12 February 2016 - Agenda - No 147

Transcription

Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel
Agenda
Meeting Date and Time:
Meeting Number:
Meeting Venue:
12 February 2016; 2pm
MCJDAP/147
City of Bayswater
61 Broun Avenue
Morley
Attendance
DAP Members
Mr Charles Johnson (Presiding Member)
Mr Ian Birch (A/Deputy Presiding Member)
Mr Luigi D’Alessandro (Specialist Member)
Cr Chris Cornish (Local Government Member, City of Bayswater)
Cr Terry Kenyon (Local Government Member, City of Bayswater)
Officers in attendance
Ms Helen Smith (City of Bayswater)
Ms Bianca Sandri (City of Bayswater)
Local Government Minute Secretary
Ms Siiri Clausnitzer (City of Bayswater)
Applicants and Submitters
Ms Belinda Moharich (Moharich and More)
Dr Mark Doyle
Ms Jacquie Kelly
Mr Andrew Watt
Mr Jack Vanderkkau
Mr Greg Warne
Mr Greg Da Rui
Ms Emily McLean
Ms Linda Slater
Mr Phil Slater
Mr Marko Vojkovic
Mr Keith Clements
Mr Greg Smith
Ms Alanah MacTiernan MHR
Ms Ruth Kelly
Mr Jonathan Harris (Harris Architects)
Mr Chris Swiderski (Flyt)
Members of the Public
Nil
Version: 3
Page 1
1.
Declaration of Opening
The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the past
and present traditional owners and custodians of the land on which the meeting
is being held.
2.
Apologies
Mr Christopher Antill (Deputy Presiding Member)
3.
Members on Leave of Absence
Nil
4.
Noting of Minutes
Note the Minutes of the Metro Central meeting No.144 held on the
22 January 2016 and meeting No.145 held on the 27 January 2016.
The Minutes of the Metro Central Meeting No.146 held on 2 February 2016
were not available at time of Agenda preparation.
5.
Declarations of Due Consideration
Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other
information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that
fact before the meeting considers the matter.
6.
Disclosure of Interests
Member/Officer
Mr Luigi D’Alessandro
7.
Report Item Nature of Interest
10.1
Impartiality Interest – Mr
D’Alessandro is a consultant of
Peet Ltd and Mr Burton (Director of
Yolk) is also a consulant of Peet
Ltd. Mr D’Alessandro and Mr
Burton do not work on the same
projects or attend Peet offices at
the same time.
Deputations and Presentations
7.1
Dr Mark Doyle presenting against the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will summarise concerns of the community.
7.2
Dr Jacquie Kelly presenting against the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will discuss the heritage elements.
7.3
Mr Keith Clements presenting against the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will give a pictorial representation of the impact of the
proposed development on the town centre.
7.4
Mr Greg Smith presenting against the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will speak against the proposed development.
Version: 3
Page 2
8.
7.5
Ms Alannah MacTiernan MHR presenting against the application at Item
10.1. The presentation will address concerns with the unjustified
variations to prescribed maximums set in SCA 12.
7.6
Ms Ruth Kelly presenting against the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will speak against the proposed development.
7.7
Mr Andrew Watt and Mr Jack Vanderklau presenting for the application
at Item 10.1. The presentation will discuss the urgent need of
regeneration of the area.
7.8
Mr Gary Warne (Carters Real Estate Bayswater) presenting for the
application at Item 10.1. The presentation will speak for the proposed
development.
7.9
Mr Greg Da Rui (Bayswater Village Retailers Association) presenting for
the application at Item 10.1. The presentation will speak for the
proposed development.
7.10
Mr Marko Vojkovic presenting for the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will speak for the proposed development
7.11
Mr Phil and Linda Slater presenting for the application at Item 10.1. The
presentation will speak for the proposed development.
7.12
Ms Emily McLean (on behalf of Paul Shanahan) presenting for the
application at Item 10.1. The presentation will for the proposed
development.
7.13
Ms Linda Slater (on behalf of Ms Michelle Prior) presenting for the
application at Item 10.1. The presentation will outline the need for
housing diversity in Bayswater.
7.14
Mr Jonathan Harris (Harris Architects) presenting for the application at
Item 10.1. The presentation will outline the architectural amendments
to the building design.
7.15
Mr Chris Swiderski (Flyt) presenting for the application at Item 10.1.
The presentation will discuss the benefits of the transit orientated
development.
7.16
Ms Belinda Moharich (Moharich and More) presenting for the
application at Item 10.1. The presentation will for the proposed
development.
Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Application
Nil
Version: 3
Page 3
9.
Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports - Amending or cancelling DAP
development approval
Nil
10.
Appeals to the State Administrative Tribunal
10.1
Property Location:
Application Details:
Applicant:
Owner:
Responsible authority:
DoP File No:
11.
Lots 40 and 41, 9 and 11 King William Street,
Bayswater
Proposed 27 Multiple Dwellings, Two
Restaurants and Associated Car Parking - State
Administrative Tribunal Review/Appeal Section
31 Reconsideration
Peter Adams
Yolk Development Fund No. 5 Pty Ltd
Local Government - City of Bayswater
DAP/15/00861
General Business / Meeting Closure
Version: 3
Page 4
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
Minutes of the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment
Panel
Meeting Number:
Meeting Venue:
Friday, 22 January 2016; 3.30pm
MCJDAP/144
City of Melville
10 Almondbury Road
BOORAGOON WA 6154
Attendance
DAP Members
Mr Ian Birch (Acting Deputy Presiding Member)
Cr Cameron Schuster (Local Government Member, City of Melville)
Cr Nicole Foxton (Local Government Member, City of Melville)
Mr Peter Prendergast (City of Melville)
Mr Matthew Cosson (City of Melville)
Local Government Minute Secretary
Ms Antonetta Papalia (City of Melville)
Ms Lucy Barrett (City of Melville)
Tuscom Subdivision Consultants
Nil
1.
The Presiding Member, Mr Charles Johnson declared the meeting open at
3:34pm on 22 January 2016 and acknowledged the past and present traditional
owners and custodians of the land on which the meeting was being held.
2.
Apologies
Mr Charles Johnson
Presiding Member, Metro Central JDAP
Page 1
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
3.
Members on Leave of absence
4.
Nil
Noting of minutes
Minutes of the Metro Central meeting No.142 held on 6 January 2016 were noted
by DAP members.
5.
Declaration of Due Consideration
All members declared that they had duly considered the documents.
6.
Disclosure of interests
Nil
7.
Deputations and presentations
Mr Matthew Cosson (City of Melville) address the DAP for Item 10.1.
8.
Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications
Nil
9.
Nil
10.
10.1
Property Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Responsible Authority:
DoP File No:
Moved by: Mr Ian Birch
Lot 467 (No. 64) & Lot 466 (No. 66) Tain Street
Ardross 6153
Four Storey Development compromising 22
Multiple Dwellings
Tuscom Subdivision Consultants Pty Ltd
Tain 66 Pty Ltd ATF Tain 66 Unit Trust
City of Melville
DAP/15/0800
Seconded by: Mr Luigi D’Alessandro
REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION
That the Metro Central, pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal
Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 344 of 2015, resolves to:
Reconsider its decision dated 9 September 2015 and approve DAP Application
reference DAP/15/00800 and amended plans A02.01G, A02.02G, A02.03G,
A02.04D, A02.05B, A04.01F and A04.02F in accordance with the City of Melville
Community Planning Scheme No. 5, subject to the following conditions:
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 2
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
Conditions
1. All stormwater generated on site is to be retained on site.
2. Directional signage shall be provided to enable the safe and efficient movement
of pedestrians within the development to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory
Planning.
3. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, all parking bays (including 6
visitor bays), manoeuvring areas, driveway/s and points of ingress and egress
shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the
Manager Statutory Planning. The bays shall thereafter be retained for the life of
the development.
4. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the bicycle parking facilities (as
marked on the approved plans) shall be provided in accordance with Australian
Standard AS 2890.3 to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning. The
facilities shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development.
5. Each set of the approved tandem car parking bays are to be allocated for use by
a single residence to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
6. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, all unused crossovers shall be
removed and the kerbing and road verge reinstated at the owners cost to the
satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
7. The development shall be serviced by a concrete or brick paved vehicle
crossover with a maximum width of 6m and located a minimum of 2m away from
the outside of the trunk of any street tree and 1m from other existing verge
infrastructure. The crossover is to be constructed prior to the initial occupation of
the development in accordance with the City’s specifications to the satisfaction of
the Manager Statutory Planning.
8. No development (including fencing, letter boxes or any other structure) or
landscaping over 0.6m in height is to be located within the 1.5m x 1.5m sightline
truncation where the vehicle access point meets the road reserve to the
9. Any street walls and fences (including the height of any retaining walls)
constructed within the front setback area shall be visually permeable 1.2m above
natural ground level and are to satisfy Clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential
Development policy to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
10. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the opening along the Western
side of the Living Room of Unit 14 (as marked in RED on the approved plans)
shall have installed, fixed obscure screening to a minimum height of 1.6 metres
above the finished floor level, or any other screening alternative that complies
with the purpose and intent of C1.1 or C1.2 of Clause 6.4.1 (for Multiple
Dwellings) of the Residential Design Codes. The screening measures must
thereafter be retained in perpetuity to the ongoing satisfaction of the Manager
Statutory Planning.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 3
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
11. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the surface finish of the
boundary walls are to be finished externally to the same standard as the rest of
the development to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
12. Any roof mounted or freestanding plant or equipment shall be located and/or
screened from the surrounding street(s) prior to the initial occupation of the
development to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
13. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the exterior colours, materials
and finishes are to be submitted and approved in writing to the satisfaction of the
Manager Statutory Planning. Once approved, the development is to be
constructed in accordance with those details.
14. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the external surface of the
retaining walls which are visible from the adjoining properties are to be finished to
the same standard as the rest of the development to the satisfaction of the
Manager Statutory Planning.
15. Prior to the commencement of works, the street tree to be retained within the
verge is to be protected through the installation of a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).
Each TPZ is to be installed as per Australian Standard AS4970-2009 and in
accordance with the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory
Planning:
•
•
•
•
•
A free-standing mesh fence erected around each street tree with a
minimum height of 1.8m and a 2m minimum radius measured from the
outside of the trunk of each tree.
If an approved crossover, front fence, footpath, road or similar is located
within the 2m radius, the TPZ fencing shall be amended to be the
minimum distance necessary to allow the works to be completed.
Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPZ fencing
clearly stating ‘Tree Protection Zone – No Entry’.
The following actions shall not be undertaken within any TPZ:
- Storage of materials, equipment fuel, oil dumps or chemicals
- Servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles
- Attachment of any device to any tree (including signage, temporary
service wires, nails, screws, winches or any other fixing device)
- Open-cut trenching or excavation works (whether or not for laying of
services)
- Changes to the natural ground level of the verge
- Location of any temporary buildings including portable toilets
- The unauthorised entry by any person, vehicle or machinery
No unauthorised pruning of the canopy or roots of any Street Tree is
permissible under the City of Melville’s Street Tree Policy CP-029.
Pruning may only be undertaken by the City’s approved contractors
following a written submission to and approval by the City.
Once erected to the required standard, the TPZ shall be maintained in good condition
to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning and may only be removed upon
occupation of the development.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 4
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
16. All external clothes drying facilities shall be screened from view of the street to
the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
17. Prior to commencement of works, a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan for
the subject site and the road verge adjacent to the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Manager Statutory Planning. The landscaping plan is
to include details of (but not limited to):
a) Location of bin collection point within the verge;
b) The location, number and type of proposed trees and shrubs including
planter size and planting density;
c) Any lawns to be established;
d) Any existing vegetation and/or landscaped areas to be retained; and
e) Any verge treatments
The approved landscaping and reticulation plan shall be fully implemented within the
first available planting season after the initial occupation of the development and
maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning. Any
species which fail to establish within the first two planting seasons following
implementation shall be replaced in accordance with the City’s requirements.
18. Prior to the initial occupation of the development, a Waste Management Plan
shall be prepared in accordance with Council Policy CP–090: Waste and
Recyclables Collection for Multiple Dwellings, Mixed Use Developments and NonResidential Developments and submitted in writing for the approval of the
constructed and operated in accordance with the Waste Management Plan to the
19. Prior to the commencement of works, a scheme for the provision of Public Art
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Statutory Planning
in consultation with the City’s Public Art Panel. Once approved, the Public Art
shall be provided in accordance with Council Policy – 085: Provision of Art in
Development Proposals prior to the initial occupation of the development to the
satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning. Alternatively, the public art
contribution may be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu payment at the same rate, made
prior to the commencement of works.
20. Temporary structures, such as prefabricated or demountable offices, portable
toilets and skip bins necessary to facilitate storage, administration and
construction activities are permitted to be installed within the property boundaries
of the subject site(s) for the duration of the construction period. These structures
are to be located so not to obstruct vehicle sight lines of the subject site, the
adjacent road network or of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the
Manager Statutory Planning and are to be removed prior to initial occupation of
the development.
21. A Construction Management Plan is to be prepared by the Applicant and
submitted to the Manager Statutory Planning for approval at least 30 days prior to
the commencement of works. The Construction Management Plan shall detail
how the construction of the development will be managed including the following:
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 5
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
public safety and site security;
hours of operation,
noise and vibration controls;
air and dust management;
stormwater, groundwater and sediment control;
waste and material disposal;
traffic management plans for the various phases of the construction,
including any proposed road closures;
the parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors;
on-site delivery times and access arrangements;
the storage of materials and equipment on site (no storage of materials
on the verge will be permitted) ; and
any other matters likely to impact upon the surrounding properties or road
reserve.
Once approved, the development is to be constructed in accordance with the
Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory
Planning.
AMENDING MOTION
Seconded by: Mr Cameron Schuster
To amend Condition 5 to read:
5. Prior to the initial occupation of the development a parking management plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Manager Statutory Planning including the
provision of approved tandem car parking bays being allocated for use by the
single residences.
REASON: To ensure effective management of car parking on site and provide clarity
on how it is addressed.
The Amending Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRIMARY MOTION (AS AMENDED)
That the Metro Central, pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal
Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 344 of 2015, resolves to:
Reconsider its decision dated 9 September 2015 and approve DAP Application
reference DAP/15/00800 and amended plans A02.01G, A02.02G, A02.03G,
A02.04D, A02.05B, A04.01F and A04.02F in accordance with the City of Melville
Community Planning Scheme No. 5, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1.
All stormwater generated on site is to be retained on site.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 6
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
2.
Directional signage shall be provided to enable the safe and efficient movement
of pedestrians within the development to the satisfaction of the Manager
Statutory Planning.
3.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, all parking bays (including 6
visitor bays), manoeuvring areas, driveway/s and points of ingress and egress
shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of
the Manager Statutory Planning. The bays shall thereafter be retained for the
life of the development.
4.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the bicycle parking facilities
(as marked on the approved plans) shall be provided in accordance with
Australian Standard AS 2890.3 to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory
Planning. The facilities shall thereafter be retained for the life of the
development.
5.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development a parking management plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Manager Statutory Planning including
the provision of approved tandem car parking bays being allocated for use by
the single residences.
6.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, all unused crossovers shall
be removed and the kerbing and road verge reinstated at the owners cost to
7.
The development shall be serviced by a concrete or brick paved vehicle
crossover with a maximum width of 6m and located a minimum of 2m away
from the outside of the trunk of any street tree and 1m from other existing verge
infrastructure. The crossover is to be constructed prior to the initial occupation
of the development in accordance with the City’s specifications to the
8.
No development (including fencing, letter boxes or any other structure) or
landscaping over 0.6m in height is to be located within the 1.5m x 1.5m
sightline truncation where the vehicle access point meets the road reserve to
9.
Any street walls and fences (including the height of any retaining walls)
constructed within the front setback area shall be visually permeable 1.2m
above natural ground level and are to satisfy Clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential
Development policy to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
10.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the opening along the
Western side of the Living Room of Unit 14 (as marked in RED on the
approved plans) shall have installed, fixed obscure screening to a minimum
height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level, or any other screening
alternative that complies with the purpose and intent of C1.1 or C1.2 of Clause
6.4.1 (for Multiple Dwellings) of the Residential Design Codes. The screening
measures must thereafter be retained in perpetuity to the ongoing satisfaction
of the Manager Statutory Planning.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 7
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
11.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the surface finish of the
boundary walls are to be finished externally to the same standard as the rest of
the development to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning.
12.
Any roof mounted or freestanding plant or equipment shall be located and/or
screened from the surrounding street(s) prior to the initial occupation of the
13.
Prior to the commencement of works, details of the exterior colours, materials
and finishes are to be submitted and approved in writing to the satisfaction of
the Manager Statutory Planning. Once approved, the development is to be
constructed in accordance with those details.
14.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, the external surface of the
retaining walls which are visible from the adjoining properties are to be finished
to the same standard as the rest of the development to the satisfaction of the
Manager Statutory Planning.
15.
Prior to the commencement of works, the street tree to be retained within the
verge is to be protected through the installation of a Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ). Each TPZ is to be installed as per Australian Standard AS4970-2009
and in accordance with the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Manager
Statutory Planning:
•
•
•
•
•
A free-standing mesh fence erected around each street tree with a
minimum height of 1.8m and a 2m minimum radius measured from the
outside of the trunk of each tree.
If an approved crossover, front fence, footpath, road or similar is located
within the 2m radius, the TPZ fencing shall be amended to be the
minimum distance necessary to allow the works to be completed.
Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPZ fencing
clearly stating ‘Tree Protection Zone – No Entry’.
The following actions shall not be undertaken within any TPZ:
Storage of materials, equipment fuel, oil dumps or chemicals
Servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles
Attachment of any device to any tree (including signage, temporary
service wires, nails, screws, winches or any other fixing device)
Open-cut trenching or excavation works (whether or not for laying
of services)
Changes to the natural ground level of the verge
Location of any temporary buildings including portable toilets
The unauthorised entry by any person, vehicle or machinery
No unauthorised pruning of the canopy or roots of any Street Tree is
permissible under the City of Melville’s Street Tree Policy CP-029.
Pruning may only be undertaken by the City’s approved contractors
following a written submission to and approval by the City.
Once erected to the required standard, the TPZ shall be maintained in good
condition to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning and may only be
removed upon occupation of the development.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 8
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
16.
All external clothes drying facilities shall be screened from view of the street to
17.
Prior to commencement of works, a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan
for the subject site and the road verge adjacent to the site shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Manager Statutory Planning. The landscaping
plan is to include details of (but not limited to):
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Location of bin collection point within the verge;
The location, number and type of proposed trees and shrubs including
planter size and planting density;
Any lawns to be established;
Any existing vegetation and/or landscaped areas to be retained; and
Any verge treatments
The approved landscaping and reticulation plan shall be fully implemented
within the first available planting season after the initial occupation of the
development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Manager
Statutory Planning. Any species which fail to establish within the first two
planting seasons following implementation shall be replaced in accordance with
the City’s requirements.
18.
Prior to the initial occupation of the development, a Waste Management Plan
shall be prepared in accordance with Council Policy CP–090: Waste and
Recyclables Collection for Multiple Dwellings, Mixed Use Developments and
Non-Residential Developments and submitted in writing for the approval of the
constructed and operated in accordance with the Waste Management Plan to
19.
Prior to the commencement of works, a scheme for the provision of Public Art
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Statutory
Planning in consultation with the City’s Public Art Panel. Once approved, the
Public Art shall be provided in accordance with Council Policy – 085: Provision
of Art in Development Proposals prior to the initial occupation of the
Alternatively, the public art contribution may be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu
payment at the same rate, made prior to the commencement of works.
20.
Temporary structures, such as prefabricated or demountable offices, portable
toilets and skip bins necessary to facilitate storage, administration and
construction activities are permitted to be installed within the property
boundaries of the subject site(s) for the duration of the construction period.
These structures are to be located so not to obstruct vehicle sight lines of the
subject site, the adjacent road network or of adjoining properties to the
satisfaction of the Manager Statutory Planning and are to be removed prior to
initial occupation of the development.
21.
A Construction Management Plan is to be prepared by the Applicant and
submitted to the Manager Statutory Planning for approval at least 30 days prior
to the commencement of works. The Construction Management Plan shall
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 9
Meeting No.144
22 January 2016
detail how the construction of the development will be managed including the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
public safety and site security;
hours of operation,
noise and vibration controls;
air and dust management;
stormwater, groundwater and sediment control;
waste and material disposal;
traffic management plans for the various phases of the construction,
including any proposed road closures;
the parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors;
on-site delivery times and access arrangements;
the storage of materials and equipment on site (no storage of materials
on the verge will be permitted) ; and
any other matters likely to impact upon the surrounding properties or road
reserve.
Once approved, the development is to be constructed in accordance with the
Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Statutory
Planning.
The Primary Motion (as amended) was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11.
General Business / Meeting Close
There being no further business, the presiding member declared the meeting
closed at 4:05pm.
Mr Charles Johnson
Page 10
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
Minutes of the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment
Panel
Meeting Number:
Meeting Venue:
27 January 2016; 2pm
MCJDAP/145
Department of Planning
140 William Street
Perth
Attendance
DAP Members
Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member)
Mayor Phil Marks (Local Government Member, City of Belmont)
Cr Robert Rossi (Local Government Member, City of Belmont)
Mr Simon Peters (City of Belmont)
Mr Wilmot Loh (City of Belmont)
Department of Planning Minute Secretary
Ms Zoe Hendry (DAP Secretariat)
Ms Colleen Thompson (GHD)
Mr Paul Rokich (GHD)
Nil
1.
The Presiding Member, Mr Ian Birch declared the meeting open at 2pm on 27
January 2016 and acknowledged the past and present traditional owners and
custodians of the land on which the meeting was being held.
The Presiding Member announced the meeting would be run in accordance with
the Development Assessment Panel Standing Orders 2012 under the Planning
and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 1
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
The Presiding Member advised that the meeting is being audio recorded in
accordance with Section 5.16 of the Standing Orders 2012; No Recording of
Meeting, which states: 'A person must not use any electronic, visual or audio
recording device or instrument to record the proceedings of the DAP meeting
unless the Presiding Member has given permission to do so.' The Presiding
Member granted permission for the minute taker to record proceedings for the
purpose of the minutes only.
2.
Apologies
3.
Members on Leave of absence
Nil
4.
Noting of minutes
Minutes of the Metro Central JDAP meeting no.142 held on 6 January 2016 were
noted by DAP members.
Minutes of the Metro Central JDAP meeting no.143 held on 18 January 2016 and
meeting no.144 held on 22 January 2016 were not available for noting at the time
of meeting.
5.
Declaration of Due Consideration
All members declared that they had duly considered the documents.
6.
Disclosure of interests
Nil
7.
8.
8.1
Deputations and presentations
7.1
Mr Simon Peters (City of Belmont) addressed the DAP for the application at
Item 8.1. Mr Peters answered questions from the panel.
7.2
Ms Colleen Thompson and Mr Paul Rokich (GHD) answered questions from
the panel.
Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Application
Property Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Responsible authority:
DoP File No:
Mr Ian Birch
Lot 551 (543-549) Abernethy Road
Addition of 2 Bulk Storage Tanks to existing Fuel
Depot and Truck Stop
GHD acting on behalf of BP Australia.
BP Australia
City of Belmont
DAP/15/00899
Page 2
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION
Seconded by: Mr Luigi D’Alessandro
That the Metro Central JDAP resolves to:
Approve DAP Application reference DP/15/00899 and accompanying plans
contained in Attachment 1 in accordance with the provisions of the City of Belmont’s
Local Planning Scheme No. 15, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1.
The development plans, as dated marked and stamped “Development
Assessment Panels Approved”, together with any requirements and
annotations detailed thereon, are the plans approved as part of this
application and shall form part of the planning approval issued.
2.
The applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Management Plan to
the satisfaction of the City prior to commencement of any site works or
construction associated with the development.
3.
All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and disposed
of via a piped connection to the existing system on the site in accordance with
the City of Belmont’s engineering requirements and design guidelines. Any
existing drains, drainage pits and soakwells shall be maintained in a clean
and clear condition free from obstruction.
4.
Prior to the use of the development, the applicant shall submit a plan detailing
the relocation of the two truck bays to be lost by the proposed re-alignment of
the fence to another location within the application site. The proposed bays
are to be marked on site and maintained in accordance with the City’s
engineering requirements.
5.
Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall liaise with Watercorp
and establish if any modifications to the existing Watercorp drainage
infrastructure are required to the satisfaction of the Watercorp.
6.
Prior to the issue of a building permit a plan detailing the dimensions,
materials for the re-alignment of the internal fence shall be submitted and
approved by the City.
Any barbed wire shall be:
a) Carried by posts at an angel of 45 degrees with the bottom row of wire
setback 150mm from the face of the fence, and
b) Not nearer than 2000mm from ground level.
7.
Prior to the commencement of the use, a safety management plan for the site
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 3
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
Advice notes
1.
The Department of Environment have advised that due to the presence of
groundwater contamination beneath the site, a site-specific health and safety
plan should be developed and implemented to address the risks the health of
any workers undertaking intrusive works.
2.
The use of cranes during the construction of the proposed development is to
be referred to Perth Airport for assessment to ensure there are no incursions
into protected airspace. Further information is provided on the Perth Airport
Website: http://www.perthairport.com.au/AboutUs/AirspaceProtection.aspx
3.
A planning approval is not an approval to commence any works associated
with the development.
A Building Permit must be obtained prior to
commencement of any site and building works. Please liaise with the City’s
Building Services Department to ascertain the requirements for a building
permit to be issued.
4.
The applicant is advised that the current truck parking arrangements at the
truck stop do not comply with condition 3 of planning approval 207/1999. The
applicant is advised to make a separate application to amend planning
approval 207/1999 with regard to the number of car bays, truck bays and road
train bays provided at the truck stop site.
5.
The applicant is advised that the Department of Mines and Petroleum will
require an amendment to the existing dangerous goods site licence for the
site.
AMENDING MOTION
Moved by: Mayor Phil Marks
Seconded by: Cr Robert Rossi
7.
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City to include the consideration of
any advice from Perth Airport, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory
Group (NASAG), Department of Mines & Petroleum and the Department of
Environmental Regulation.
REASON: To seek input from relevant regulatory agencies.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 4
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
AMENDING MOTION
Moved by: Mr Luigi D’Alessandro
Seconded by: Mr Ian Birch
5.
Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a stormwater
management plan to cater for runoff from the additional tanks, to the
satisfaction of the City on the advice from Watercorp.
REASON: For clarity as to responsibility for clearing the condition.
PRIMARY MOTION (AS AMENDED)
That the Metro Central JDAP resolves to:
Approve DAP Application reference DP/15/00899 and accompanying plans
contained in Attachment 1 in accordance with the provisions of the City of Belmont’s
Local Planning Scheme No. 15, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1.
The development plans, as dated marked and stamped “Development
Assessment Panels Approved”, together with any requirements and
annotations detailed thereon, are the plans approved as part of this application
and shall form part of the planning approval issued.
2.
The applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Management Plan to the
satisfaction of the City prior to commencement of any site works or construction
associated with the development.
3.
All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and disposed of
via a piped connection to the existing system on the site in accordance with the
City of Belmont’s engineering requirements and design guidelines. Any existing
drains, drainage pits and soakwells shall be maintained in a clean and clear
condition free from obstruction.
4.
Prior to the use of the development, the applicant shall submit a plan detailing
the relocation of the two truck bays to be lost by the proposed re-alignment of
the fence to another location within the application site. The proposed bays are
to be marked on site and maintained in accordance with the City’s engineering
requirements.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 5
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
5.
Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a stormwater
management plan to cater for runoff from the additional tanks, to the
satisfaction of the City on the advice from Watercorp
6.
Prior to the issue of a building permit a plan detailing the dimensions, materials
for the re-alignment of the internal fence shall be submitted and approved by
the City.
Any barbed wire shall be:
c) Carried by posts at an angel of 45 degrees with the bottom row of wire
setback 150mm from the face of the fence, and
d) Not nearer than 2000mm from ground level.
7.
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City to include the consideration of
any advice from Perth Airport, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory
Group (NASAG), Department of Mines & Petroleum and the Department of
Environmental Regulation.
Advice notes
1.
The Department of Environment have advised that due to the presence of
groundwater contamination beneath the site, a site-specific health and safety
plan should be developed and implemented to address the risks the health of
any workers undertaking intrusive works.
2.
The use of cranes during the construction of the proposed development is to be
referred to Perth Airport for assessment to ensure there are no incursions into
protected airspace. Further information is provided on the Perth Airport
Website: http://www.perthairport.com.au/AboutUs/AirspaceProtection.aspx
3.
A planning approval is not an approval to commence any works associated with
the development. A Building Permit must be obtained prior to commencement
of any site and building works. Please liaise with the City’s Building Services
Department to ascertain the requirements for a building permit to be issued.
4.
The applicant is advised that the current truck parking arrangements at the
truck stop do not comply with condition 3 of planning approval 207/1999. The
applicant is advised to make a separate application to amend planning
approval 207/1999 with regard to the number of car bays, truck bays and road
train bays provided at the truck stop site.
The applicant is advised that the Department of Mines and Petroleum will require an
amendment to the existing dangerous goods site licence for the site.
The Primary Motion (as amended) was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 6
Meeting No.145
27 January 2016
9.
Nil
10.
The following State Administrative Tribunal Application has been received:

11.
City of South Perth - Nine Storeys plus Basement Mixed Development Lots 106 (79) & 107 (77) South Perth Esplanade, South Perth
General Business / Meeting Close
The Presiding Member reminded the meeting that in accordance with Standing
Order 7.3 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations
or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached
to make comment.
There being no further business, the presiding member declared the meeting
closed at 2.54pm.
Mr Ian Birch
Page 7
State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration
Responsible Authority Report
(Regulation 12)
Property Location:
DAP Name:
Applicant:
Owner:
LG Reference:
Responsible Authority:
Authorising Officer:
Department of Planning File No:
Report Date:
Application Receipt Date:
Application Process Days:
Attachment(s):
Lots 40 and 41, 9 and 11 King William Street,
Bayswater
Proposed 27 Multiple Dwellings, Two
Restaurants and Associated Car Parking State Administrative Tribunal Review/Appeal
Section 31 Reconsideration
Metro Central JDAP
Peter Adams
Yolk Development Fund No. 5 Pty Ltd
DA15-0433
Local Government - City of Bayswater
Manager Planning Services
DAP/15/00861
3 February 2016
16 July 2015
203 Days
1: Site Photograph and Location Plan
2: Amended Development Plans (dated 22
December 2015)
3: Applicant's Supporting Report
4: Alternative Recommendation
Officer Recommendation:
That the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel, pursuant to section 31
of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 405 of
2015, resolves to:
Reconsider its decision dated 2 November 2015 and refuse DAP Application
reference DAP/15/00861 and amended plans dated 22 December 2015 in
accordance with the provisions of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No.
24, for the following reasons:
Reasons
1.
The development does not comply with the reasons for discretion stated in
clauses 8.2.1 a) and b) of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24
as follows:
(a)
The development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of
the locality.
(b)
The non-compliant aspects of the development will impact the locality
and set an undesirable precedence for future development within the
Bayswater town centre.
Page 1
2.
The development does not comply with the following requirements of Special
Control Area No. 12 within the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No.
24 relating to the following matters:
(a)
Building height.
(b)
Building setbacks.
(c)
Visually permeable windows along the ground floor façade facing King
William Street.
3.
The development does not comply with the commercial car parking
requirements of the City's Town Planning Scheme No. 24.
4.
The development does not comply with residential visitor parking requirements
of clause 6.3.3 of the Residential Design Codes.
5.
The material and colours and modulation of the proposed development are not
considered in keeping with the heritage and character of the Bayswater town
centre.
6.
The proposed reduction in building setbacks in the addition to the building
height sought results in a development of a massing and scale greater than
that anticipated in the City's Town Planning Scheme No. 24.
7.
The proposal is considered to have an undue impact on the amenity of the area
due to its bulk and scale.
Background:
Property Address:
Zoning
Use Class:
Strategy Policy:
Development Scheme:
Lot Size:
Existing Land Use:
Value of Development:
MRS:
TPS:
Lots 40 & 41, 9 & 11 King William Street,
Bayswater
Urban
24 - Special Control Area No. 12
Multiple Dwellings - 'P'
Restaurant - 'P'
N/A
N/A
980m²
Shop, Office and Restaurant
$7 million
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 February 2015 resolved to approve the
demolition of the building at 9 King William Street and partial demolition of the
building at 11 King William Street. The demolition approval was conditional and
required the front façade of 11 King William Street, Bayswater, to be retained to the
satisfaction of the City and a management plan be submitted prior to the demolition
permit for its retention. The approval was further conditioned requiring an approved
redevelopment of the site and an archival record of the building to be submitted prior
to the submission of a demolition permit.
A planning application dated 16 July 2015 and plans dated 18 August 2015 and
18 September 2015 was received for a proposed 27 multiple dwellings, two offices
and associated car parking - Development Assessment Panel (DAP) application at
Lots 40 and 41, 9 and 11 King William Street, Bayswater.
Page 2
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 15 November 2015 resolved to provide
comments to the JDAP for the proposed 27 multiple dwellings, two offices and
associated car parking at 9 and 11 King William Street, Bayswater, as follows:
"1.
The Council believe the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) application
needs to comply with the setbacks, visual privacy and parking requirements of
SCA 12.
2.
The approval for demolition was based on a condition that a Development
application for the redevelopment of the sites is to the satisfaction of the City of
Bayswater. This DA is not to the satisfaction of Council due to the visual impact
of the development on local heritage, character and streetscapes of the locality.
3.
In the event the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) approves the
application, Council request that:
4.
(a)
The ground floor be used for retail and restaurants, not office space.
(b)
Amend the percent for public art condition to require local artists to under
the art work.
Council request that the applicant provides a view-shed analysis to the
Development Assessment Panel (DAP)."
The JDAP at its meeting held on 26 October 2015 resolved to refuse the application
for the proposed 27 multiple dwellings, two offices and associated car parking at 9
and 11 King William Street, Bayswater, for the following reasons:
"1.
The proposal for a 7 storey development does not warrant the exercise of
discretion under the heritage provisions of the TPS where a 5 storey
development is considered to be more appropriate.
2.
The proposal is considered to have an undue impact on the amenity of the area
due to its bulk and scale.
3.
The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the orderly and proper
planning of the locality.
4.
The proposed reduction in building setbacks in the addition to the building
height sought results in a development of a massing and scale greater than
that anticipated in the scheme.
5.
A shortfall of 5 car parking bays is considered to be unacceptable because of
its impact on the car parking availability in the town centre precinct."
Following the JDAP refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal/review application with
the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). A SAT mediation session was held on 15
December 2015 whereby the SAT made orders that the applicant is to provide
amended plans by 23 December 2015 and for the JDAP to reconsider its decision by
12 February 2015.
On 16 December 2015 a Special Electors Meeting was held to discuss 9 and 11 King
William Street, Bayswater, specifically to discuss the height, storeys, heritage,
parking and consultation process following a request from one of the City's electors.
At this meeting the following motions were voted and carried by a majority of electors
with specific reference to this site:
Page 3
"Motion 1:
The Council amends Special Control Area No. 12 (SCA 12), changing number of
storeys from 5 storeys to 3 storeys and changing overall height allowed from 20m to
12m.
Motion 4:
All planning applications for demolition of buildings and places on the heritage
inventory require a heritage assessment."
In addition, at the Special Meeting of Electors there was some discussion that if
Council resolved to immediately initiate an amendment to TPS 24 to reduce the
height from five to three storeys, that this could be used in the assessment of a
reconsideration of the development application for 9-11 King William Street or similar
development proposals elsewhere in the area covered by SCA 12. This was based
around the interpretation of when a scheme amendment is considered a 'seriously
entertained proposal'. The City has received legal advice on this matter. The timing
of when an amendment can be considered seriously entertained is explicitly stated in
the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which
came into effect on 19 October 2015. Clauses 67 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations
include the following under a list of the "matters to be considered by local
government" in assessing a development application:
"(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local
planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised
under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations
2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is
seriously considering adopting or approving."
Thus, it is not until a scheme amendment has been advertised that it could be
considered in the assessment of this development application, or any others in
SCA12.
The amended plans dated 22 December 2015 resulted in the following key changes
to the originally considered proposal:
•
An amended street façade, which includes different varying materials and
colours. This includes red face brick panels and heritage style balustrades.
•
The setbacks to King William Street and the right of way for the second storey
have been decreased from 2.9m to nil, for the portions of terraces to the
associated units.
•
Increase in the setbacks of the building to the right of way.
•
Four commercial car bays are provided.
•
The amended plans illustrate a three car bay shortfall for residential visitor car
parking.
•
A 50% reduction in the visual privacy variations.
•
Variation to the requirement relating to visually permeable windows on the
ground floor facing King William Street.
Page 4
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 2 February 2016 resolved to receive the
officer report with no additional comments to provide to the JDAP. Council also
resolved as follows in respect of the motions raised at the 16 December 2015 Special
Electors Meeting:
"Motion 1:
That Council not consider the proposed height reduction in SCA12 as a priority part
of the development of the Bayswater Structure Plan as per Council's resolution of 15
December 2015, rather than initiating a new scheme amendment at this time.
Motion 4:
That Council reaffirms the City's practice of requiring the applicant to submit a
heritage assessment associated with a development application for any property
which is listed on the City's Scheme Heritage List where an assessment will assist in
the determination of the application."
The primary consideration in relation to this application is the visual impact of the
proposed development given the proposal does not meet the height, building
setbacks, car parking and visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design
Codes (R-Codes), and Town Planning Scheme No. 24 (TPS 24) SCA 12 provisions,
and to consider objections that have been received in relation to the proposed
development.
Legislation & policy:
Legislation
Planning and Development Act 2005
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004
City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24 including Special Control Area No.
12 (appendix 5)
State Government Policies
State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.
Local Policies
TP-P2.1 Visual Privacy - Cone of Vision R-Codes Performance Criteria.
TP-P1.9 Car Parking in the Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Area
TP-P1.10 Cash in Lieu of Car Parking
Consultation:
Public Consultation
The City sought comment for the proposed variations for a period of 14 days from
persons who, were previously consulted, previously provided comment, and who
attended the Special Meeting of Electors held on 16 December 2015 to discuss this
matter. A total of 139 letters were sent out. It is acknowledged that the JDAP did not
expect that the amended plans would need to be advertised unless there were
further variations deemed significant to the City's requirements. Notwithstanding, the
City advertised the amended plans given the community's interest in the proposal.
Page 5
At the completion of the advertising period, 80 objections and 20 supports were
received. Two petitions against the proposed development were also received signed
by a combined total of 579 people. Details of the comments received are stated
below and officers comments in the body of the report to follow.
•
Streetscape / Heritage
The upper floor street setback to King William Street is insufficient to reduce
the visual impact of the upper floors.
•
The development in no way compliments or enhances the heritage local
heritage character or streetscape of the locality.
•
The retained heritage façade is a token gesture to address heritage and
lacks any real consideration for the heritage or locality in its design.
•
The western half of the front façade introduces a new architectural style to
the streetscape; the façade should have been designed in a similar style to
the retained heritage façade to provide a greater level of consistency.
•
The design of the building both aesthetically and in terms of scale and bulk
is not complementary or sympathetic to the existing village character of the
area.
•
The building frontage should comply with minimum glazing requirements to
ensure passive surveillance and interaction with the street is maintained.
•
Building Height
Height should be restricted to no greater than five storeys in accordance with
SCA12 requirements.
•
The proposed height of seven storeys is overwhelming and will dwarf all
other existing development in the street, and is not complimentary to the
existing streetscape and character of King William Street.
•
A three to five storey development would be more suited to the location and
sympathetic to existing development.
•
The compression of seven storeys into the 20m height allowance is visually
unappealing and a poor outcome for future residents who will occupy the
building.
•
The height of the development will have significant impact on access to
direct sunlight for solar array panels on adjoining lots to the south. The
owners of these properties should be compensated if development
proceeds.
•
The bulk and scale of the development is more or less the same as the
original proposal.
•
Setbacks
The setbacks provided are insufficient and imposing.
•
The lack of visual privacy setbacks will impact directly adjoining properties
and potentially affect future redevelopment.
•
The developments non-compliance with building height, setbacks, car
parking, and privacy are evidence that the proposal is in excess bulk of that
intended by SCA12.
Page 6
•
Parking
The development has not been provided with sufficient commercial, visitor,
or bicycle bays. This will result in additional pressure on the existing bays in
the area and result in further parking overflow into the adjoining residential
streets.
•
Bicycle bays should have been provided in accordance with the
requirements, particularly as there is also a car bays shortfall, this is
counterintuitive to encouraging alternate transport options.
•
All new development should comply with parking requirements, no parking
shortfalls should be approved ahead of completion of the Bayswater Town
Centre Structure Plan.
•
The City of Bayswater should extent on-street parking to the frontage of the
site to provide more public car bays.
•
Traffic
Traffic on King William Street is already an issue, this development will
further the problem and reduce safety and walkability of the town centre.
•
The rear lane will require upgrading to accommodate the increased traffic
flow associated with the proposed development. Sharp corners, blind turns
and a lack of lighting need to be addressed.
•
A full traffic management plan should be undertaken to deal with potential
issues.
•
•
•
Vegetation
The significant Jacaranda Tree at the rear of the site should have been
retained.
There has been no attempt by the developer to retain any landscaping, and
the proposed development lacks any open green landscaped space for
future residents or the community.
General
The proposal does not incorporate any sustainable initiatives or additional
benefits to the community to compensate for the proposed variations.
•
Approval will set a precedent for similar overdevelopment within the
Bayswater Town Centre.
•
A dilapidation survey should be carried out on adjoining properties prior to
commencement of any work.
•
The extent of consultation undertaken by the City and time provided to
respond was insufficient.
•
The significant public opposition to the proposal clearly indicated the
proposal is not in keeping with the community's future vision for the area.
•
The proposed amendments are technical and minor, and do not sufficiently
address the reasons for refusal.
Page 7
•
Support
The Bayswater Town Centre has suffered from lack of investment for
decades and is in need of revitalisation to keep up with other town centres
such as Bassendean, Mount Lawley, North Perth, Vic Park, etc.
•
The Bayswater Town Centre is an ideal location for increased density and
redevelopment given its proximity to the rail and bus network, schools,
senior citizen centre, hotel, library and the future Forrestfield Airport Link.
High density in the town centre is far more appropriate than a sprawl of
medium density throughout the suburbs.
•
Reducing the number of storeys will only serve to limit the number of
residents living in Bayswater which is at odds with State Planning Policies
and the City of Bayswater's Local Housing Strategy.
•
The change from office to restaurant is a big improvement and will enhance
the vibrancy in the area.
•
Many local businesses are struggling and there is a high turnover. The
increase density will help to provide the critical mass of people required to
support and sustain local businesses.
•
This development will act as a catalyst for broader redevelopment of the
precinct, improving the viability of the town centre.
•
Majority of the building is contained to the building envelope and as such is
consistent with the City's vision.
•
The development will activate the street frontage, which is currently lacking
on site.
•
The proposal is imaginative and aesthetically pleasing, the existing buildings
were derelict and unused for years.
•
A vocal minority of the community with unrealistic development expectations
are stifling change in Bayswater.
Planning assessment:
SCA 12 Requirements
Building Height
Required
Previous
Plans
Provided
Amended
Plans
Provided
Assessment
5 Storeys
within 20m
7 Storeys to
King
William
Street and 6
Storeys to the
Right of Way
within 20m
7 Storeys to
King William
Street and 6
Storeys to
the Right of
Way within
20m
Variation
Nil street
setback with
minor
recesses up to
1.5m
Ground and
First Floors Nil
Ground and
First Floors Nil
Compliant
Street Setbacks:
Ground Floor - First
Floor
Page 8
SCA 12 Requirements
Second Floor - Fourth
Floor
Required
Previous
Plans
Provided
Amended
Plans
Provided
Assessment
To be setback
minimum 5m
2.9m -3.2m
(including
balcony)
Second and
Third Floors 0m - 3m
Variation
Fourth Floor 5m (including
balconies)
Fifth Floor and Above
To be setback
1.5m from the
building line of
the fourth
storey
Fifth - Seventh
Floors - 0m
Fifth Seventh
Floors- 1.8m
Compliant
Minimum
setback 1.5m
for two storeys
Basement 1m
Ground - 1.7m
Second - 1.7m
Basement 1m
Ground - 2m
Second - 2m
- 5m
Compliant
Setback 5m
from the
building line
below
Third Floor
and above 3.2m (from the
basement)
Third Floor
and above 5m (from the
basement)
Variation
Up to nil
setbacks
Ground and
Second Floors
- Nil
Third Floor - nil
- 3.5m
Nil - 3.2m
Compliant
Setback a
minimum of
3m
Fourth Floor
and above 3.5m
Fourth Floor
and above 3.2m
Compliant
Minimum Office
(now Restaurant) Parking:
5 car bays
(office)
10 car bays
(restaurant)
0 car bays*
4 car bays
Variation
Maximum Overshadowing
of Adjoining Residential
Property
35 %
0%
0%
Compliant
26 car bays
7 car bays
29 car bays
7 car bays
28 car bays
4 car bays
Compliant
Variation
Right of Way Setbacks
Ground Floor - First
Floor
Third Floor and above
Side Setbacks
Ground Floor - Third
Floor
Fourth Floor and above
Minimum
Parking:
Resident
Visitor
Page 9
Visual Privacy:
Apartment 6 - Terrace
(Rear)
7.5m
6.8m
N/A
Compliant
Apartment 12 - Balcony
(SE)
6m
0.4m
0m
Variation
Apartment 10 - Balcony
(NW)
6m
0.4m
0m
Variation
Apartment 13, 18 and
23 - Balcony (SE)
6m
5.5m
5m
Variation
Apartment 17, 22 and
27 - Balcony (NW)
6m
5.5m
5m
Variation
Apartments 3, 4, 9 and
10 - Kitchen (NW)
4.5m
3.5m
N/A
Compliant
Apartments 1, 6, 7 and
12 - Kitchen (SW)
4.5m
3.5m
N/A
Compliant
Apartments 15, 16, 17,
20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and
27 - Living (NE)
4.5m
3.5m
N/A
Compliant
Apartments 16, 21 and
26 - Balcony (NW)
6m
3.5m
3.2m
Variation
Apartments 13, 14, 18,
19, 23 and 24 - Kitchen
(SE)
4.5m
3.5m
N/A
Compliant
*It is noted that four car bays were indicated on plans previously provided, however due to the City's
recommendation requiring the commercial car bays to be reallocated as residential visitor car bays it
was considered that no commercial bays were provided.
Key
Scheme
Requirements
Previously Provided
Amended Plans
Amended
Plans
Assessment
Traditional parapet style
for the first two storeys
and the retention of the
façade of 11 King
William
Street,
Bayswater.
Traditional
parapet
style for the first two
storeys
and
the
retention of the façade
of 11 King William
Street, Bayswater.
Compliant.
Design
Building
facades
addressing a street are
required to be built
predominately in the
traditional parapet style
for the first two storeys
to reflect the general
character
of
the
precinct.
Page 10
Key
Scheme
Requirements
Previously Provided
Any second storey wall
or balcony addressing a
street is to complement
and be sympathetic to
existing shop parapets
along
the
street
frontage.
Given the requirement to
retain the façade, the
balcony on the second
floor is an office terrace
and has the same height
as the existing façade at
11 King William Street.
The terrace is face brick
consistent
with
the
federation style within
the
Bayswater
town
centre.
Building frontages and
facades greater than 10
metres in length as they
present to streets or
laneways are to be
articulated,
coloured
and detailed to present
as individual facades to
the satisfaction of the
City. The individual
facade length may be
increased where it can
be demonstrated that
the increased façade
length is:
(a) Building on a single
existing lot with a
frontage
of
20
metres or less; or
(b) Sufficiently
articulated,
coloured or detailed
in the opinion of the
City; or
(c) Sufficient
justification
has
been provided to
the satisfaction of
the city.
The proposal includes
the retention of the
façade of 11 King
William
Street,
Bayswater
which
is
12.19m wide, and is to
be painted with 'klute'
grey paint. 9 King
William
Street,
Bayswater, is 12.19m
wide and the proposed
façade is to be face
brick, with small white
render columns and
glass balustrading with
matt black powder coat
hand rail on the first floor
and a planter box behind
the first floor parapet. It
is considered the two lots
represent two different
facades through varying
colours and finishes.
Amended Plans
Amended
Plans
Assessment
The balustrade is a Not compliant.
vertical
heritage
aluminium balustrade
with
matt
black
powder coast finish.
The
parapet
wall
facing King William
Street is not of a
similar scale as the
adjoining properties.
The proposal includes Not compliant.
the retention of the
façade of 11 King
William
Street,
Bayswater which is
12.19m wide, and is
to be painted with
'klute' grey paint.
9 King William Street,
Bayswater, is 12.19m
wide
and
the
proposed façade is to
be red face brick, with
'flat white' powder
coated
aluminium
window frames, 'vivid
white' rendered paint
finish to feature walls
on the first floor. The
colour palate and
material choices are
not considered to be
sympathetic with the
Bayswater
town
centre
or
provide
sufficient articulation.
Further, the frontage
of the building should
be
modulated
to
present
individual
facades to distinguish
the
ground
floor
tenancies consistent
with traditional shop
fronts in Bayswater.
Page 11
Key
Scheme
Requirements
Previously Provided
Amended Plans
Amended
Plans
Assessment
Not compliant.
A minimum of 60% of 62.1%
the surface area of a
wall facing a street at
the ground floor level is
to be devoted to
permeable windows or
doors.
51.8%
The use of reflective or
obscure glazing is not
permitted on ground
floor street frontages.
Building facades shall
be articulated, coloured
and
detailed
to
contribute positively to
the local streetscape
and
adjoining
properties.
To be conditioned.
To be conditioned.
The front façade is
proposed with varying
render
colour
and
finishes,
glass
balustrading with matt
black hand rails, white
columns, powder coated
aluminium
perforated
screens,
landscaping
and the retention of the
existing façade of 11
King
William
Street,
Bayswater.
Red face brick is not
considered
an
appropriate material
for the Bayswater
town centre as it is not
sympathetic with the
existing character of
the streetscape.
Extensive blank walls,
facades and featureless
glazing
which
are
visible from any part of
a street or public space
are not permitted.
The proposed compliant
walls with a nil setback to
adjoining properties will
be treated with three
different render colours
forming a block pattern
to reduce the bulk and
scale
of
the
development.
The
proposed
compliant walls with a
nil
setback
to
adjoining
properties
will be treated with
three different render
colours forming a
block
pattern
to
reduce the bulk and
scale
of
the
development.
Compliant.
Feature elements which
enhance
the
streetscape
are
strongly
encouraged.
These may include, but
are not limited to,
variations to colours
and building materials,
coloured or textured
banding,
projections,
In addition to retaining
the façade of 11 King
William
Street,
Bayswater, the applicant
proposes small columns,
awnings, balconies and
varying
colours
and
finishes to address the
street.
In addition to retaining
the façade of 11 King
William
Street,
Bayswater,
the
applicant
proposes
awnings,
balconies
and varying colours
and
finishes
to
address the street.
Compliant.
Compliant,
subject to
appropriate
conditions.
Not compliant.
The frontage should
be
modulated
to
present
individual
facades to distinguish
the
ground
floor
tenancies.
Page 12
Key
Scheme
Requirements
Previously Provided
Amended Plans
Amended
Plans
Assessment
The
awning
is
continuous and within
0.6m of the road kerb. It
has a head clearance of
2.75m.
The
City's
Technical
Services
support the proposed
awnings.
The
awning
is
continuous and within
0.6m of the road kerb.
It
has
a
head
clearance of 2.75m.
The City's Technical
Services support the
proposed awnings.
Compliant.
recesses, ornamental
details,
verandas,
balconies,
pillars,
awnings and canopies.
Awnings
Footpaths
along
adjacent primary or
secondary streets are
to be sheltered by
awnings. The awnings
are to:
(a) Be
continuous
structures
over
footpaths.
(b) Project to within 0.6
metres of the road
kerb and have a
consistent width.
(c) Not be built over
existing or possible
street parking bays
and
are
to
accommodate the
unimpeded growth
of any street tree.
(d) Be cantilevered or
suspended. Post or
column
supports
are not permitted.
(e) Have a clearance of
at least 2.75 metres
above
footpath
level.
(f) Provide continuous
cover at abutting
buildings.
Where
one awning abuts
another,
the
connection is to be
treated so as to
prevent
the
penetration of rain.
Page 13
Site Context
The subject site is located within the Bayswater town centre on King William Street,
Bayswater, comprising two lots which have a combined land area of 980m². The site
is located within the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24 (TPS 24)
Special Control Area No. 12: King William Street/Whatley Crescent commercial
precinct, Bayswater (SCA12).
The site adjoins buildings located within the SCA12 area and has its rear to a right of
way that adjoins lots zoned 'Mixed Use R40'. The site has a sloping natural ground
level with the lowest AHD level being 14.00 adjacent to King William Street and the
high AHD level being 17.5 towards the right of way, resulting in an overall height
difference of 3.5m.
Whatley Crescent and King William Street are district distributor roads and the site is
located approximately 80m from the Bayswater train station which provides services
directly to the Perth CBD, and will in the medium term, be the first station prior to the
Forrestfield Airport link, which commences construction in late 2016. Running along
the railway line is a principal shared path, which also provides direct access into the
Perth CBD.
Special Control Area 12
The Bayswater Village Retail Traders Association provided comments to the City on
21 December 2013 with respect to ongoing issues within the town centre including
zoning restrictions, anti-social behaviour and the provision of public amenities.
Another letter was received on 10 March 2014 formally requesting that the City
initiate a scheme amendment to allow mixed use development with higher density
residential.
Amendment No. 60 to the City's TPS 24 provides provisions to enhance the existing
Bayswater town centre. Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 15 April 2014
resolved to initiate the proposed amendment. The purpose of this amendment was to
address the existing TPS 24 controls which prohibited residential development within
the town centre and restricted height to two storeys. The amendment aimed to
encourage mixed use development with higher density residential to facilitate the
Bayswater town centre.
The amendment revealed that the existing planning controls under TPS 24 were not
considered to be consistent with state planning policies and guidelines, primarily as
they restricted the provision of residential uses within the commercial core of the
Bayswater town centre and the two storey height limit. At the time, a number of
buildings were vacant and underutilised within the town centre. As such, the primary
intent of the amendment was to provide the ability for residential uses within the town
centre, along with increased building heights.
The scheme amendment was advertised to 263 landowners and service agencies for
a period of 42 days whereby a total of 16 submissions were received. The
amendment was also advertised in the West Australian newspaper, the Eastern
Reporter newspaper, two signs were located within the subject area and information
was available for public viewing on the City's website and at the Civic Centre. The
submissions included three from service agencies, eight in support, one neutral and
four objections to the proposed amendment.
Page 14
Following the community consultation period the final version of the amendment was
adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 26 August 2014, and it was approved
by the Minister for Planning on 4 March 2015 and then gazetted on 20 March 2015.
It was considered that the provisions provided within the scheme amendment could
achieve five storeys with a maximum height of 20m without having a significant
undue impact on surrounding landowners. The provisions included in the amendment
would substitute residential densities for requirements that control built form, height,
setbacks and other such controls. It is considered that these types of requirements
allow developers to design buildings within a specified built form envelope and will
facilitate a variety of dwelling sizes and types to revitalise the Bayswater town centre.
The subject site is permitted to develop in accordance with the SCA 12 provisions
which allow for higher density development.
Bayswater Structure Plan
At its Ordinary Meeting held on 17 November 2015, Council resolved to progress the
development of a structure plan for the Bayswater town centre in the 2015-16
financial year and suitable funds be made available. The City is currently in the
process of progressing the Bayswater Town Centre Structure Plan, and a consultant
is expected to be appointed for preparation of the Structure Plan documentation in
early March 2016.
The structure plan will provide a framework for the coordinated provision and
arrangement of land use, subdivision and development. The study area comprises a
modified 400m radius centred on the Bayswater train station.
The structure plan will also coordinate the provision of transport networks, public
open space, utility and service networks, urban water management, development
standards (such as building height, residential density, car parking and setbacks) and
community and other infrastructure investment and staging programs. The
preparation of the structure plan will involve a substantial amount of community
engagement and input including preliminary stakeholder consultation, workshops
with Councillors, design input, community consultation and Council approval.
Discretion to Modify Development Standards
The City's officers and the State Solicitors Office have confirmed that the JDAP has
discretion to modify development standards as per clause 8.2.1 of the City's TPS 24
which states:
"Except for development in respect of which the Residential Design Codes apply
under this Scheme, if a development the subject of an application for planning
approval does not comply with a development standard prescribed by the Scheme
with respect to minimum lot sizes, building height, setbacks, site coverage, car
parking, landscaping and related matters, the Council may, notwithstanding that noncompliance, approve the application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as
the Council thinks fit. The power conferred by this clause may only be exercised if the
Council is satisfied that:
a)
approval of the proposed development would be consistent with the orderly and
proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the
locality; and
Page 15
b)
the non-compliance will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users
of the development or the inhabitants of the locality or upon the likely future
development of the locality."
It is acknowledged that officers supported the initial application for the proposed 27
multiple dwellings, two offices and associated car parking however, Council formed a
position on the subject development at its Ordinary Meeting held on 13 October 2015
with respect to the development. Therefore the amended plans have been
considered against the position held by Council and the determination by the JDAP.
Streetscape
The affected streetscape is characterised as traditional shop fronts with varying
authenticity due to significant modifications to the facades of the shop fronts over
time and a few buildings constructed in more modern times. Shop fronts within the
Bayswater town centre have varying styles, some are traditional with nil setbacks and
awnings, others are significantly setback from the streetscape and 9 King William
Street, Bayswater is the only remaining single house in the town centre.
The Bayswater town centre was previously zoned business, which limited
development potential within the centre and in turn failed to attract investment to
maintain existing buildings. Further, various traditional shop fronts within the centre
have been modified over time to accommodate new uses, which has resulted in the
loss of some authenticity.
Five, out of a total 15 properties, are listed on the City's Municipal (Heritage)
Inventory list. Four properties are listed as 'classification 2' buildings (10-12, 13, 14
and 15 King William Street) and one is listed as a 'classification 3' building (1-3 King
William Street).
Building Height
The SCA 12 requirements relating to building height states "a maximum height of 5
storeys is permitted to an overall height of 20 metres" and "a minimum of 2 storeys is
required". The application proposes a maximum height of 7 storeys to King William
Street and 6 storeys to the right of way, which is a one to two storey height variation.
There are no relevant design principles relating to these requirements however the
objectives of SCA 12 are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
"Facilitate viable, enduring and high quality development that complements the
character and heritage of the precinct.
Provide for an appropriate mix of land uses along with active street frontages to
King William Street and Whatley Crescent.
Encourage residential land uses as a vital component of the precinct.
Enhance the local heritage character and streetscapes of the locality.
Encourage pedestrians and public transport use."
The development is considered consistent with the intent of the SCA 12 with respect
to the introduction of increased residential activities and ground floor activation,
however the building height is considered to be one of the most significant
contributors to the development's visual bulk and scale.
Page 16
The amended plans include changes to the façade facing King William Street. These
changes include the introduction of new materials and finishes such as red face brick
sections, various balustrading designs, large ground floor openings and rendering of
the existing shop façade, which appears to be an attempt to reduce visual bulk. The
design modifications are starkly different to the fourth to sixth floors facing King
William Street which are of a modernist design. The varying materials between the
ground to third storey and the fourth to sixth storeys do not harmonise with one
another and are considered to impact on local heritage, character and streetscape,
and create additional bulk on the surrounding area.
The City's TPS 24 includes an objective "to protect coordinated development
proposals from ad hoc and inconsistent development proposals." The height
variations are not consistent with the intent of the SCA 12 which visualised the
Bayswater town centre to be lined with five storey buildings as opposed to six to
seven storey buildings. The height variations are considered to promote ad hoc and
inconsistent development within the Bayswater town centre and takes away from the
vision for the area.
The proposal also includes the retention of the façade of 11 King William Street,
which facilitates the objectives of SCA 12 by providing high quality development that
integrates and sympathises with the existing character and streetscape along King
William Street.
The amended design of the ground and first storey facing King William Street, at 9
King William Street, is proposed to be constructed with predominately red face brick
with a wall height slightly higher than the existing pitch located on the existing façade
of 11 King William Street. Effectively, the proposed parapet is 6.8m high, which is
taller than other existing parapets along King William Street. It is considered that the
height of the new shop front parapet is not consistent with the character, style, type
or materials of other shop parapets within the Bayswater town centre.
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Development Control Policy
1.6 relating to Planning to Support Transit Use and Transit Orientated Development
highlights areas which are located within 800m of a train station as ideal locations for
higher density residential and mixed use developments. Given the subject site is
within 80m of the Bayswater train station, this site is highly suitable for high density
development in accordance with the WAPC policy and this was considered as part of
SCA 12 scheme amendment and approved by the WAPC for five storey
development.
It was determined at the JDAP meeting on 26 October 2015 that the proposal for a
seven storey development does not warrant the exercise of discretion under the
heritage provisions of the TPS where a 5 storey development is considered to be
more appropriate. The additional stories are considered inappropriate for the location
and will have an undue visual impact on local housing, character and streetscape.
Building Setbacks
The SCA 12 requirement relating to the King William Street setback states "any level
above 2 storeys is required to be set back a minimum of 5.0 metres from a street
boundary to the building line, however the fifth storey is required to be setback a
minimum of 1.5 metres from the building line of the fourth storey". The second to
fourth storeys have a setback of 0m - 3m in lieu of 5m and the fifth and sixth floor
have a setback of 1.8m from the building line of the fourth storey.
Page 17
The SCA 12 relating to the right of way setback states "any level above the second
storey shall be setback a minimum of 5m from the building line below". The proposed
setback is 2m-5m from the basement level, which is setback 1m from the lot
boundary.
The reduced setbacks are primarily the balcony structures encroaching in the
setback area. The building excluding the balcony areas has a setback of 6.0m from
King William Street and 7.7m from the right of way.
The fourth storey and above have side setbacks of 3.2m to the north-east and southwest boundaries in lieu of 3.5m as prescribed by the SCA 12.
The applicant has increased the front setbacks to provide greater separation to King
William Street, with the exception of the second storey nil setback for the terrace to
unit 3. Despite increasing a majority of setbacks, the development does not comply
with the requirements of SCA 12.
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 15 November 2015 considered that the
application needs to comply with the setbacks, visual privacy and parking
requirements of SCA 12, and that the application was not to their satisfaction due to
the visual impact of the development on local heritage, character and streetscapes of
the locality.
The visual impact of the setback variations is considered a primary concern, given
the scale of the building is larger than envisioned for the Bayswater town centre as
described by the SCA 12. By virtue of varying setbacks the building becomes larger,
and when coupled with the significant height variations the overall bulk and scale of
the development is not consistent with the vision for the area.
Permeable Windows and Doors
The SCA 12 requires a minimum of 60% of the surface area of a wall facing a street
at the ground floor level to be devoted to visually permeable windows or doors. The
ground floor façade of the proposal including the existing façade, which includes
modifications to the existing windows and doors, has a maximum of 51.8% (34.59m²)
visually permeable windows and doors.
The purpose of visually permeable windows and doors is to activate the frontages of
the uses, so they actively contribute to the street. It is noted the change of use from
offices to shops/restaurants provides a greater activation to King William Street
however the building's façade, particularly 9 King William Street, which is a new
façade should increase the amount of windows to meet the 60% visual permeability
requirement.
Car Parking
The proposal includes two shops/restaurants with a total floor area of 197m²; the
City's TPS 24 requires 10 car bays per 100m² of restaurant space. However, the
City's policy TP-P1.9 relating to Car Parking in the Town Planning Scheme No. 24
area allows for a 50% reduction to the car parking requirement for restaurants in a
town centre.
Page 18
The proposal includes 4 commercial car bays in lieu of the required 10 car bays and
4 residential visitor car bays in lieu of 7 car bays. Many businesses within the
Bayswater town centre operate with nil or limited car parking on-site. Many visitors
and employees of the centre take advantage of existing public transport infrastructure
such as the train station and on-site car parking.
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the reduction in residential visitor car
parking will adversely impact the surrounding area as residential properties have
traditionally complied with the car parking requirements of the R-Codes. This has
been further verified during the community consultation period with adjoining land
owners having expressed concern with the shortfall in visitor car parking.
Furthermore, the R-Codes already provide reduced parking rates to residential car
parking allocated to individual multiple dwellings with proximity to high frequency
public transport. Given the subject location is within close proximity to Bayswater
train station, the reduced residential car parking rates have been applied. The RCodes does not provide for reduced rates to residential visitor car parking for
properties within close proximity to public transport as car parking is critical within
areas zoned for higher density developments.
The explanatory guidelines of the R-Codes states that decision-makers can consider
reduced residential and visitor car parking where the applicant can demonstrate that
actual demand is lower or satisfactory alternate parking provision is available and
accessible in close proximity of another site. The applicant has not provided the City
with any car parking studies substantiating a reduction in the residential visitor car
parking rate.
The Council adopted policy TP-P1.10 relating to cash in lieu of car parking applies to
the Bayswater town centre, which is defined as any lot wholly within 400m of the
Bayswater train station. The subject site falls within this category. The proposed car
parking shortfall for the commercial use can be subsidised by the application of a
cash-in-lieu payment ($10,000 per car bay shortfall, resulting in a cash-in-lieu amount
of $80,000 for the commercial component).
Clause 6 of the City's policy TP-P1.10 states "…the City will not accept cash in lieu of
car parking contributions where it considers that the required car parking could
instead be provided on-site". The proposed height variations results in an additional
10 apartments. Should the applicant comply with the height and setback
requirements of SCA 12, the applicant may be able to achieve compliant car parking.
As such, it is considered that compliant car parking could be provided on-site should
the applicant comply with the provisions outlined in SCA 12.
Potential parking overflow into the adjoining residential area, and traffic and
congestion along King William Street and the ROW were some of the main concerns
raised during community consultation, and by Council. Notwithstanding the need for
service areas and an upgraded ROW, it is also considered that the shops/restaurants
will generate the need for additional car parking within the town centre, resulting in an
undue amenity impact on the locality.
Page 19
Visual Privacy
As detailed in the above development standards table, the development proposes
visual privacy variations to adjoining SCA 12 zoned properties to the south-east and
north-west.
The properties affected are currently utilised for commercial purposes and therefore it
is not considered that there will be any undue impact associated with the variations to
visual privacy. The balconies posing the variations are considered to be a positive
feature to the Bayswater Town Centre as they will provide increased interaction and
passive surveillance.
As such the variations to visual privacy are considered to meet the design principles
of the R-Codes and would reasonably be supported in the event of approval.
Landscaping
Notwithstanding the benefits associated with retaining mature trees and landscaping
on a site, the SCA12 requirements do not facilitate landscaping or tree retention. In
this respect it is not uncommon for town centre design guidelines to not require
landscaping in areas which are guided towards an urban environment.
Other Matters
The City's Technical Services have advised of the following comments/concerns
relating to the proposal:
•
Access ramp to the ground car park will require transitions and modification to
prevent stormwater from the ROW entering the property.
•
Bay 33 has sightline obstructions from the adjacent wall.
•
Bay 35 will be affected by the level difference with the adjoining ramp.
•
Aisle width behind bays 11-15 and 30-31 need to be 6.1 wide.
•
Geotechnical report shall be submitted. The site shall be remediated to Class A
and all stormwater disposed of on site.
•
Construction management plan shall be submitted.
•
The awning to be setback 0.5m from the King William Street kerb line.
•
The ROW to be upgraded and drained to the City's satisfaction.
•
Security lighting to be provided adjacent to the ROW.
•
The proposal lacks provision of a service area.
•
The disabled bay needs to be located on the ground floor.
The City's Environmental Health Services have advised of the following additional
requirements in the event of approval:
•
The site is subject to noise from Major transport route and industrial/
commercial activities. The owner/applicant would need to submit an acoustic
report certifying that the complex is built with appropriate attenuated measures
and complying with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise)
Regulations 1997.
•
A Section 70A be placed on the title of the property to make future residents
aware of the issues.
•
A waste management plan.
•
The applicant will need to liaise with the Water Corporation to discuss the
provision for grease arrestor system for the proposed restaurants.
Page 20
Conclusion:
The proposed amended plans do not comply with the SCA 12 design, height and
setback requirements, the car parking requirements of the City's TPS 24 and the car
parking requirements of the R-Codes. The proposal is also inconsistent with the
Council's and the community's expectation and vision for the site, and approving
such a development will set an undesirable precedent.
In light of the above assessment of the proposed reconsideration, the City's officers
recommend refusal to the JDAP and SAT.
Page 21
Attachment 1
Denotes extent of Special Control Area No.12
A
A
harris architects
oa 1/17 high street fremantle t 0403 322 179
pa po box 647 fremantle wa 6959
e [email protected]
C:\Users\Jonathan\Google Drive\Harris Architects Admin\Logo and Letterhead\Yolk\Yolk Logos Master\Yolk Final Logo_large.jpg
A
A
harris architects
oa 1/17 high street fremantle t 0403 322 179
pa po box 647 fremantle wa 6959
e [email protected]
C:\Users\Jonathan\Google Drive\Harris Architects Admin\Logo and Letterhead\Yolk\Yolk Logos Master\Yolk Final Logo_large.jpg
23 December 2015
Mr Warren Fitt
State Solicitor’s Office
Level 16, Westralia Square
141 St George’s Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
By email:
[email protected],
cc:
[email protected]
Dear Warren
PLANNING REPORT - AMENDED PROPOSAL FOR 27 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, TWO
SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING - LOTS 40 & 41, 9 & 11 KING WILLIAM
STREET, BAYSWATER
This planning report is submitted in accordance with the State Administrative Tribunal
order number 1 in relation to matter DR 405/2015. The report addresses the terms of the
proposal that have been amended from the original submission in order to address the:
1.
2.
grounds of refusal of the application as advised by the Development Assessment
Panel (DAP) Secretariat on 2 November 2015; and
further explanation of the grounds of refusal provided at the mediation of the
matter on 15 December 2015.
Based on an understanding of the DAP position on the proposal, the application is
amended in three key respects:
•
Architectural
- Increasing the street setbacks to upper floors;
- Providing a different architectural treatment to upper floors to make their
appearance ‘lighter’ when viewed from King William Street.
•
Land Use
- Including more ‘active’ uses on the ground floor.
•
Parking Provision
- Providing access to visitor parking outside of the secure parking area;
- Reducing the number of tandem bays.
The terms of the changes are discussed in detail in the following section. This submission
however should be read in conjunction with the additional detail and explanation
contained within the initial application as reported to the DAP meeting on 26 October
2015 (DAP/15/00861).
ABN 80 518 867 063
AMENDED PROPOSAL
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Recognising the appearance of the development as seen from King William Street the key
matter of concern to the DAP, important design changes have been made as follows:
•
The architecture of this amended development application has been revised
incorporating changes that carefully consider the character of the Bayswater
precinct to improve the buildings relationship with King William Street and the
broader Bayswater town centre precinct. This is in-line with community feedback in
regards to the streetscape presence of the building.
•
Primarily these architectural amendments incorporate measures to soften the
buildings bulk and form that presents to King William Street by reconsidering
aspects of materiality and building form, and by increasing building setbacks of
upper floors.
•
The street facing facade has been carefully articulated in three layers that
progressively step the building back from the street boundary as the built form
increases in height, reducing the building bulk and visual impact on the
streetscape.
•
The first layer (Storeys 1 – 2) sits at nil street setback and has been carefully
redesigned to articulate the materiality and form prevalent in the character of the
precincts traditional parapet style in accordance with the requirements of Special
Control Area 12 provisions. Vertically articulated red face brickwork panels, full
height shop front glazing and vertical black metal railing presents a solid and
grounded two storey street façade that sits in harmony with the existing parapet
facades along the streetscape. This portion of the building houses active
commercial shops and open terraces the provide interaction and activation to
the streetscape.
•
The second building layer (Storeys 3 – 4) sits behind the street façade setback 3.2m
from the street boundary. This layer of the building visually and architecturally
connects with the street façade through articulation and materiality, drawings
elements of red face brickwork and black metal railing up from the street façade
below. The openness of apartment terraces in this layer of the building are offset
with elements of brick solidity grounding the built form and providing both
opportunities of street engagement and privacy for residents of the apartments
housed in this layer of the building.
•
The third and uppermost building layer (Storeys 5, 6and 7) is setback even further
from the building line below at 5.0m from the street boundary. This layer of the built
form sits lightly above the building below and is designed with wide and open
terraces, transparent glass balustrades and an open louvred roof that softens and
graduates the built form into the sky. The heavy brick and dark railing elements
that ground the lower building floors are omitted from these light floating upper
levels to clearly delineate and differentiate these uppermost levels of the building
from those below.
W_Bayswater Yolk
2
The particulars of the building tenancies are set out within the Attachment One to this
submission. While the unit yield remains unchanged, the size of upper level dwellings has
been reduced and floor plans reconfigured to accommodate the architectural changes.
LAND USE
The original application nominated two basement/ground level tenancies as
‘commercial’, enabling a range of suitable non-residential occupancies as dictated by
market demands.
Following extensive community engagement, it is evident that there is a desire to ensure
uses within these tenancies will actively engage with the local community. In response,
the proposal is amended to nominate the two tenancies as either ‘shop’ and/or
‘restaurant’. The parking implications associated with this change are discussed below.
It is noted that both ‘shop’ and ‘restaurant’ are ‘P’ (permitted) uses within the applicable
zone.
CAR PARKING
Parking Design
Two significant changes have been made to the arrangement of parking bays:
1.
2.
The number of parking bays in tandem configuration has been reduced; and
Three residential visitor bays are directly accessible from the right-of-way and are
not situated behind a security barrier.
These changes serve to effectively increase the availability and public accessibility of
parking bays along with improvements to overall building functionality.
Parking Provision
It is recognised that Council’s Scheme sets out higher parking ratios for ‘shop’ and
‘restaurant’ activity in comparison to the original application use as ‘office’. The
Responsible Authority Report (City of Bayswater) has previously recommended approval
for reduced parking provision based on the proximity of the property to the train station
and the context of the site within a designated town centre. Council policy encourages
a car parking reduction of up to 50% for town centre development in certain instances. In
addition, the reliance on private car transport and associated parking is further reduced
with apartment residents utilising shop/restaurant facilities within the same premises.
The original application sought dispensation for car parking for office use. In view of the
community desire for restaurant or shop activity, this amended proposal seeks a further
dispensation for parking without additional cash-in-lieu obligations.
The original recommendation from the City of Bayswater was for a cash-in-lieu payment
of $50,000 for a calculated shortfall of 5 commercial car bays. Taking into account shared
parking between the residents and shop/restaurant activity (off-setting the ordinary
increase in parking demand), the same cash-in-lieu provision is proposed for this
amended proposal.
An assessment of the parking provision is included at Attachment Two.
W_Bayswater Yolk
3
CONCLUSION
Taking account of the concerns held by members of the DAP, important changes have
been made to the proposal to reduce the perceived impact of the development from a
built-form perspective from King William Street, while still achieving the strategic objectives
for the town centre location.
The plan continues to retain an existing façade at King William Street, respecting the
historical development form of the area.
Greater articulation of the building form,
increased setbacks, elevated terraces, the use of additional face-brick work are amongst
changes that have been made to strengthen the relationship to the property surrounds.
Similarly, the proposal responds to an expressed desire to provide street-level ground floor
activities that will provide a service and amenity to the community. Through the process
of plan amendment, important changes have been made to parking access and
configuration, serving to improve efficiency and functionality of the development.
The amended proposal is respectfully submitted for favourable consideration by the DAP.
Should you have any queries regarding the information contained within, or wish to
discuss any aspect of this advice, please don’t hesitate to contact Stuart Devenish on
0423 683 762 or Nicola Smith on 0401 138 996.
Yours sincerely,
Nicola Smith
Director
Niche Planning Studio
W_Bayswater Yolk
4
ATTACHMENT ONE
PLAN AMENDMENTS
LEVEL
Basement
Ground
Level
ACTIVITY
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
AMENDED PROPOSAL
Car Parking
15 bays
15 bays
Shop – 126m2
Non-Residential
Commercial Unit 1 –
120m2
Commercial Unit 2 –
120m2
Car Parking
21 bays plus 3 tandem
bays
21 bays plus 1 tandem
bay
A1 – 2 bed, 95m2
A2 – 1 bed, 50m2
A3 – 2 bed, 90m2
A4 – 2 bed, 90m2
A5 – 1 bed, 50m2
A6 – 2 bed, 95m2
A7 – 2 bed, 95m2
A8 – 1 bed, 50m2
A9 – 2 bed, 90m2
A10 – 2 bed, 90m2
A11 – 1 bed, 50m2
A12 – 2 bed, 95m2
A13 – 2 bed, 80m2
A14 – 2 bed, 80m2
A15 - 1 bed, 80m2
A16 - 2 bed, 53m2
A17 – 2 bed, 80m2
A18 – 2 bed, 80m2
A19 – 2 bed, 80m2
A20 – 1 bed, 80m2
A21 – 2 bed, 53m2
A22 – 2 bed, 80m2
A23 – 2 bed, 80m2
A24 – 2 bed, 80m2
A25 – 1 bed, 80m2
A26 – 2 bed, 53m2
A27 – 2 bed, 80m2
A1 – 2 bed, 95m2
A2 – 1 bed, 52m2
A3 – 2 bed, 90m2
A4 - 2 bed, 90m2
A5 - 1 bed, 52m2
A6 - 2 bed, 95m2
A7 - 2 bed, 95m2
A8 - 1 bed, 52m2
A9 - 2 bed, 90m2
A10 -2 bed, 90m2
A11 - 1 bed, 52m2
A12 - 2 bed, 95m2
A13 - 2 bed, 78m2
A14 - 2 bed, 78m2
A15 - 2 bed, 78m2
A16 - 1 bed, 50m2
A17 - 2 bed, 78m2
A18 - 2 bed, 78m2
A19 - 2 bed, 78m2
A20 - 2 bed, 78m2
A21- 1 bed, 50m2
A22 - 2 bed, 78m2
A23 - 2 bed, 78m2
A24 - 2 bed, 78m2
A25 - 2 bed, 78m2
A26 - 1 bed, 50m2
A27 - 2 bed, 78m2
First Floor
Residential
Second
Floor
Residential
Third Floor
Residential
Fourth Floor
Residential
Fifth Floor
Residential
Shop – 84m2
W_Bayswater Yolk
5
ATTACHMENT TWO
PARKING ASSESSMENT
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
AMENDED PROPOSAL
Required
Allocated
Required
Allocated
Residential
(Rcodes Nov
2015)
27
27+3
tandems
27
27 + 1 tandem
Visitor (Rcodes
Nov 2015)
7
2 (Yolk)
6 (CoB)
7
4
Use: Office
Commercial
Use: Shop/Restaurant (see below)
4 (Yolk)
0* (CoB)
5
8/12
4*
NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING CALCULATIONS
Office
Floor
Area
(sqm)
Tenancy
1
126
Tenancy
2
84
TOTALS:
Scheme
Ratio
Policy
Provision
4 per
100 sqm
2.4 per
100 sqm
Shop
Bays
req'd
3
2
5
Scheme
Ratio
Policy
Provision
7 per
100 sqm
3.5 per
100 sqm
Restaurant
Bays
req'd
5
3
Scheme
Ratio
Policy
Provision
10 per
100 sqm
5 per 100
sqm
8
Bays
req'd
7
5
12
W_Bayswater Yolk
6
That the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel, pursuant to section 31
of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 405 of
2015, resolves to:
Reconsider its decision dated 2 November 2015 and approve DAP Application
reference DAP/15/00861 and amended plans dated 22 December 2015 in
accordance with the provisions of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No.
24, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Revised plan(s) addressing the following matters shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Bayswater prior to the lodgement of a building permit
application, and not result in any greater variation to the requirements of the
Residential Design Codes and the City's Town Planning Scheme 24 and
associated policies:
(a)
The finished floor level of the 'ground' car parking area shall be raised to
comply with gradient levels in accordance with AS2890.1. The building is
not permitted to be above 20m from the natural ground level.
(b)
The aisle width behind car bays 11 to 15 and 30 to 31 shall have a
minimum width of 6.1m in accordance with AS2890.1.
(c)
The ramp width, gradients and manoeuvring at intersections shall comply
with AS2890.1.
(d)
A minimum of 27 residential car bays, one bay allocated to each unit.
(e)
A minimum of 7 residential visitor car bays.
(f)
A minimum of 2 commercial car bays.
(g)
An area provided on site for service vehicles to the satisfaction of the
City.
(h)
All bays provided on site shall comply with AS2890 set as applicable.
(i)
The awning provided to King William Street shall:
(i)
Be a continuous structure over the footpath;
(ii)
Project to 0.5 metres of the road kerb and have a consistent width
(subject to the below conditions);
(iii) Be cantilevered or suspended. Post or column supports are not
permitted;
(iv)
Have a clearance of at least 2.75 metres above footpath level; and
(v)
Provide continuous cover at abutting buildings. Where one awning
abuts another, the connection is to be treated so as to prevent the
penetration of rain.
2.
The right of way being widened 1 metre along the full frontage of the land
subject of this application by the applicant/owner transferring the land required
to the Crown free of cost for the purpose of widening the right of way.
3.
The portion of the right of way abutting the rear boundary to the subject land
any portion/s of the right of way required to be widened for the purpose of this
subdivision being sealed, drained, paved and provided with security lighting to
the satisfaction of the City.
Page 1
4.
The applicant/owner is to offer dilapidation and close out reports to the
adjoining property owners prior to commencing any works on the site (inclusive
of demolition).
5.
The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the
application as approved herein, and any approved plan.
6.
A geotechnical report covering the development area being prepared by a
suitably qualified practitioner at the applicant’s cost, to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater. The report is to be lodged with the building permit
application, together with certification from a structural engineer that the design
is suitable for the site conditions as outlined in the geotechnical report.
7.
12 bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at a location convenient to the
entrances and within the approved development. Details of the design and
layout of the bicycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the
City of Bayswater prior to the installation of such facilities.
8.
Payment of $80,000 to the City of Bayswater for cash-in-lieu for the onsite car
parking shortfall of 8 car parking bays, in accordance with the provisions of
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 and the City's Cash-in-lieu of Car Parking
Policy, prior to the submission of a building permit application.
9.
The owner, or the applicant on behalf of the owner, shall comply with the City
of Bayswater policy relating to Percent for Public Art, and provide public art
with a minimum value of 1% ($70,000) of the estimated total construction cost
of the development ($7,000,000). Details of the public art, including plans of the
artwork, its cost and construction, and other matters relating to the artwork's
on-going maintenance and acknowledgements in accordance with the City's
Percent for Public Art Policy shall be submitted to and approved by the City
prior to the lodgement of a building permit application.
10.
The owner shall execute and provide to the City of Bayswater, a notification
pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act to be registered on the title
of the multiple dwelling property as notification to proprietors and/or
(prospective) purchasers of the property of the following:
(a)
The use or enjoyment of the property may be affected by noise, traffic,
car parking and other impact associated with nearby non-residential
activities; and
(b)
The City of Bayswater will not issue a residential or visitor car parking
permit to any owner or occupier of the residential units as at the time of
assessment, the on-site car parking for the multiple dwelling was in
accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes.
The Section 70A Notification shall be prepared by the City’s solicitors to the
satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. All costs of, and incidental to, the
preparation of and registration of the Section 70A Notification, including the
City’s solicitor’s costs, shall be met by the applicant/owner of the land. This
notification shall be lodged and registered in accordance with the Transfer of
Land Act prior to the first occupation of the respective multiple dwelling(s).
Page 2
11.
A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application. For the
purpose of this condition, the plan shall be drawn with a view to reduce large
areas of hard stand in passive areas and show the following:
(a)
The location and species of all trees and shrubs to be retained or
removed.
(b)
The size and number of new plants to be planted.
(c)
The location of any lawn areas to be established.
(d)
Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated.
Landscaping and reticulation shall be completed in accordance with the
approved detailed landscape plan prior to occupation of the development and
thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
12.
The approved parapet/boundary walls and footings abutting the north-west and
south-east boundaries must be constructed wholly within the subject allotment.
The external surface of the parapet/boundary walls shall be finished in
accordance with plan dated 18 September 2015, to the satisfaction of the City
of Bayswater.
13.
The plans submitted with the building permit application must show finished
ground levels and finished floor levels for the building to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater.
14.
Any proposed vehicular entry gates shall be a minimum 50% visually
permeable, and shall be either open at all times or suitable management
measures shall be implemented to ensure access is available for visitors at all
times. Details of the management measures shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit
application.
15.
Architectural design elements, including clear, legible directional signage, being
incorporated into the proposal to adequately highlight the entrances to the
proposed units and improve legibility for pedestrians, to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater.
16.
Each resident car parking bay is to be allocated to a dwelling, and this is to be
registered on the strata plan for the development to the satisfaction of the City
of Bayswater.
17.
A detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour
schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application.
18.
A separate application including plans or description of all signs for the
proposed development (including signs painted on a building) shall be
submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the erection of any
signage.
19.
Lots 40 and 41 are to be amalgamated into a single lot prior to the submission
of a building permit application. Alternatively the owner may enter into a legal
agreement with the City of Bayswater, prepared by the City’s solicitors at the
expense of the owner. The legal agreement will allow the owner 12 months to
amalgamate the lots. The agreement is required to be executed by all parties
concerned prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted.
Page 3
20.
On completion of construction, all excess articles, equipment, rubbish and
materials being removed from the site and the site left in an orderly and tidy
condition, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
21.
A construction management plan, detailing how the construction of the
development will be managed to minimize the impact on the surrounding area,
shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the
submission of a building permit application.
22.
The balconies are not to be used for drying, airing of clothes, Manchester, or
the placement of unscreened air conditioning units.
23.
No storage or display of goods is to occur outside the building, to the
satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
24.
Windows, doors and adjacent areas fronting King William Street shall maintain
active and interactive relationships with the street, to the satisfaction of the City
of Bayswater.
25.
A refuse and recycling management plan shall be submitted to and approved
by the City of Bayswater, prior to commencement of any works. The plan shall
include details of refuse bin location, number of rubbish and recycling
receptacles, vehicle access and manoeuvring.
26.
Detailed plans of earthworks and/or associated drainage are to be submitted to
and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building
permit application.
27.
All stormwater and drainage runoff produced onsite is to be disposed of onsite.
28.
The car parking area(s) on the subject land 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(s)/occupier(s) to
the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
29.
All vehicle parking to be line marked, and visitor car parking spaces shall be
clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater.
31.
Any proposed vehicular entry gates shall be a minimum 50% visually
permeable, and shall be either open at all times or suitable management
measures shall be implemented to ensure access is available for visitors at all
times. Details of the management measures shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit
application.
32.
The applicant/owner to provide an acoustic noise modelling report, prepared by
a suitably qualified acoustic engineer, incorporating noise treatment solutions
for the multiple dwellings. The noise treatment solutions are to address the
mitigation of noise received by the multiple dwellings from the ground floor
restaurant/car parking area and other external noise. The recommendations of
the report are to be incorporated into the final design to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater. The report is to be submitted to and approved by the City
prior to the lodgement of a building permit application.
Page 4
Advice Notes
1.
Access and facilities for use by persons with disabilities shall be provided in
accordance with the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1.
2.
To activate the planning approval, the development/use subject of this approval
must be substantially commenced within a period of two (2) years of the date of
this approval notice. If the development is not substantially commenced within
this period, this approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an
approval has lapsed, no development/use shall be carried out without the
further approval of the City having first been sought and obtained.
3.
This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the
land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as but not limited to an
easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner
to investigate any such constraints before commencing development.
4.
The proposed development must comply in all respects with the Building Code
of Australia and/or Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. Plans and
specifications that reflect these requirements are required to be submitted to
the City of Bayswater with the building permit application.
5.
This approval does not authorise any interference with dividing fences, nor
entry onto neighbouring land. Accordingly, should the applicant/landowner wish
to remove or replace any portion of a dividing fence, or enter onto neighbouring
land, the applicant/landowner must first come to a satisfactory arrangement
with the adjoining property owner. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act
1961.
6.
Kerbs, roadways, footpaths, open drains, stormwater pits, service authority pits
and verge areas including any verge trees must be adequately protected,
maintained and reinstated if required, during and as a result of carting and all
works associated with this development.
7.
The owner/applicant will need to liaise with the Water Corporation to discuss
the provision for grease arrestor system for the proposed restaurants.
Page 5

12 February 2016 - Agenda - No 147

Transcription

Similar documents

Schottenstein Center

Event Parking

August 2015 ECRC-Parent Link Centre Stepping Stones Society

Municipal Parking

125 Wilson St. W #106, Ancaster L9G 0B9 Property Feature Sheet

free parking all day admission to six flags new england and

Abelyn Avenue, Great Easthall, Sittingbourne, ME10 3GE

elton john elton john

Carve JOLS Flyers - Springfield Park District

luxury office suites with zen garden courtyard