle access or parking as the dwelling’s outdoor living area is located adjacent to this.

 

The subject site and the adjoining properties to the north, west and south are zoned Residential R20 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The adjoining property to the east is zoned Residential R30/40 under LPS2.

 

The subject site and all surrounding properties are within the Residential Built Form Area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, the City’s Built Form Policy and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1).  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

Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Wall

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Building Height

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Street Walls and Fences

ü

 

Sightlines

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Design of Car Parking Spaces

 

ü

Vehicle Access

 

ü

Solar Access

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

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 5.1

 

Primary street setback required: 7.8m.

 

 

Carport street setback proposed: 1.0m.

Lot Boundary Wall

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 - Clause 5.1.3

 

Walls may be built up to a lot boundary behind the street setback.

 

 

The carport is proposed to be built up to the northern lot boundary within the required street setback area.

Setback of Garages and Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy - Clause 5.4

 

Primary street setback required: 7.8m.

 

 

Carport street setback proposed: 1.0m.

Sightlines

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy - Clause 5.8

 

A single pier is permitted within the sightlines truncation area with a maximum width and depth of 0.4 metres.

 

 

An existing pier is proposed to be retained within the sightlines truncation area on the southern side of the driveway with a maximum width and depth of 0.5m.

Design of Car Parking Spaces

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 - Clause 5.3.4

 

Car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas designed and provided in accordance with AS2890.1.

 

 

The proposed manoeuvring areas to the southern car bay does not comply with AS2890.1.

Vehicle Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 - Clause 5.3.5

 

Driveways shall be no closer than 6 metres to a street corner in accordance with AS2890.1.

 

 

The proposed driveway is located 2.8m from the street corner and the proposed crossover is located 5.6m from the street corner.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 26 August 2020 to 8 September 2020. The method of consultation included notice on the City’s website and seven letters mailed to all owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

At the conclusion of the consultation period no submissions were received.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The proposal was referred to the Chair of the City’s Design Review Panel (DRP) for comments. The development plans and streetscape analysis referred are included in Attachment 2 and Attachment 4 respectively. The following key comments were provided by the DRP Chair:

 

·       The site does have an alternative and preferred location for a carport to be located from Loch Street. It is acknowledged that this is the primary outdoor space for the dwelling and would not be preferred by the owner;

·       The streetscape analysis clearly shows that the proposal is not consistent with the surrounding built form context, especially in relation to the primary street setback and streetscape massing;

·       The location of the proposed carport would not overshadow and would have minimal bulk impact on the adjacent property to the north;

·       The architectural language generally ties in with the character of the existing dwelling by using matching roof tiles and having thin posts to maintain visibility of the existing dwelling’s front elevation;

·       The existing dwelling has a strong sense of character and changes could be made to reduce the impact of the proposed carport on the dwelling. This includes increasing the carport roof pitch to match the dwelling roof behind and decreasing the carport’s width to 4 metres to maintain visibility of the dwelling’s front elevation and gable which are strong character features. The carport’s depth could also be reduced to provide greater breathing space between the house and carport, allowing the existing canopy over the front window to be retained; and

·       Overall the double carport is clearly not consistent with the existing surrounding context and would generate a significant negative impact on the character of the existing dwelling. The suggested changes would significantly reduce the negative impact of the proposal on the dwelling’s character but it would still negatively impact the established streetscape in terms of bulk, presence and precedent.

 

The applicant did not make any changes to the proposal in response to the comments made by the DRP Chair.

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 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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being presented to Council at the written 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:

The City has assessed the application against the environmentally sustainable design provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. These provisions are informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, which requires new developments to demonstrate best practice in respect to reductions in energy, water and waste and improving urban greening.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no finance or budget implications of this report.

Comments:

Street Setback & Setback of Garages and Carports

 

The Built Form Policy requires the carport to be setback 7.8 metres from Eton Street. The carport is proposed to be setback 1.0 metre from Eton Street.

 

The applicant’s written justification for the proposed carport setback is included in Attachment 3 and is summarised as follows:

 

·       The materials, colours and architectural style of the proposed carport have been chosen to match the front façade of the existing dwelling;

·       A single carport would limit the owners to one covered parking space and would leave a car parked on the verge. The post from the single carport would prevent access to the hardstand area in front of the dwelling which the owners currently use to park informally parallel to the street;

·       There is limited difference between a double carport and a single carport in terms of the visual impact on the streetscape, as demonstrated by the perspectives included in Attachment 3; and

·       The proposed carport could not be located at the rear as this is used as the outdoor living area for the dwelling.

 

The proposed carport setback does not meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The carport setback is not consistent with the established streetscape and would detract from the visual character of the streetscape in terms of its setback, bulk and scale. This is due to the carport’s location in front of the existing dwelling where it would introduce development within the street setback area and obstruct the open/clear street setback area which is an established feature of the streetscape;

·       There is limited precedence of approved structures within the street setback area along Eton Street. A streetscape analysis has been included as Attachment 4 that shows between Ellesmere Street and Gill Street there is only one previously approved carport, located at No. 100 Eton Street. This carport received approval from the City of Perth in 1993 and was for a single carport with a 4.4 metre setback from Eton Street. The reduced width and greater street setback of this carport does not set a precedent when considering the proposed carport and the extent of departures sought to the applicable deemed-to-comply standards. The streetscape analysis demonstrates that Eton Street is an open streetscape and that the approval of a double carport protruding to within 1.0 metre of the street boundary would detract from the appearance of the street by adding building bulk and would not be consistent with the character of the prevailing area;

·       The carport would detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling and would dominate views of the dwelling from the street due to the bulk and scale of its roof. The carport includes slim supporting posts and a pitched gable roof design to match the existing dwelling but its mass and form as a double carport which is 6.0 metres wide and occupies 40.5 percent of the street frontage means that it would detract from the appearance of the dwelling and street. The DRP Chair has also provided comments stating that the double carport would have a significant impact on the character of the existing dwelling;

·       The subject site is accessible from Loch Street which is its secondary street. The R Codes Volume 1 states that vehicle access and covered car parking spaces should be provided from a secondary street where available, as this minimises the impact of access points and parking structures on the appearance of the streetscape and the existing dwelling. The streetscape analysis demonstrates that between Ellesmere Street and Gill Street the majority of properties that are accessible from a secondary street do not have vehicle access or covered car parking spaces from Eton Street. Excluding the subject site, of the nine properties which front Eton Street and have a secondary street frontage, six of them are exclusively accessed from the secondary street where there are carports or garages. The remaining three properties have vehicle access from Eton Street with none of these having carports or garages within the street setback area; and

·       The double carport would set an undesirable precedent for future development proposals within the front setback and could lead to the deterioration of the established streetscape. It would not positively contribute to the prevailing or future development context of the streetscape.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

The R Codes Volume 1 permits walls to be built up to the boundary behind the street setback. The development proposes the carport to be built up to the northern boundary within the primary street setback area.

 

In considering the impact of the proposed setback on the adjoining property against the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 the following is noted:

 

·       The carport would abut a hardstand area in the front yard of the northern adjoining property. The carport would not be adjacent to any major openings to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties. This ensures that the impact of bulk on the adjoining property is limited;

·       The favourable orientation of the subject site as well as the unenclosed nature of the carport ensures the proposed lot boundary wall would not impact the provision of adequate direct sun and ventilation to the northern adjoining property;

·       The carport is not a habitable space and would not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy on the adjoining property; and

·       The carport would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property for the reasons outlined above in terms of bulk, ventilation, access to natural light and overlooking.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed setback does not meet the local housing objectives and design principles for the following reasons:

 

·       The carport would have an adverse impact of building bulk on the streetscape which is compounded by it being built up to the boundary. The mass and form of the double carport would detract from the visual character and established open nature of the streetscape; and

·       The carport being built up to the boundary within the front setback would set an undesirable precedent for future development proposals in this location and could lead to the deterioration of the established open streetscape. It would not positively contribute to the prevailing or future development context of the streetscape.

 

While the proposed carport would not detrimentally impact the adjoining property, it would detract from and adversely impact the streetscape. On that basis the proposed setback does not meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1.

 

Sightlines

 

The Built Form Policy permits a single pier within the sightlines truncation area with a maximum width and depth of 0.4 metres. An existing pier is proposed to be retained within the sightlines truncation area on the southern side of the driveway with a maximum width and depth of 0.5 metres.

 

The pier meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       Within the sightlines truncation area on the southern side of the existing driveway there is a single pier with a width and depth of 0.5 metres and a solid wall less than 0.75 metres in height. To accommodate the proposed double carport and expanded driveway, this existing pier and section of low solid wall would be removed. The adjacent pier and section of low solid wall have the same dimensions as the removed structures and would be located within the sightlines truncation area on the southern side of the proposed driveway. There would be no further obstruction of sightlines, as the dimensions of the pier and low solid wall within the sightlines truncation area are not changing. This ensures that safety and visibility between the private and public domain would be maintained; and

·       The height of the existing solid wall which would be retained within the sightlines truncation area on the southern side of the driveway is less than 0.75 metres and complies with the deemed-to-comply requirement. There are also no structures or infill above this low solid wall, ensuring that a clear line of sight will be provided between the footpath and the driveway for safe pedestrian movement along Eton Street.

 

Design of Car Parking Spaces and Vehicle Access

 

The R Codes Volume 1 requires car parking spaces, manoeuvring areas and driveways to be designed and provided in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1 (as amended). The development proposes manoeuvring areas and a driveway to the carport which would not comply with AS2890.1.

 

The proposed manoeuvring areas and driveway do not meet the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The subject site has an existing single 2.8 metre wide crossover from Eton Street which provides access to an existing single garage setback 7.3 metres from the street and a hardstand area that is used as one uncovered parking bay. The application proposes to use a single width crossover to provide vehicle access to the proposed double carport. The City’s Technical Officers have reviewed the proposed carport and have advised that compliant manoeuvring space would not be provided in accordance with AS2890.1 due to the single 3.7 metre wide crossover proposed. The proposed car parking space on the southern side of the double carport would require a vehicle to make multiple turning movements in a confined area in order to be accessed. It would also not be accessible when a car is parked on the northern side of the proposed double carport without the vehicle entering on an angle and driving over the verge and footpath. The proposed double carport is not capable of providing car parking spaces that could be conveniently and safely accessed by current and future occupants; and

·       Crossovers are not subject to planning approval and require separate approval from the City. Under AS2890.1 driveways require a minimum setback of 6 metres from the tangent point of an intersection (the point in which the road begins to deviate). The existing single 2.8 metre wide crossover and associated driveway is located more than 6 metres from the tangent point at the intersection of Eton Street and Loch Street. To comply with AS2890.1 only a single 3.0 metre wide crossover would be permitted. The application proposes a 3.7 metre wide crossover which would be set back 5.6 metres from the tangent point, and a driveway which would be set back 2.8 metres from the tangent point. The City’s Technical Officers have advised that a crossover greater than 3.0 metres in width from Eton Street would not be supported as it would reduce vehicle safety due to its proximity to the intersection. Further information has been requested from the applicant but they have not provided any supporting documentation to demonstrate that the proposed crossover and vehicle manoeuvring areas would be safe in use and conveniently accessible.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.5          Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants Application – Forrest Park Croquet Club

Attachments:             1.       2021 CSRFF Small Grants Application Form Forrest Park Croquet Club  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grant submission received from Forrest Park Croquet Club and ENDORSES Administration’s assessment of the submission;

2.       SUPPORTS IN PRINCIPLE the Forrest Park Croquet Club’s Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grant application included as Attachment 1 subject to:

2.1     The application being successful in obtaining funding from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries; and

2.2     Including $16,438.07 ex GST in the City’s budget for the 2021/2022 financial year to fund one third of the project; and

3.       NOTES that following Council support, Administration will forward the submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for consideration.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider in principle support for Forrest Park Croquet Club’s funding submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Small Grants Round.

Background:

Local governments and not-for-profit sport/recreation organisations are eligible to apply for CSRFF grants aimed towards increasing participation through the development of sustainable, good quality, well-designed and well-utilised facilities. The DLGSCI offers small grant funding twice annually, in March and August.

 

The CSRFF Small Grants allow eligible clubs, groups and local governments to apply for grant funding to assist with smaller projects that have a total cost of $300,000 or less. Any applications for the current CSRFF Small Grants round need to be submitted to the relevant local government for assessment, followed by Council endorsement and submission to the DLGSCI by 4pm on 31 March 2021.

 

The applications are then assessed by DLGSCI and rated as either:

 

A.      Well planned and needed by municipality;

B.      Well planned and needed by applicant;

C.      Needed by municipality, more planning required;

D.      Needed by applicant, more planning required;

E.      Idea has merit, more planning work needed; or

F.       Not recommended.

 

Both successful and unsuccessful applicants are notified by DLGSCI in June 2021.

 

The City coordinates all applications between our community and sporting clubs, in conjunction with City submissions to ensure there is no duplication in applications and to rank the applications in order of priority. The City has received one singular application for this round of funding from the Forrest Park Croquet Club. The City is not submitting any of its own applications this round.

Details:

Forrest Park Croquet Club is the only croquet club within the City of Vincent. The Club has been in operation for 21 years and currently has 72 members. The Club currently has 3 grass croquet courts, all are floodlit for evening use.

 

The Club has identified that their current lighting levels are below the recommended standard. The existing lighting has proven expensive to maintain through globe replacement and starter maintenance. Play is becoming increasingly difficult with a lower lighting level.

 

The Club has explained that the current lights have become problematic and are faulting on a regular basis. Approximately 4 years ago, replacement of all 12 incandescent globes cost the club $5,000 and additional globe replacement since then has cost $1,000 per annum. The City and the Club assessed the existing floodlight infrastructure and it was identified that the internal light boxes are close to reaching end of life.

 

The Club has submitted a CSRFF application to the City seeking support for the floodlighting upgrade on the 3 courts in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

The Club has completed its due diligence and identified the need to upgrade the lighting to LED. The club proposes that 10 of the current light towers support the new LED lights.

 

The light towers are in sound condition and would support the new LED lighting. It is not a preferred option for the Club to replace like for like due to the higher use of electricity and higher maintenance costs. The LED lights have the following benefits:

 

·       Instant on/off function with immediate full brightness;

·       Lower maintenance requirements;

·       Energy savings of approximately 50 percent;

·       Lamp life of approximately 50,000 hours;

·       Improved control of light spillage when using shields; and

·       Lower running temperature.

 

The total project cost is $49,314.07 (excluding GST). The club has proposed that the total cost be funded in equal parts by the City, the Club and the CSRFF Grant.

 

Floodlighting upgrades are not currently included in the City’s renewal programs. The City has completed an assessment of the infrastructure and recognises that it is close to end of life and requires replacement. The City supports resolving this matter through a collaborative approach and recommends including $16,438.07 in the 2021/22 budget.

 

The Club has demonstrated over an extended period that it is well governed and has submitted its annual health check to the City. The Club has proven that it is capable of maintaining the proposed infrastructure. This project is rated ‘B – Well planned and needed by applicant’ and ranked priority one, in accordance with DLGSCI’s assessment criteria.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to endorse a grant application for the Forrest Park Croquet Club lighting upgrade and consider including funding for this purpose in the 2021/22 budget.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

 

Choose an item or delete if not relevant.

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Energy Use/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

 

Increased physical activity

Financial/Budget Implications:

The total project cost is $49,314.20 (excluding GST). The application is seeking a one third contribution from the City, one third from DLGSCI and the remaining one third will be the Club’s contribution. The City will include $16,438.07 for consideration in the 2021/22 budget.

Comments:

This project would have a positive impact on both the City of Vincent and the local community. A sustainable upgrade to the lighting would support participation of Croquet across extended hours and increase the availability of recreation to the wider demographic. The lighting upgrade would also increase the level of safety at the facility for users. The joint funding of this project would provide a long-term cost saving for both the Club and the City.

 

The City is currently working on developing a Sport and Recreation Facilities Plan. The plan is currently being developed and the recommendations and implementation approach are still to be determined. Given the current state of the floodlights it is recommended to proceed with this project due to its immediate benefits.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.6          Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation

Attachments:             1.       Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

2.       Summary of Submissions

3.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Tracked Changes from Advertised Version)

4.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Modified from Advertised Version)

5.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Alternative Policy Amendment)

6.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (2nd Alternative Policy Amendment)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Administration response to submissions, included at Attachment 3, received during advertising of Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation;

2.       SUPPORTS Standard Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 without modification, pursuant to Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, included at Attachment 1;

3.       FORWARDS Standard Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 1 and any required documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

4.       PROCEEDS with Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation with modifications pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, included at Attachment 4; and

5.       NOTES that Administration will notify submitters of Council’s decision but will not publish notices of adoption until after the Western Australian Planning Commission has determined Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcomes of public consultation on Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Amendment 6 to LPS2) and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5) and to determine whether to proceed with the amendments.

Background:

Council, at its meeting on 19 May 2020, resolved to prepare Amendment 6 to LPS2 (included at Attachment 1) and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 for the purpose of public advertising.

 

Amendment 6 to LPS2

 

Amendment 6 to LPS2 proposes a risk-based approach to address permissibility based on the potential impact on the amenity of surrounding uses. The Amendment proposes that the Zoning Table include Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House land uses.

 

Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5

 

Changes proposed in the advertised version of Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 included:

 

(a)      Modify general and land use definitions to align with Amendment 6 to LPS2 to ensure Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (LPP 7.4.5) can be used as an effective tool in the assessment and management of applications for short term accommodation;

(b)      Include exemptions from Development Approval for low impact uses to streamline the approvals process; and

(c)      Include provisions relating to the location of short term accommodation uses to provide greater guidance and clarity, including acceptable development criteria for assessment of applications in Mixed Use and Residential Zones.

 

Both amendments were advertised between 5 September 2020 and 17 October 2020 through the following methods:

 

·       Written notification was sent to surrounding Local Governments and relevant State Government agencies;

·       A notice was published in the West Australian for one week and the Perth Voice once per week for four weeks;

·       Written notification to stakeholders including industry bodies, local short term accommodation operators, adjoining neighbours and a randomised survey sample; and

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

Details:

The City received nine submissions on the proposed amendments relating to short term accommodation during the consultation period.

 

Submitters were generally supportive, with four out of seven survey respondents saying that the draft policy struck the right balance between flexibility and control. One survey respondent and one submitter responded that the draft policy was too restrictive, and two submitters responded that the policy was not restrictive enough.

 

The primary issues and modifications are addressed below with a full summary of submissions and responses to those submissions included as Attachment 2.

 

1.       Development Approval Exemptions

 

A number of submitters commented that the exemptions in the advertised version of LPP 7.4.5 are confusing.

 

On review, the text provisions for development approval exemptions have been converted to a table. This makes the provision much easier to read and understand. It is also proposed to remove the requirement for written notification, management plans and codes of conduct for house swap/house sit arrangements as these uses are considered so minor that the City should not require notification of them occurring.

 

2.       Minimum Night Stay

 

One submitter suggested that a two-night minimum stay is too restrictive, there are a number of good reasons why a visitor would stay for one night and a number of successful short term accommodation uses do not have a minimum.

 

On review of the overall policy provisions proposed by this amendment, there are now sufficient requirements to specifically address potential amenity impacts such that the minimum night stay requirement is no longer essential. This includes locational requirements, mandatory management plans and codes of conduct and requirements for a host or management plans that address any potential noise, traffic/parking, antisocial behaviour and complaints management issues that could occur from a specific proposal. It is recommended that two-night minimum stay be removed.

 

3.       Outdoor living

 

The requirement for ‘sufficient distance’ from outdoor living areas of adjoining properties was considered to be unreasonable and impractical to implement and measure. On review, it is considered that this may be a very restrictive factor in a number of proposals, especially given Vincent’s urban development pattern and density, as well as the inability for applicants to modify the location of their outdoor living areas. As such, it is proposed that this provision be removed.

 

4.       Public advertising

 

The public advertising clause has been modified to respond to the proposed Amendment No. 6 to LPS2. LPS2 currently requires advertising of any ‘A’ use and allows the City to exercise discretion when determining whether to advertise a ‘D’ use.

 

5.       Administrative Modifications

 

A number of further administrative changes and corrections have been made. These are all highlighted in the tracked changes version of LPP 7.4.5 at Attachment 3.

 

The City’s new policy template has also been used for the final version but not on the tracked changes version.

 

As a result of submissions, Administration recommends modifications be made as set out in the modified version of LPP 7.4.5 at Attachment 3.

 

Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

The proposed Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 will provide greater guidance for Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House land uses which are currently not listed in the Zoning Table. The amendment will provide greater guidance on where these types of land uses should be located.

 

The Amendment was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, where no objection was received.

 

No submissions were received that directly related to Amendment 6 to LPS2 during the formal advertising period.

 

Administration recommends that Council support Amendment 6 to LPS2 without modification.

 

Deferral

 

Council considered the amendments at its meeting on 16 February 2021 and resolved that the matter be deferred to allow Administration an opportunity to reinstate key provisions in the policy to ensure that the policy reflects the Council’s intent.

 

An alternative Amended Policy has been prepared in Attachment 5 which reinstates the following provisions included in the advertised version of the Amendment Policy:

 

1.       The requirement that written notification along with a code of conduct and management plan be provided to the City in order for an un-hosted Holiday House or Holiday Accommodation use to be rented out on one occasion in a 12 month period to be exempt;

2.       The requirement for a host to be present in order for a Holiday House or Holiday Accommodation use to be exempt in certain circumstances;

3.       Including sufficient distance and separation from adjoining outdoor living areas as one of the Acceptable Development criteria, to be given due regard when considering development applications for short stay accommodation; and

4.       Including a ‘minimum 2-night stay’ as one of the Acceptable Development criteria, to be given due regard when considering development applications for short stay accommodation, in the Residential and Mixed Use zones.

 

These changes are highlighted in blue in Attachment 5.

 

In addition, the alternative Amended Policy includes a requirement that for a Holiday House or Holiday Accommodation use in a Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre or Commercial zone, with a maximum of two guests, that is rented out more than once in any twelve month period, to be exempt, it must be hosted. This is an additional requirement that was not included in the advertised version of the Amendment Policy.

 

One change has also been made to the proposed Attachment 3 and 4, and alternative Amended Policy Attachment 5. This relates to the exemption requirement for one-off short term accommodation, and clarifies that on-off means one ‘rental’ in any 12 month period.

 

Briefing

 

At the briefing of 16 March 2021, Cr Gontaszewski and Mayor Cole suggested further modifications to the proposed amendment:

 

·       Modify 1, above, to allow these uses to occur in a Residential or Mixed Use zone as long as a management plan and code of conduct are prepared in accordance with the Policy requirements, but without the need to notify the City of the temporary short stay use.

·       Modify 1, above, to allow unlimited rentals to occur for a maximum of three consecutive months in any 12 month period within the Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre and Commercial zones.

·       Modifying 4, above, so that the ‘minimum 2-night stay’ to only applies where no host is present.

 

In summary, this further amendment applies the following modifications to Administration’s recommended policy:

 

1.       Allowing Holiday House and Holiday Accommodation to operate in Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre and Commercial zones on any number of occasions for a maximum of three consecutive months in any twelve month period without approval and without the need to submit notification to the City, provided management plan and code of conduct are prepared in accordance with the Policy requirements;

2.       Allowing Holiday House and Holiday Accommodation to operate in Residential and Mixed Use zones on one occasion every twelve months without approval and without the need to submit notification to the City, provided management plan and code of conduct are prepared in accordance with the Policy requirements;

3.       The requirement for a host to be present in order for a Holiday House or Holiday Accommodation use to be exempt in circumstances where the short term accommodation operates year-round;

4.       Including sufficient distance and separation from adjoining outdoor living areas as one of the Acceptable Development criteria, to be given due regard when considering development applications for short term accommodation; and

5.       Including a ‘minimum 2-night stay’ as one of the Acceptable Development criteria, to be given due regard when considering development applications for short term accommodation, in the Residential and Mixed Use zones only if no host is present.

 

The additional modifications are shown in red in Attachment 6.

Consultation/Advertising:

Submitters will be directly notified of Council’s decision. If Amendment 6 to LPS2 is supported by the Western Australian Planning Commission, both Amendment 6 to LPS2 and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 would be published simultaneously and come into effect together.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       State Planning Policy No. 7.3 – Residential Design Codes (R Codes);

·       Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to support the proposed Amendment 6 to LPS2 and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 to deal with development relating to short term accommodation and the management of such land uses.

Strategic Implications:

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

Thriving Places

We encourage innovation in business, social enterprise and imaginative uses of space, both public and private.

 

Sensitive Design

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This does not have any impact on the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of progressing the Amendments will be met through the City’s existing operational budget. The proposal has no cost imposition for future budgets.

Comments:

The progression of Amendment 6 to LPS2 and the final adoption of Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 will:

 

·       Ensure the City’s Planning Framework relating to short term accommodation is consistent and up to date;

·       Align LPP 7.4.5 with Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to ensure that it can be used as an effective tool in the assessment and management of applications for short term accommodation;

·       Provide exemptions from Development Approval for low impact short term accommodation uses to streamline the approvals process; and

·       Ensure that any proposals for short term accommodation are sensitive and respectful to the existing residential uses within the neighbourhood.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.7          Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas. Relating to Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street

Attachments:             1.       Summary of Submissions

2.       Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas (Tracked Changes from Advertised Version)

3.       Table of Modifications

4.       Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas

5.       Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas - Cr Loden Amendment  

 

Recommendation:

That Council PROCEEDS with Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas with modifications, pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as shown at Attachment 4.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcomes of public consultation on Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas (Amendment No. 4) and to determine whether to proceed with Amendment No. 4.

Background:

The City received nominations from landowners in four streets in Mount Hawthorn requesting that these streets be considered as Character Retention Areas. These nominations received sufficient support from landowners (>40 percent) to proceed with the required process:

 

1.       The Boulevarde – between Scarborough Beach Road and Anzac Road, received 31 January 2019 (51 percent);

2.       Kalgoorlie Street – between Ashby Street and Anzac Road, received 27 March 2019 (47 percent);

3.       Buxton Street – between Anzac Road and Britannia Road, received 23 May 2019 (58 percent); and

4.       Matlock Street – between Anzac Road and Britannia Road, received 5 February 2020 (54 percent).

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of 11 February 2020, Council resolved to prepare Amendment No. 4 to designate portions of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Buxton Street and Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn as a Character Retention Area for the purpose of formally advertising the proposal.  The proposed amendment includes the addition of new Character Retention Guidelines for the area.

Details:

Summary of Consultation

 

The City undertook preliminary community consultation on the nominated Character Retention Areas in 2019 by way of a door knock and flyer delivery to all houses within the subject area, followed by a community forum to understand the community’s sentiment towards protecting character in their street. Following the forum, all residents in the project area were also invited to participate in an online survey.

 

The formal community consultation of Amendment No. 4 was undertaken for a period of 42 days from 20 July 2020 to 1 September 2020.

 

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the deemed provisions and Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community, including:

 

·       Written notification to landowners/residents in the affected areas;

·       Written notification to landowners/residents in the surrounding demonstration project area;

·       Advertisements in the Perth Voice newspapers;

·       Notice on the City’s website including and online survey on the Imagine Vincent consultation page;

·       Copies displayed at the City of Vincent Administration and Civic Building as well as the Library and Local History Centre.

 

The City also consulted with a heritage expert, Stephen Carrick from the City’s Design Review Panel, who provided feedback on the draft Guidelines.

 

Formal community consultation of Amendment No. 4 included an online survey where participants were asked:

 

·       Their overall support for the proposed inclusion of their street into the Character Retention Area;

·       To provide feedback on specific elements of the draft Guidelines including provisions relating to bulk and scale, setbacks, roof pitches, front fences and design; and

·       Their level of support for an investigation into Heritage Areas for their street.

 

The City received 41 submissions in total, including 36 via the online survey and a further 5 written submissions. Overall, 24 participants supported the proposed Character Retention Area and 17 participants objected.

 

The majority of the owners who were part of the original nomination, requesting that their street be included as a Character Retention Area, did not make a submission or complete a survey during the community consultation period of Amendment No. 4, with only eight (8) of the original 69 nominators making a submission. Of those eight (8), three (3), all who own properties on Kalgoorlie Street, objected to Amendment No. 4 with the remaining five (5) supportive.

 

In addition to the submissions from landowners within the proposed Character Retention streets, 19 submissions were received from landowners/residents from outside the Guideline Area. Of these, 16 supported and 3 objected to Character Retention Areas for the nominated streets.

 

A summary of the nominations and submissions for individual streets is included below.  The full Summary of Submissions including Administration’s response to feedback is included in Attachment 1.

 

Character Retention Area

Original Nomination

Workshop & survey

(Aug/Sept 2019)

Formal Consultation

(July-Sept 2020)

Submissions following Formal Consultation (only includes those from the area)*

The Boulevarde (between Scarborough Beach Road and Anzac Road)

77 houses

39 nominators

(51 percent of properties)

11 support

5 unsure

1 objection

6 support (includes 3 nominators)

5 objections

22 support (includes 15 nominators, 6 from workshop & consultation)

4 objections (2 objectors from consultation)

Kalgoorlie Street (between Ashby Street and Anzac Road)

34 houses

16 nominators

(47 percent of properties)

3 support

1 unsure

1 objection

0 support

8 objections (includes 3 of the nominators)

1 support (1 nominator)

5 objection (5 objectors from consultation)

Buxton Street (between Anzac and Britannia Road)

12 houses

7 nominators

(58 percent of properties)

2 support

1 unsure

1 objection

0 support

1 objection

0 support

0 objections

Matlock Street (between Anzac Road and Britannia Road)

13 houses

7 nominators

(54 percent of properties)

2 support

0 objections

2 support (includes 2 of the nominators)

0 objections

1 support (nominator and supporter from consultation)

0 objections

*as at 12noon on Friday 19 March 2021

 

Overall, there was only minimal support for streets to be investigated as Heritage Areas.

 

During the nomination and initial phase of consultation, many landowners supported Character Retention.  This same sentiment was not apparent during the formal advertising, with a significant number of landowners who supported the initial nomination choosing not to participate in the formal consultation.  Notwithstanding this, of those that participated, many expressed the importance of maintaining original character and generally supported provisions relating to built form, setbacks, roof pitches and front fences. A full summary of consultation is included in the Summary of Submissions in Attachment 1.

 

During the four weeks prior to the 23 March Ordinary Council Meeting, the City received further submissions as shown in the above table. The content of the submissions did not contain any matters further than those already addressed during the formal consultation period and reflected in Attachment 1.

 

Key issues raised in submissions

 

There were five key issues raised in the submissions which are summarised below.

 

1.       Existing development precedence

 

Some submitters commented that there is already a precedence of diverse development in Kalgoorlie Street and Buxton Street that should be allowed to continue.

 

A review of the nominated streets identifies that the predominant character of Kalgoorlie Street, The Boulevarde and Matlock Street is representative of early 20th century streetscapes. Original façade detailing, scale and form of dwellings, roofscape and front setbacks result in relatively consistent character.  There are some recent new developments inconsistent with the prevailing character in terms of bulk and scale but these are minimal. In general, the streets have a consistent pattern of development reflective of a low scale traditional streetscape. The inclusion of these streets in the Guideline Area provides an opportunity to ensure that new development is reflective of the existing predominant streetscape character.

 

In contrast, the portion of Buxton Street included in the Guidelines (10 houses) represents a street in transition, with two significant recent developments completed at the end of 2020 having moved away from the scale and form of the original character houses. On further review, it is considered that the City’s Built Form Policy is adequate to address any proposals for development in this area.  Administration recommends that the portion of Buxton Street between Anzac Road and Britannia Road should not be included in the proposed Character Retention Area.

 

2.       Character Retention requirements

 

Some submitters were concerned that a Character Retention designation and associated Guidelines would place burdensome and unfair restrictions on landowners who prefer to have greater flexibility in development options.

 

The proposed Guidelines replace or augment already existing planning provisions that ensure new development that is visible from the street has a positive regard to the bulk and scale of existing character homes and the prevailing pattern of development. All development not visible from the street would not be subject to the Guideline provisions.

 

The draft Guidelines would not restrict demolition or an owner’s ability to redevelop in innovative or sustainable ways. There is scope for owners to renovate or redevelop their properties for changing needs and in line with modern standards of development, including the addition of a second story and contemporary design techniques.  The Guidelines provide an opportunity for a proposal to be assessed on a performance basis against local housing objectives that ensure the prevailing character is respected, even where ‘deemed-to-comply’ outcomes are not met.

 

The provisions in the draft Guidelines extend only to the matters that were identified to be valuable to the community through the initial workshop.

 

In accordance with the requirements of State Planning Policy No. 7.3: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), the ‘General Building Design’ section has include as local housing objectives, rather than ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards. The matters would not be able to function as ‘deemed-to-comply’ under the R-Codes.

 

3.       Character Retention imposition

 

Some submitters questioned why only selected areas/streets were included in the proposed Character Retention Area. Others objected to the imposition of additional development requirements to only a small number of selected streets.

 

The Policy sets out a community-led process that provides opportunity for owners within all areas to nominate their street to be considered for Character Retention. A nomination is valid were it is demonstrated that a minimum of 40% of landowners support Character Retention. In this instance, valid nominations were for these sections of The Boulevard, Kalgoorlie Street, Buxton Street and Matlock Street.

 

The City undertook preliminary consultation with landowners in the nominated sections as well as the remaining portions of these streets and the adjacent Coogee Street and Seabrook Street. This was to determine the extent of the subject area based on community feedback. Since there was minimal support outside of the nominated area, only the nominated area was selected to proceed.

 

The initial nominations provided a clear foundation of support and further technical review found sound planning merit to support Character Retention for the nominated portions of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street.

 

4.       Second storey setbacks

 

Approximately half the submitters supported the proposed second storey setbacks. Some submitters were concerned that the proposed second storey setbacks may significantly reduce the usable land area on small lots. Since the proposal was to require second storeys in the middle or rear third of the lot, this would likely subtract from outdoor living areas, or require outdoor living areas to be situated at the front of the lot, which is not desirable.

 

Consistency in front setbacks is a significant factor that contributes to the presentation of a building bulk from the street and the continuity of a streetscape. There are many good examples within the Guideline Area of second storey development setbacks on smaller lots. In considering good design outcomes, it is recommended that C1.2 relating to second storey setbacks be modified to include a 4m second storey setback from the ground floor. These modifications meet the development objective of maintaining complementary scale and bulk that does not dominate the original character homes, while maximising usable land area. Second storey additions can then be placed further forward, allowing outdoor living areas at the rear of lots.

 

5.       Car parking requirements

 

Submitters were concerned that proposed car parking provisions are too rigorous and would restrict the provision of car parking on site.

 

Car parking structures in the front setback area can significantly alter the rhythm and aesthetic value of a streetscape. To maintain visual openness and views of the character dwellings that currently exist within the Character Retention Area, the proposed car parking provisions in Clause 4.0 aim to ensure that car parking structures do not obscure or detract from the predominant character elements of the dwelling or the street.  Structures in the front setback area that are of a complementary scale, colour and materials to the dwelling will help to maintain the character of the street.

 

There are multiple different options and layouts for car parking on site, both with and without a laneway. Car parking structures not meeting the deemed-to-comply parts of the Guidelines may still be permitted on a performance basis, where it can be demonstrated that structures can meet the objectives of the Guidelines.

 

Proposed modifications

 

Attachment 2 sets out the modification proposed to the advertised version of Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas. A table of these modifications is also included in Attachment 3, setting out the basis and detail of each proposed modification.

 

The key modifications can be summarised as follows:

 

Modification 1

Removal of Buxton Street from the proposed Guidelines Area.

 

Modifications 2 and 4

Clarification that the Guidelines only apply to development that is visible from the street and fronting the primary streets in the Guideline Area.

 


 

Modification 3

The inclusion of further clarity of the prevailing and desired character of the Guideline Area.

 

Modification 5

A reduction in the advertised second storey setback requirements to a consistent 4m from the ground floor.

 

Modification 8

More detail about acceptable fencing styles.

 

Modification 10

Remove reference to roof pitch angles, instead referring to the prevailing character of existing dwellings.

 

Modification 11

Include new landscaping objectives.

 

Modification 12

Minor modifications to general terminology as well as other administrative modifications and a new template.

 

The proposed changes will allow the Guidelines to provide for better development outcomes, without undermining their original intent to protect the prevailing character of the Guideline Area.

Consultation/Advertising:

A community meeting was held at Anzac Cottage on Monday 8 March 2021 with owners/occupiers of the affected portion of Kalgoorlie Street.  The meeting was attended by 9 community members, Mayor Cole, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Smith and Administration staff.

 

The meeting provided an opportunity for clarification on the Character Retention process and specific aspects of the Guideline provisions were discussed.  Attendants were invited to provide further comments to Council as part of the Council meeting process, at the Council Briefing.

 

Following the outcome of the Council decision, further consultation would involve notifying owners and occupiers affected by the Council decision, all submitters, and a notice in the local newspaper.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

·       State Planning Policy No. 7.3: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  It is low risk for Council to support Amendment No. 4 to designate the proposed areas of Mount Hawthorn as a Character Retention Area. This allows the City to deal with development issues that may potentially result in undesirable development outcomes and the loss of streetscape character.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The adoption of Amendment No. 4 would help to ensure sustainable development outcomes in the future by encouraging the retention and renovation of older building stock through flexible guidelines.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

The adoption of Amendment No. 4 would ensure that any new development is sensitive and respectful to the existing neighbourhood character within the Guideline Area.  In considering the Character Retention nominations, the context of the proposed area and any feedback received during the consultation period, it is recommended that Council adopts the final amended version of Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas as shown in Attachment 4 to designate The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street and Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn as a Character Retention Area and adopt the associated Guidelines for the new Character Retention Area.

 

Ensuring that proposals contribute to an area’s preferred neighbourhood character is a fundamental principle of good planning and design and serves to enhance the intrinsic value of the area.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

9.8          City of Vincent Rebound Plan - Quarterly Update

Attachments:             1.       Vincent Rebound Plan - Implementation Framework

2.       Rebound Roundtable Forward Agenda  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the quarterly update on the City of Vincent Rebound Plan implementation included as Attachment 1, and the monthly reporting to the Rebound Roundtable.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an update on the City of Vincent Rebound Plan implementation and the City’s actions to manage, recover and rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background:

On 15 September 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council endorsed the City of Vincent Rebound Plan (Rebound Plan), as an addendum to the COVID-19 Relief & Recovery Strategy and noted that the implementation of the Rebound Plan would be reported monthly to the Rebound Roundtable and quarterly to Council.

 

On 8 December 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council noted the quarterly update on the implementation of the Rebound Plan and that implementation would continue to be reported monthly to the Rebound Roundtable and quarterly to Council.

 

The Rebound Roundtable was established 12 August 2020, as a collaborative partnership, and forum to share learning and ideas, between the City, local business representatives and the local Town Teams. The Rebound Roundtable evolved from the Town Team Roundtable which had been established in April 2020, as an online forum to obtain feedback regarding the City’s Covid-19 relief and recovery measures.

 

With the exclusion of January 2021 due to attendee availability, the Rebound Roundtable has met monthly since August 2020 to guide the implementation of the Vincent Rebound Plan – Implementation Framework (Implementation Framework), included as Attachment 1. The Implementation Framework addresses the ongoing actions and deliverables for the rebound phase of recovery. To enable specific deliverables to be discussed in detail at the Rebound Roundtable, a six-month Rebound Roundtable Forward Agenda has been prepared and is included as Attachment 2.

 

COVID-19 State of Emergency Directions

 

At 6pm on Sunday 31 January 2021 the Perth metropolitan, Peel and South West regions went into a five day lockdown with COVID-19 Closure and Restriction (Limit the Spread) Directions (No. 12) issued by the State of Emergency Coordinator. Lockdown restrictions included the requirement for all people to stay at home unless working as an essential worker, obtaining essential goods, providing care or support for a relative or exercising under certain conditions. On 5 February 2021 Safe Transition for Western Australia Directions were issued with post lockdown transition restrictions in place until Sunday 14 February 2021. During this time, masks were mandatory when leaving the home, requiring businesses and the community to quickly adapt. Following this time, Western Australia reverted back to pre-lockdown conditions as experienced prior to 6pm on Sunday 31 January.

 

On 2 February and 6 February 2021, in response to the changing restrictions, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) distributed information to assist Local Governments to support businesses during lockdown and through the post lockdown transition period. The City distributed this information via the City’s business email database and COVID-19 portal.

Details:

The Rebound Plan is a locally responsive action plan designed to support the City’s community and businesses return to strong economic performance by making it easier to do business in the City, further cutting red tape and supporting initiatives to encourage community connection. It is a living document, updated regularly, allowing for new opportunities and initiatives to be included as they arise. It will track the City’s economic development and social reconnection initiatives over a 24 month period.

 

The second quarterly update to Council is outlined through the Implementation Framework included as Attachment 1. The highlights from this are summarised below:

 

·       To encourage and support events and activations (Action 1.2), a special events funding round was opened in December 2020 for events being held before 1 July 2021.

·       To enhance the presentation of town centres and main streets (Action 1.3), a deep pressure clean of Leederville Town Centre was completed and planter boxes were installed.

·       To make it easier for business to start-up, pivot and co-locate (Action 2.2), a review of the City’s Minor Nature Development Policy has commenced and additional Health and Building Approval guidance for individuals and businesses has been included on the City’s website.

·       To support small business and attract visitors and tourism (Action 2.3), the Visit Perth website has been updated to include additional Vincent businesses and joint blogs were created with the City of Perth to celebrate and promote Christmas and Lunar New Year.

·       To improve engagement and communication with local and small business (Action 2.4), the fifth and sixth editions of the Business E-Newsletter have been distributed to 590 local businesses.

·       To improve the customer service experience for businesses (Action 2.6), the ‘Start Your Business’ page was launched on the City’s website in December 2020. The page is a hub for all business approval requirements including Planning, Building, Health and Parklets.

·       To celebrate community resilience and build awareness of local community groups, volunteers and sporting clubs to increase participation and membership (Action 3.1), the development of a website based regular hirer events calendar has commenced.

·       To support community groups and sporting clubs to become more sustainable (Action 3.3), the City has been successful in obtaining $45,000, in grant funding, for club development from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries.

·       To provide opportunities to celebrate an inclusive and socially connected community (Action 3.5), the City completed the Kindness Project during Random Acts of Kindness Week 14-20 February 2021. The project involved teams across the City and included distributing kindness cards and messaging, flowers, Beatty Park passes, dog bag dispensers, Greening Vincent seed packs, cycle lights and reusable hampers to community members and undertaking planter box planting.

·       To provide economic stimulus and sustainably manage resources and assets (Action 4.3), the Beatty Park Leisure Centre filter plant replacement and tiling demolition works commenced 27 January 2021.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Rebound Plan will continue to be implemented in consultation with town team community and business representatives through the Rebound Roundtable.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to note the implementation of the actions identified in the Rebound Plan.

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.

 

Thriving Places

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

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

We encourage innovation in business, social enterprise and imaginative uses of space, both public and private.

 

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.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

On 18 August 2020, Council supported the ‘Statement of Principles’ announced by the Mayors of the C40 Climate Leadership Group with the goal to build a better, more sustainable, more resilient and fairer society out of the recovery from the COVID-19. The Rebound Plan has been considered against the Statement of Principles and has been found to be in alignment.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

 

Increased mental health and wellbeing

Mitigate the impact of public health emergencies

Financial/Budget Implications:

The Rebound Plan highlights existing budgeted services, projects and programs.

 

The actions listed in the Rebound Plan have all been accounted for through the City’s approved operational budget, capital budget and/or cash-in-lieu funds. The relevant funding allocations are referenced against each action in Attachment 1.

 

An amendment to the City’s Fees and Charges, to enable the Parklet Fee Free 24 month Trial, was approved by Council in November as part of the quarterly budget review.

 

Future initiatives and actions will be subject to Council consideration and/or external grant funding. External grant funding opportunities have and will continue to be sought as opportunities arise.

Comments:

Ongoing engagement with community and business representatives to guide the implementation of the Rebound Plan will support community reconnection, working towards creating more agile and resilient places, and provide ongoing support for businesses to thrive, diversify and start up. This will promote community ownership of the Rebound Plan and ensure it meets the needs and expectations of the community and businesses.

 


This page has been left blank intentionally.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       23 March 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        23 March 2021

PDF Creator 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

10          Infrastructure & Environment

10.1        Tender no IE105/2020 Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at City of Vincent Sites

Attachments:             1.       Confidential Attachment 1 Evaluation Worksheet - RFT IE105-2020 - Solar Panel RFT - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by DNX Energy Pty Ltd for Tender No. IE105/2020 for the Design, Supply & Installation of Solar Photovoltaic Systems at various City of Vincent sites.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the awarding of Tender No. IE105/2020 – Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at various City of Vincent facilities.

 

The contract between the successful Tenderer and the City will reserve the right for the City not to proceed with any individual installation if either budget approval is not obtained for the installation costs, or due to failure to reach agreement with the lessee in respect to the recouping of solar costs.

Background:

The City developed an Energy Management Plan in 2012 for the highest energy use sites owned and managed by the City. The Plan included recommendations for large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) installations at the Library and Local History Centre, Beatty Park Leisure Centre, Administration and Civic Centre and the Works Depot. These four installations were completed between 2019 and 2020 under phase 1 of the City’s Solar Program.

 

The primary objective of the solar program is to improve the environmental performance of the City’s buildings and facilities via onsite generation of renewable energy (in line with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024).

 

A secondary objective of the program is to generate direct energy cost savings at City-operated sites, which can be reinvested in future projects.

 

For leased facilities at which energy savings from solar are realised by the tenant, Administration proposes to recoup the cost of solar installations through the lease mechanism in the first instance. For this reason lease renewal date was one of the factors considered in prioritising the order of installations presented in this report. Where the leaseholder prefers to take responsibility for procurement and installation, a self-supporting loan mechanism may be offered as an alternative. Administration is currently developing a procedure to govern community funding requests via a self-supporting loan mechanism.

 

The phase 2 solar feasibility study completed in 2019/20 involved a first-pass screening of the City’s remaining 114 sites, some City-operated, others tenanted. This produced a shortlist of twelve (12) sites based on solar orientation (energy generation potential), annual electricity consumption and time of electricity use.

 

Only two City operated sites made it on the shortlist. The remainder did not meet the basic criteria for financial viability. Battery storage systems were considered as a means of improving these sites’ viability but were ultimately discarded as an option due to lengthy payback periods ranging from 14 to 23 years. With expected battery life being around 10 years, the addition of a battery would be counterproductive in terms of cost savings.

 

The shortlist of sites and solar feasibility study was presented to Council as part of the 2020/21 Budget process. As an outcome of the 2020/21 budget process, budget was approved for the installation of solar PV at the four sites listed for 2020/21 as set out in the table below. These sites are Mt Hawthorn Community Centre, North Perth Town Hall, Britannia Reserve Pavilion and Vincent Community Centre.

 

There is flexibility to review the order and priority of installations at sites scheduled for 2021/22 through the 2021/22 budget process.

 

Installation of solar PV in 2022/23 at the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries building located at 246 Vincent Street, Leederville is a condition of the new lease with the state government, which was negotiated and agreed on in 2020.

 

The table below shows the twelve shortlisted sites, along with additional details including lease renewal dates, cost of PV systems, who benefits from electricity cost savings and planned installation year:

 

Site

Estimated electricity cost saving

($/year)

Who saves $

Dates for lease renewal

Estimate Simple Payback period (years)

Cost ($)

Planned year to install

Mt Hawthorn Community Centre

1,300

City of Vincent

N/A

5.2

6,800

2020/21

North Perth Town Hall

1,230

City of Vincent

N/A

5.5

6,800

2020/21

Britannia Reserve  Pavilion (Leederville Cricket Club)

1,360

City of Vincent (90%)

Leederville Cricket Club (10%)

March 2022

5.0

6,800

2020/21

Vincent Community Centre (Bethanie)*

2,750

Bethanie

August 2025

5.7

15,500

2020/21

Loftus Recreation Centre (Belgravia Leisure)

22,427

Belgravia Leisure

December 2021

 

3.5

78,000

2021/22

ASeTTS Centre

3,420

 

ASeTTS

February 2023

4.7

16,000

2021/22

Robertson Park

(Including Tennis Centre)

4,588

 

Tennis West (60%)

City of Vincent (40%)

September 2021

5

23,000

2021/22

YMCA Building

5,166

YMCA

December 2024

4.5

23,000

2021/22

Leederville Childcare Centre

2,800

Leederville Childcare Centre

June 2024

5.5

15,500

2021/22

Forrest Park Croquet Club

1,300

Forrest Park Croquet Club

November 2021

5.2

6,800

2021/22

DLGSC Building

46,055

DLGSC

December 2029

2.4

112,000

2022/23

Dorrien Gardens

(Perth Soccer Club)**

8,775

Perth Soccer Club

December 2027

2.6

23,000

TBC*

 

*The Vincent Community Centre (Bethanie) is the only site proposed for installation of solar PV in 2020/21 which the City does not receive the direct benefit of the electricity savings. Administration will discuss the proposed installation with Bethanie and negotiate whether solar repayments can be made to compensate for the reduced utility costs payable by Bethanie following the installation. If an agreement with Bethanie is not reached the installation at this site will not proceed.

 

** Dorrien Gardens (Perth Soccer Club) was excluded from the scope of the phase 2 Solar Tender as the Club requested to procure and install its own PV system using a self-supporting loan to be provided by the City. The funds for the installation were approved by Council at its 17 November 2020 Meeting, as part of the mid year budget review.

Details:

Tender Advertising

 

The approved budget for the project in the 2020/2021 financial year is $110,000. As the proposed total budget for the three-year program of $481,000 exceeds $250,000, Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing requires an open public Tender process.

 

Under CEO Delegation 1.19, the Director Infrastructure and Environment approved the Procurement Plan, which included the following Evaluation Criteria:

 

Qualitative Criteria

Weighting

1.    Relevant Experience of the contractor

 

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

 

b.   Provide details of issues, if any that arose during the projects and how those issues were managed or resolved.

 

25%

2.    Key Personnel Skills and Experience

 

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

 

a.   Their role in the performance of the Contract;

 

b.   Resumes of key staff (including Subcontractors) inclusive of memberships of any professional or business associations, qualifications etc.

 

25%

3.    Demonstrated understanding of the Project & Project Methodology

 

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

b)    Proposed methodology for this project to be completed on time and within budget.

c)    Evidence of successful results.

d)    Understanding of the required service by identifying the key issues and risk associated with delivering the project. 

50%

 

The Request for Tender IE105/2020 was publicly advertised on 28 November 2020 and invited submissions until 22 December 2020.

 

At the close of the advertising period, 8 Tender responses were received from the following companies:

 

·       DNX Energy Pty Ltd;

·       Perdaman Advanced Energy Pty Ltd;

·       Eco-White Pty Ltd;

·       Future Bus (non-compliant);

·       Fos Electrical Pty Ltd;

·       Quality Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd;

·       Solargain PV Pty Ltd (conforming); and

·       Solargain PV Pty Ltd (alternative).

 


 

Tender Assessment

 

The Tenders were assessed by members of the Tender Evaluation Panel (below) and each Tender was assessed using the above Evaluation Criteria, with a scoring system being used as part of the assessment process.

 

Title

Role

Manager Engineering

Voting

Co-ordinator City Buildings

Voting

Sustainability & Innovation Advisor

Voting

Eco Advance Consultants

Technical Advice

(non-voting)

 

Evaluation

 

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

 

Company

Qualitative Score/100

Ranking

DNX Energy Pty Ltd

85

1

Eco-White Pty Ltd

71.25

2

Fos Electrical Pty Ltd

70

3

Solargain PV Pty Ltd (alternative)

67.5

4

Perdaman Advanced Energy Pty Ltd

67.5

4

Solargain PV Pty Ltd (conforming)

65

5

Quality Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd

20

6

 

Based on the evaluation panel discussion, the submission from DNX Energy Pty Ltd was the highest ranked submission against the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The Request for Tender IE105/2020 was advertised in the West Australian on 28 November 2020 and on both the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 28 November and 22 December 2020.

Legal/Policy:

·       Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995;

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

·       City of Vincent Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to approve a qualified contractor to undergo the specified works.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 


 

Innovative and Accountable

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

 

The City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 states:

 

1.3    Solar Photovoltaic Panel System Installation: Installation of large-scale solar photovoltaic panels at various sites.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Energy Use/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

 

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

This report has no implication on the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with this contract for the first year of the program would be met from the City’s 2020/2021 Annual Budget, which has an approved allocation of $110,000 to complete the project. The price of the recommended contractor was within the allocated budget for 2020/21 and well within the overall project budget of $481,000. All tender applicants were advised that future year installations are subject to budget approval and are therefore not guaranteed.

 

The Tenderer may request a reasonable variation to the fixed price for systems to be installed in the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 should there be a marked difference from the current Australian to US dollar exchange rate and/or STC price. The Tenderer must provide evidence, such as historical price charts, to substantiate this claim.

Comments:

The submission from DNX Energy Pty Ltd complies with all the Tender requirements, including demonstrated understanding of the project and project methodology, as well as demonstrating relevant experience, expertise and a qualified project team. The response included a well thought out project plan that included reasonable timeframes. The products chosen for the installations are fit for purpose.

 

Reference checks were conducted for DNX Energy Pty Ltd in relation to recent solar photovoltaic panel system installations and no issues were raised.

 

The Evaluation Panel recommends that DNX Energy Pty Ltd be accepted for Tender No. IE105/2020 as they presented the best overall value for money to the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      23 March 2021

10.2        Waste Strategy Project - 2 Bulk Hard Waste Options Appraisal

Attachments:             1.       Community Consultation Survey Results

2.       WMRC Verge Valet Presentation  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the feeback from the Community Consultation; and

2.       APPROVES:

2.1     the adoption of an 18 month trial of an on-request collection service (uncontained with a limited volume) from January 2022; and

2.2     one final scheduled collection in July 2021,

3.       NOTES that the costs of the final collection and the trial will be included in the annual budget for 2021/22 and the Long Term Financial Plan.

4.       NOTES that Administration will prepare a further report on the progress and the community feedback on the trial to be presented to Council in March 2023.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to:

 

·       provide results from the Community Consultation carried out in August 2020; and

·       present Administration’s recommendation for Council endorsement.

Background:

The City’s Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 has a Vision of “Zero waste to landfill by 2028”. The Strategy recognises the current collection methodology for bulk hard waste is very out dated and encourages the generation of waste.

 

During the bulk hard waste collection in February 2019, Council and City Administration received numerous complaints from the community, with concerns including:

 

·       thoughtless scavenging (often overnight), creating amenity and safety issues/concerns;

·       adverse impact on visual amenity – including ransacked piles and litter;

·       presentation time too long, leading to further illegal dumping on existing piles; and

·       verge access/obstruction issues.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 2 April 2019, Council approved a Notice of Motion for Administration to provide alternative options, including financial modelling.  Initial options and modelling was provided at the 25 June 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting.  The decision was that Council:

 

“1.      NOTES options presented for future hard waste (junk) services, resulting from a service review undertaken as part of Waste Strategy Project 2; and

 

2.       DOES NOT support Option One - Cease to Provide the Service;

 

3.       REQUESTS further investigation of options that may be more tailored to suit the City of Vincent community, including but not limited to:

 

3.1     maintenance of an annual service with inclusion of meaningful ways to achieve higher diversion from landfill and reduce amenity and verge obstruction issues;

 

3.2     more detailed free on-demand (on-request) services options, including consideration of neighbourhood or street based collection services; and

 

3.3     opportunities for recyclable and reusable goods to be offered for free on verges and/or timed to coincide with events linked to recycling, such as the Garage Sale Trail weekend;

 

4.       REQUESTS

 

4.1     that further refined options are presented to the Community Engagement Panel for feedback prior to community consultation and to inform development of the Public Engagement and Communications Strategy;

 

4.2     that the proposed detailed Public Engagement and Communications Strategy includes objectives and rationale for any change in service and is presented to Council with the refined options for bulk hard waste collection prior to community consultation; and

 

4.3     that procurement of a bulk hard waste service in February 2020 be undertaken, with a shorter bulk waste presentation period to minimise dumping, visual amenity and verge access issues.”

 

The postponed Bulk Hard Waste (Junk) Collection service completed in July 2020 incorporated the shorter presentation period in accordance with request item 4.3.

 

City Administration engaged the services of Talis Consultants, to assist with the provision of further refined options, including financial modelling. As part of this modelling, various scheduled and on-request collection scenarios were considered.

 

An outline of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the considered bulk waste options is summarised below.

 

Bulk Waste Collection Options - Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages

 

Type of collection – Scheduled

A scheduled collection, the existing service, involves the council and contractor working together to set dates for waste collection in each area. The households are informed of their collection date. Any compliant material placed on the verge prior to the scheduled date is collected. The existing service has minimal recovery of recyclables.  Materials are uncontained and have, historically, been permitted to be presented up to two weeks prior to collection.

Advantages

    Operational efficiencies – i.e. no booking system required, optimising collection runs.

    Equal service for all residents.

    Administration reduced through no booking system being required.

    Residents can plan for it.

Disadvantages

    Generates more waste and therefore generally higher cost and reduced landfill diversion.

    Set schedule/dates means that residents who are travelling/away will not be able to partake in the service. 

    Visual amenity affected by numerous properties presenting material at the verge over a number of weeks.

    Issues near council boundary due to different approaches to bulk waste collections, has resulted in illegal dumping near boundary and properties outside of the City putting bulk waste on their verges.

    Lack of space (verge) for some residents.

Type of collection – On-Request

 

On-request collections provide a convenient service, especially where there is a high renting population such as the City (where more than 1 in 3 households are renters - Profile id, 2016). This service involves the process of residents calling the council’s/contractor’s customer service unit (CSU) or requesting the service through an online portal. The anticipated wait time for residents may vary depending on a number of factors such as number of services available and seasonal demand variables (i.e. busy summers and quiet winters).

Advantages

    Reduces waste collected – moving towards the City’s zero waste Vision.

    Provides convenient timing for residents.

    Generates less waste and therefore less cost incurred by the City for management of waste materials.

    Provides interaction with the resident during booking to provide alternatives for reusable, repairable or recyclable items.

Disadvantages

    Additional administration for booking and database management.

    Can generate too many bookings for particular weeks and therefore not meet customer expectations of collection timing.

Scheduled – limit time material is presented

 

The service is scheduled, as with the existing service, however materials can be presented by residents on the verge no earlier than the weekend prior to collection to maintain the street front amenity and prevent illegal dumping. The City could enforce this by sending rangers to the scheduled areas prior to the collection week and issue notices/non-conformances to properties who have not complied with the time limit.

Advantages

    Improve street presentation.

    Reduces likelihood of illegal dumping.

Disadvantages

    Residents may not be home the weekend prior to their collection to place material out (within timeframe).

    Additional council resources required to enforce time limit for material presentation.

Scheduled – limit volume and time materials are presented

 

The WALGA Better Practice Vergeside Collection Guidelines encourage councils to move towards a 2m3 volume allowance.  Introducing a limit by number of items could also be considered, whilst still maintaining a scheduled service. The City could enforce this by sending rangers to the scheduled areas prior to the collection days and examine the presented waste. Notices / non-conformances could then be issued to properties who have not complied with the volume/number of items requirements. Alternatively, upon collection, the council/contractor can make a “judgement call” as to whether the property has exceeded the volumetric requirements and collect the allotted amount, leaving excess waste and leaving notice for the property.

Advantages

    Reduces waste tonnage.

    Improves street presentation.

    Provides more equity in the service.

Disadvantages

    Likelihood that households will still exceed the collection volume and the enforcement, clean up following the service will increase.

    Residents may not be able to present large bulky items out within timeframe.

    Additional council resources required to enforce volume limits.

Scheduled – maintain limit of 1 collection

Many councils currently offer one scheduled collection per year including:

 

    Town of Bassendean;

    City of Fremantle;

    City of Melville; and

    City of South Perth.

This has been reduced from two services per year in some cases.

Advantages

    One collection provides an affordable, fair service for all residents without generating excess waste.

    Operational efficiencies i.e. no booking system required, optimising collection runs.

Disadvantages

    More services (i.e. higher participation) result in more waste therefore not consistent with the City’s vision of zero waste to landfill.

    If residents are away or move into a property after the annual service date, they effectively do not get a collection for the year.

On-request Skip Bin – limit volume and time materials are presented

 

The WALGA Better Practice Vergeside Collection Guidelines encourage councils to move towards a 2m3 volume allowance.  A limit by number of items or containing the material within a skip bin could also be considered. Most on-request skip bin services limit the time that the skip bin is on a property to 2 business days.

Advantages

    Reduce waste tonnages with lower participation rate.

    Provide more equity in the service.

Disadvantages

    Likelihood that households will still overflow skip bins, which will result in an increase in administration to contact residents.

    Potential for other residents to dispose of waste, including non-compliant waste, in skip bins not allocated to them. However, this risk could be reduced by also limiting the time the skip bin is left with a resident.

    Lack of street frontage to place skip bins, affecting footpaths, parking and placement of other bins.

On-request Skip Bin – charge per service

 

There is an option to move towards a user pays system, particularly for on-request services.

Advantages

    Discourages use of the service, therefore reduces waste tonnages and increases waste diversion rates.

    User pays service, only residents that use the service pay for it.

Disadvantages

    Increases administration.

    True cost of service may be difficult to project as uptake would be unknown.

    Potential for increase in incidence of illegally dumped waste.

    Not enough verge space at some residences, or clearance for collection vehicles for truck to safely deliver and service the vehicle via hook lift truck.

On-request Skip Bin – include in rates (‘no charge’)

 

Most councils include the bulk waste service within their rates charge.

Advantages

    Only motivated residents book ahead, therefore reduces waste tonnages and increases waste diversion rates.

    Ease of administration without needing to collect a payment.

    Equal charge for all households.

Disadvantages

    Not a user pays system, therefore, ratepayers that don’t use the service are subsidising others.

    Not enough verge space at some residences, or clearance for collection vehicles for truck to safely deliver and service the vehicle via hook lift truck.

On-request – Uncontained (2m3) – charge per service

 

Some councils have moved away from skip bins and returned to uncontained services but as an on-request collection service. This type of service usually limits the volume of materials able to be presented and the time materials are allowed to be presented prior to collection.

Advantages

     Only motivated residents book ahead, therefore reduces waste tonnages and increases waste diversion rates.

     User pays service, only residents that use the service pay for it.

     Less street frontage and overhead lift/parking clearance required than skip bins.

     Fewer vehicle movements required to deliver and service the material

Disadvantages

     Increases administration.

     True cost of service may be difficult to project as uptake would be unknown.

     Potential for increase in incidence of illegally dumped waste.

On-request – Uncontained (2m3) – included in rates (‘no charge’)

 

Whilst the WALGA guidelines encourage a move towards 2m3, where volumes have previously been unlimited, a more conservative 3m3 restriction would be the best initial option, and easier to implement and enforce.  Many other WA local governments who have implemented an on request systems (loose or contained) have enforced a 3m3 restriction.

Advantages

    Only motivated residents book ahead, therefore reduces waste tonnages and increases waste diversion rates.

    Reduced administration in fee collection.

    Equal charge for all households.

    Less street frontage and overhead/parking clearance required than skip bins.

    Fewer vehicle movements required to deliver and service the material.

Disadvantages

    Not a user pays system, therefore, ratepayers that don’t use the service are subsidising others.

On-request – Flexible service Optional Skip Bin/Uncontained and Waste voucher included in rates

 

A handful of councils offer residents the option of an on-request skip bin or waste voucher to self-haul their waste.

Advantages

    Provides flexibility in service offering for residents who are unable to self-haul their waste.

    Discourages use of the service, therefore reduces waste tonnages and increases waste diversion rates.

    Increased administration.

Disadvantages

    Not a user pays system, therefore, ratepayers that don’t use the service are subsidising others.

    Likely to be significantly more costly than other options due to requirement to subsidise waste vouchers.

On-request – Uncontained, charity partnership

 

The City could look to engage in a partnership arrangement with a charity, or charities, to collect suitable, resalable items put out for collection prior to the contractor undertaking collections. This type of service would work best with an uncontained, rather than skip bin, on-request service – facilitating charities to easily view what has been presented when they arrive at properties and collect suitable items. There would be benefits in including limits of time items can be presented to reduce the time items are left on the verge.

Advantages

    Provides flexibility in service offering for residents who are unable to self-haul their waste.

    Encourage additional diversion of waste from landfill with charity involvement.

Disadvantages

    Cost prohibitive.

    Increased administration for bookings and collections.

    Uncertainty of degree of waste diversion from this type of service.

    Historically charity take up of this option is low as shopfront charities require quality goods.

    Time consuming engaging with charities to find the right fit.

    Contractually challenging.