3.4 final adoption of outline development plan no. 127

Ordinary Meeting of Council 22 March 2006

Cr Croy declared a financial interest in Item 3.4 by virtue of his employer owning an adjoining property. Cr Croy left the Chamber at 6.16pm and was absent during the whole of the debate on Item 3.4 and did not speak or otherwise participate in the decision making process.

3.4 FINAL ADOPTION OF OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 127 - LOTS 10 & 52 CORNER OF WELLMAN & JAMES STREETS, GUILDFORD & OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 128 - LOTS 1 & 4 CORNER OF JAMES & SCOTT STREETS, GUILDFORD

(Guildford) (Development Services)

KEY ISSUES

• Outline Development Plan No.'s 127 & 128 for the subject sites were adopted for the purpose of advertising under delegated authority to the Principal Planner on 31 January 2005.

• During the advertising period the City received a total of 41 submissions, 30 objecting to the proposed developments and 11 submissions advising of no objection.

• The main concerns relating to the proposed developments were the proposed lot sizes, orientation and design, potential parking and traffic issues along Wellman Street and concern regarding the proposed housing type for the development.

• The subject properties fall within the 20-25 and 25-30 ANEF contours for the Perth Airport. The WA Planning Commission's (WAPC) Statement of Planning Policy No. 5.1 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport states that where no density coding or minimum lot size is prescribed for residential zoned land, the maximum density should generally be limited to R12.5, however exemptions to this rule exist.

• The Department of Environment (DoE) recommended that the applications be refused on the basis that any dwellings on the site could not be attenuated to a suitable level in accordance with the Australian Standards.

• Comments received from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) officers indicated that the proposed R30 density as proposed by the ODP's was unlikely to be supported as it did not reflect the surrounding lot sizes within the area. It was recommended to the applicant that an R20 minimum lot size would be considered more favourably as it is consistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the area.

• The existing warehouse on Lot 1 James Street is listed on the City's Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places as having a high conservation value. The development proposes to demolish the building in order to facilitate the creation of new residential lots. The City's Heritage Advisor has recommended that the building be retained and incorporated in any future development of the site.

• The applicant employed a heritage architect to conduct an internal inspection of the subject heritage listed building. The report obtained from the heritage


architect stated that the building has no elements in a condition suitable to be retained or adapted for interpretation.

• The applicant amended both the ODP's to reflect a density coding of R20. The modification to the ODP has reduced the total number of Lots for the ODP 127 area from 25 to 20 lots and the ODP 128 area from 23 lots to 18 lots. The minimum lot size for the proposed developments has also increased from 240m2 to 434m2.

• City officers convened a meeting with surrounding landowners who had made a submission in relation to the proposed developments and with the Ward Councillor. The intention of the meeting was to further discuss the relevant issues in relation to the proposed development. From the meeting it was clearly evident that the main concern of existing residents was the potential for increased traffic problems due to the narrowness of Wellman Street and increased number of dwellings.

• The City's Traffic Engineer has provided a traffic count for Wellman Street in which the current traffic numbers are considered to be relatively low for a suburban residential street. All new lots will not have direct street access to either James or Wellman Streets and each new dwelling is required to have a minimum of 2 on site car parking bays. The suggestion by residents to cul-de-sac Wellman Street is not supported by the City's Traffic Engineer as there is insufficient road reserve to do so without acquiring private land. Wellman Street is also one of two streets which allow right turn access directly onto James Street.

• Not withstanding the above, other options were canvassed, including cul-de-sacing both ends of Wellman Street and directing traffic via the new loop road. Cul-de-sacing would impact on Council rubbish truck movements and may encourage more traffic onto other streets. Alternative management devices such as narrowing a portion of Wellman Street could be considered following monitoring of the traffic situation.

It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed ODP's subject to modifications and upon receipt of the modified ODPs they be forwarded to the WA Planning Commission for final endorsement.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION

Clause 6.2.1.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 requires that an Outline Development Plan prepared or received in support of land within the Residential Development Zone be considered by Council for adoption.

Clause 6.2.1.3 states that upon further considering the Outline Development Plan with reference to any submissions received unless Council has exempted the plan from advertisement requirements, Council may resolve:

(i) to reject the plan;

(ii) to approve it as advertised and/or without modifications;


(iii) to approve a modified plan; and

(iv) to stipulate conditions which Council would impose on any development or would seek to have imposed on any subdivision in accordance with the Plan.

BACKGROUND

Applicant: The Planning Group Owner: Whiteman Estate Pty Ltd Zoning: TPS - Residential Development MRS - Urban Strategy/Policy: Guildford Conservation Policy Development Scheme: Town Planning Scheme No. 9 Existing Land Use: Lot Size: Lot 10 James Street: 5746m2

Lot 52 Wellman Street: 5522m2 Lots 1 & 4 James & Scott Streets: 9,933m2

Area: 21,201m2 Use Class: Dwelling: Single "P"

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL

ODP 127

ODP 127 proposes to create a total of 20 residential lots ranging in lot size from 422m2 (excluding truncation) to 560m2. The plan includes the provision of a 12 metre internal loop road reserve creating two intersections with Wellman Street and an additional 6m wide laneway providing rear access to 6 new lots, three of which will front James Street. The proposed subdivision includes the provision of six parking bays on the verge for visitors and footpaths along the internal road system.

The lot frontage of each of the 20 lots ranges from 11 metres to 17.5 metres. Access to James Street is to be restricted by the imposition of a restrictive covenant on all lots fronting James Street to prevent direct vehicular access. A restrictive covenant will also be placed on those lots with road frontage to Wellman Street to ensure vehicular access will only be via the internal road system.

ODP 128

ODP 128 proposes to create a total of 18 residential lots ranging in size from 434m2 to 478m2. The proposed subdivision includes a 12 metre internal road reserve off Scott Street which will initially be a cul-de-sac but provides the opportunity to extend the road should the adjoining land to the south be developed in the future (the land to the south is also zoned Residential Development).

Lot frontages for the development range from 12.7 metres to 16.5 metres. The proposal includes the provision of three visitor bays along the road verge and footpaths on one side of the internal road. The proposed subdivision will require the demolition of the four existing buildings on site, including the factory building which is listed on the City's Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places.


DESCRIPTION OF SITE

ODP 127

ODP 127 comprises of Lots 10 and 52 James and Wellman Street, Guildford. The subject site has a total land area of 1.1243 hectares and has frontage to both James and Wellman Streets. The site is relatively flat. Lot 52 is an old clay pit that was dug out and used as a saw dust pit for a timber mill that was previously situated on the site.

The site is surrounded by residential uses to the west and south with lots ranging in size from 352m2 to 754m2. Immediately west of the site on the opposite side of Wellman Street is Ross's Hardware. The land adjoining the east of the site is a bowling club. Land to the north of James Street is zoned 'Light Industrial' under Town Planning Scheme No. 9.

ODP 128

ODP 128 comprises of Lots 1 and 4 James and Scott Streets, Guildford. The subject site has a total land area of 9,933m2 and has frontage to both James and Scott Streets. The site is relatively flat and has previously been used by Ross's Hardware for the production of timber products. There are four existing buildings on site. The existing factory building located on the corner of James and Scott Streets is listed on the City's Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places as requiring a high level of protection. The other three existing buildings are not on the City's Heritage List.

Land immediately west and south of the site is predominantly single residential with lots ranging in size from 356m2 to 754m2. To the east of the site is Ross's Hardware.

SITE HISTORY/PREVIOUS APPROVALS

Lot 10 James Street (ODP 127)

• April 1984 - Relocation of Disposal Centre refused;

• August 1994 - Storage and collection of aluminium cans approved;

• December 1996 - Auction Yard refused;

• May 1997 - Subdivision/ODP application refused;

• May 2001 - Showroom/warehouse application refused;

• May 2001 - Subdivision application refused;

• August 2005 - Site remediation and demolition of sheds approved.

Lot 1 James Street (ODP 128)

• July 1987 - Change of use to showroom approved;


• October 1997 - Subdivision/ODP application refused;

• January 2001 - Mobile phone tower approved.

OTHER DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

Council refused Outline Development Plans for the subject site in June 1998 based on the advice of the DoE in respect to aircraft noise. It was resolved that Council give a commitment not to approve development on the sites until design guidelines for the sites zoned Residential Development in Guildford have been prepared. The guidelines cannot be prepared until the question of appropriate land use has been resolved in respect of the aircraft noise.

APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION

Due to the revised ODPs the applicant (The Planning Group) has indicated that modifications to the original supporting documentations have not been carried out. However they have indicated that design guidelines to accompany the revised ODPs refer to the prohibition of access to James Street and Wellman street, the use of bin pads by nominated lots, the incidence of aircraft noise, minimum lot area of 440m2 and development standards as per the Residential Design Codes. All these provisions will be provided and the ODPs modified if approved by the Council.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The original applications were advertised in February 2005. The subject ODP's were advertised for a period of 42 days. This advertising period included signs on-site, referral to adjoining landowners and relevant Government agencies and an advertisement in a local newspaper. A total of 41 submissions, including 30 objections, were received in relation to the proposals. The objections have been reviewed and the following key issues highlighted as concerns of the residents:

1. Lots sizes

Many objections received in relation to the proposed developments commented that the proposed lot sizes were too small and not consistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the locality. It was commented that a density of R20 would be more appropriate.

2. Subdivision Design & Lot Orientation

It was commented that the proposed subdivision design and layout were inconsistent with the Guildford Design and Development Guide. Comments suggested that lots should be designed to front Scott Street and that no direct vehicular access should be gained from James Street. It was also commented that the proposed developments provided poor streetscape value and did little to enhance the existing James Street streetscape.


3. Traffic

Currently landowners consider that Wellman Street is being used by motorists as a short cut to Johnson Street, thus creating increased traffic flow. The existing width of Wellman Street is a concern in respect to the volume of traffic it holds. It was requested that traffic calming devices be installed along Wellman Street, or that Wellman Street be a cul-de sac so it does not intersect with James Street.

4. Parking

It was commented that due to the narrowness of Wellman Street and predominantly older housing stock with no on site car parking there is a parking problem along this street. It was commented that the proposed street parking will negatively impact on the amenity of the area.

5. Proposed Dwellings

Concerns were raised regarding the type of dwelling that will be developed as no indication had been given to the architectural type of dwellings that would likely to be built. It was commented that two storey dwellings would detract from the predominantly single residential development in the locality and there were some concerns with the potential for privacy issues with two storey dwellings being located adjacent to single storey dwellings.

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR CONSULTANTS

Department of Environment (DoE)

Both ODP areas are affected by the 20-25 ANEF contour for the Perth Airport with a portion of ODP 128 also being affected by the 25-30 ANEF contour for Perth Airport. As both sites are affected by aircraft noise the proposals were referred to the Department of Environment (DoE) for comment. The Noise Policy Section of the DoE recommended that residential development should not proceed on the two sites. The main reasons for the DoE's position are:

• The maximum noise level of aircraft over flights are so high at these sites as to render impracticable the use of comprehensive noise insulation strategy aimed at achieving acceptable indoor noise levels; and

• The use of more basic noise insulation strategy would allow indoor levels of noise from aircraft that would be considered unacceptable in terms of maintaining long term health and amenity values.

Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI)

Comments in respect to the two ODP's from the DPI are based on the original ODP designs. The concerns raised by the DPI have been summarised as follows:

• Road Network

Concerns are raised in relation to the proposed width of the road reserves. WAPC Policy DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning requires that access road reserve widths incorporate sufficient verge widths to accommodate all services, sufficient


carriageway width, parking and mature large canopied trees within both verges. It is important that there is sufficient space in the road to accommodate all eventualities. Cross sections will be required to be supplied to the Commission demonstrating that all necessary services, trees, parking and paths can be provided.

• Public Open Space

The ODP's have not adequately addressed the issue of the provision of public open space (POS). Reference is made in the ODP document to the provision of cash in lieu of POS. Cash in lieu of POS is generally only supported where it would not be possible to create a POS area of usable size. If cash in lieu is desired by the Council and the land owner then justification will need to be provided to the Commission demonstrating that there is adequate passive and active POS within the vicinity of the ODP sites.

• Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) 5.1 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport

The ODP has not adequately addressed the Commission's SPP 5.1 which provides a presumption against residential development within areas above the ANEF 25 contour. It is acknowledged that the ODP reports have stated that the proposed R30 coding has been adopted to enable single residential lots consistent with the surrounding area to be created. However the report also states that the surrounding area consists of an average lot size of 450m2 and 515m2 which are consistent with an R20 coding.

The proposed ODP's and associated reports do not adequately address the issue of noise attenuation. Site specific noise attenuation methods need to be identified and incorporated within the ODP and the method of enforcement needs to be clearly specified particularly for single dwellings.

• Integration with Surrounding Land

It is recommended that all of the land within the street block(s) included within the "Residential Development' zone within TPS 9 be incorporated within the relative ODP's to ensure a coordinated development over time. Should this not occur further details will need to be provided to the Commission to justify the omission of the remaining lots.

• Design Guidelines

The Design Guidelines for ODP 127 need to be modified to ensure that development on proposed Lots 22 to 25 front James Street, and that the development of Lots 7 to 16 front the road and not the rear lane way.

• Site Contamination

The ODP 127 report states that a portion of the site contains a sawdust pit. The DoE's advice should be sought in relation to the potential contamination and rehabilitation requirements prior to the ODP being finalised.


• Wellman & Scott Streets

Wellman and Scott Streets are indicated as having reserve widths of 10 metres and 14 metres respectively. As both streets are through routes, a width of 14 to 15 metres should be provided given that lots will front both sides of these roads. Cross sections should be provided indicating that they can accommodate all necessary services, sufficient carriageway width indicating on-street parking and large canopied trees on both verges.

• Subdivision Concept - Lots 300 to 302 Helena Street, Guildford

Notations need to be included on the plan referring to the requirement for development to be in accordance with the relevant Design Guidelines and the Guildford Design and Development Guide.

Main Roads WA

Main Roads WA advised that there were no objections to the proposed developments subject to no direct access being granted from James Street.

REPORT

Demolition of Municipal Inventory Listed Building

ODP 128 proposes the demolition of the existing factory on the corner of James and Scott Street which is listed on the City's Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places. The building is listed within the Inventory as requiring a 'high level of protection'.

City staff, the City's Heritage Advisor, the applicant, landowner and Heritage Architect for the applicant undertook an internal site inspection of the subject building. A report from the applicant's heritage architect supported the proposed demolition of the building on the basis that the condition and alterations carried out on the original structural systems have eroded the potential for evaluation as a place of heritage significance. It is stated in the report that there are no elements in a condition suitable to be retained or adapted for interpretation.

The City's Heritage Advisor has recommended that the former warehouse be retained and incorporated in any future development of the site. The bulk and scale of the building on the corner of James and Scott Streets provides an important element in the streetscape representing the history of the development of the area.

The City's Heritage Advisor acknowledges that the building is not expected to be retained without alteration. It is evident from the inspection that the building has been altered over the years however the form and shape of the building has been retained. Currently the building is not being utilised and the current zoning of the land would not permit the use of it for commercial or industrial purposes.

Lot Sizes

The revised ODP's 127 & 128 propose an R20 density coding. Although the minimum lot size being 422m2 and 425m2 (excluding truncation areas) for the respective ODP 127 and 128 are slightly below the 440m2 minimum for an R20 density, Clause 3.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes (RDC) permits the use of the truncation area for the


purpose of calculating minimum lot sizes for corner lots. In this case all the lots comply with the 440m2 when the area of the truncation is included. The proposed ODP areas therefore met the minimum lot size for an R20 coding.

The revised ODP 128 proposes an average lot size of 452.5m2 and ODP 127 an average lot size of 457m2. The proposed developments do not meet the average lot size requirement (500m2) in accordance with Table 1 of the RDC. In light of the prevailing lot sizes in the locality which range from 356m2 to 754m2 it would seem reasonable of Council to grant a variation to the average lot size in light of the existing situation.

The applicant amended the ODP's from the original application which proposed an R30 density for the site (Minimum lot size of 270m2, average of 300m2). The original proposal was considered inconsistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the locality and it was recommended to the applicant by City staff and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure staff (DPI) that the lot sizes be increased to at least an R20 density coding. In amending the application the proposed lot yield for both sites has reduced by a total of five lots each. The requested variation to the average lot size is supported on this basis.

Aircraft Noise

As noted previously the subject sites are located within the 20-25 ANEF contour for Perth Airport with a portion of land within the ODP area for ODP 128 being within the 25-30 ANEF contour. The application was referred to the DoE for comment in which it was recommended that residential development on the two sites should not proceed.

The City's Executive Manager Strategic Community Planning Services has provided comments in respect to the two proposed ODP's. The City was represented on the working party which oversaw the preparation of the WA Planning Commission's Statement of Planning Policy 5.1 - Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport (SPP5.1). SPP 5.1 was gazetted in February 2004.

It was commented that the Policy contains specific provisions that contemplate the approval of residential development in areas above ANEF 25. This was included to recognise the existence of land such as those included in ODP's 127 and 128. At the time of the Policy formulation, the City put forward the case, which was agreed by the working party and included in the adopted Policy, that sites such as these should be considered for residential development due to their location with an established urban townsite, where residential infill is the only reasonable land use identifiable and other land uses would not be appropriate.

SPP5.1 contains the following relevant provisions:

"1.2 Development in the Vicinity of Perth Airport

While aircraft noise is a significant environmental factor to be considered in relation to land use planning in the vicinity of Perth Airport, there are other issues which need to be addressed. A more sustainable pattern of development requires a greater consolidation, which means that it is not feasible to exclude all noise-sensitive development from the evirons of Perth Airport.

The challenge in planning for these areas is to manage the impact of aircraft noise, taking into account the interests of existing communities and the needs of the growing metropolitan region."


The policy clearly indicates that it is not feasible to exclude all noise sensitive development from the environs of the airport and that there may be other justification for allowing noise sensitive development in existing areas where there is a strategic planning and/or local community need to be considered.

The Policy then goes on to provide that, although there is a presumption against zoning of land to permit noise sensitive development in noise affected areas, "where in the opinion of the local government it is not practical to allocate land for alternative uses, existing zoning may remain." That is, residential development may be permitted. This clause was included specifically to deal with site such as those currently being considered, where it is not practicable to zone the land for some alternative use.

The policy then provides further guidance for such land and includes the following provisions:

"Where alternative (non-residential) zoning of existing Residential zoned land is not practicable, the density of development should generally be kept to a minimum. Possible exceptions are where:-

• a higher density of development is necessary to facilitate redevelopment or infill development of an existing residential area;

• there is a strategic need for more consolidated development; • there is some other public interest reason which justifies the need for higher

density coding; and • a higher density would facilitate the concurrent provision of noise insulation in

accordance with the indoor design sound levels described in AS 2021." The Policy makes it quite clear that, despite a presumption against residential development within noise affected areas, there will be cases where such development is justified for strategic and public interest reasons. Furthermore, although the policy provides for a recommended density of R12.5 in these cases, it also specifically contemplates a higher density in some areas where there is a justification for the purposes of facilitating infill development, meeting objectives of urban consolidation, or other public interest objectives.

These policy provisions were included on the City's recommendation so that developments such as those being considered by Council would not be precluded on the basis of a blanket exclusion of residential development in noise-affected areas, such as Guildford.

The Policy, in fact, can be seen to provide a clear basis for supporting these developments for the following strategic reasons:

• Guildford is an inner-urban townsite with existing urban infrastructure including excellent access to the public transport system;

• The re-zoning of the land to commercial or industrial use is not practicable or desirable, in light of the heritage values of Guildford, the potential land use conflict with adjoining residential areas, and the desired pattern of commercial development which needs to be restricted to the town's existing commercial nodes;

• Despite the existence of some existing commercial uses (e.g. Ross's Salvage) the sites are not suitable for commercial redevelopment due to their size, location, potential impact on adjoining residential areas and the need to prevent


commercial expansion outside of the existing identified commercial nodes in Guildford.

• The development of residential lots meets a strategic need for compatible infill development to increase the viability of the townsite and maintain population levels and demand for local services, including public transport;

• The development of lots in the order of 500 square metres is consistent with Guildford's heritage values, the existing pattern of development in the immediate vicinity and the WAPC Policy DC 1.6 "Planning to Enhance Public Transport Use"

In relation to the advice received from the Department of Environment in its document "Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment" (dated August 2005), it is considered that this advice goes beyond the scope of the role of the Department of Environment and its recommendations should not be followed, for the following reasons:

• It is not the role of the DoE to determine whether there are sufficient strategic reasons for allowing residential development as provided by SPP 5.1. The DoE is not in a position to determine whether alternative land uses are suitable, as this a planning matter, and the City has previously reached the view on planning grounds that residential uses are preferred.

• The DoE is not in a position to advice on appropriate densities and the strategic need for these. The provisions of SPP 5.1 clearly allow for broader strategic planning issues to be considered in determining the desired density and this is a planning issue, not an environmental one.

If the SPP 5.1 had been intended to preclude all residential development in areas above ANEF 25, then it would not have included the provisions allowing for exceptions to be made in particular circumstances. In this case, the exceptional circumstances apply and there is a strongly defensible case that can be put, on broader strategic grounds, for the approval of residential development.

There are substantial strategic reasons for allowing residential development on the subject land. There is a strong case for a residential density in the order of R20 to allow for development which is consistent and compatible with the prevailing lot sizes in the immediate vicinity and contributes to the development of Guildford to achieve the strategic objectives for the townsite and community.

Road Network

DPI staff raised concerns in relation to the proposed width of the road reserves within the proposed subdivisions. A 12 metre road width is proposed for the internal access roads for both ODP areas. The proposed road widths incorporate a 6 metre wide road, footpath on one side and six parking bays within the road verge for visitor parking.

DPI staff were concerned that the proposed road widths were not sufficient to accommodate all services. The applicant has provided cross sections as requested demonstrating that all services can be provided within the proposed 12 metre road reserve.

The City's Subdivision Engineer has advised that the proposed road widths, access and connections are acceptable.

Traffic

One of the main concerns of existing residence was the existing and potential traffic problems along Wellman Street. Wellman Street currently has a 10 metre road


reserve and is only one of two roads that have full right turn access onto James Street.

The City's Traffic Engineer has advised that the total vehicle count for Wellman Street (taken in November 2005) was 173 vehicles per day which is relatively low for a residential street. It was commented that there was no evidence to suggest that Wellman Street has become a 'rat run' for traffic to bypass the signals on James Street as suggested by some residents. Traffic volumes measured in November 2005 were very low with the peak use recorded as 25 vehicles at 2pm.

The percentage of commercial vehicles using the road is within the expected ranges for an access road. The traffic assessment undertaken by Van der Meer Consulting for the applicant determined that the development would increase local traffic movements by 145 vehicles per day. Even with these additional vehicles the average weekday traffic for Wellman Street would still be very low at around 320 vehicles per day.

Traffic Calming Devices

Several suggestions were received from concerned residents requesting that Wellman Street be cul de sac to prevent access from James Street. The City's Traffic Engineer has advised that the cul-de-sacing of Wellman Street is not a viable option. Wellman Street is only one of two streets which allow a full right turn onto James Street and closing this road would only transfer vehicles to other roads in the area, particularly Attfield Street. In addition, Wellman Street is only a 10 metre reserve and a cul-de-sac head cannot be constructed without encroaching into adjacent existing lots. To maintain roadwork connectivity cul-de-sacing Wellman Street is not recommended and could impact on Council's rubbish vehicle movements. However, notwithstanding, other traffic calming devices can be further considered after development has commenced. Therefore it is considered reasonable that the landowner enters into a legal agreement with the City for the provision of road works (traffic calming devices) should the need arises when the development commenced.

Parking

The parking problems currently experience by existing residences on Wellman Street is related to the narrow width of Wellman Street (10 metre road reserve) and the majority of existing houses not having provision for on site car parking. These tow factors have resulted in residences parking on the street verge and this being exacerbated by the narrowness of Wellman Street.

Residents are concerned that the introduction of a larger residential population along Wellman Street will increase the current problem experienced with parking on the road verge. Each of the new dwellings to be constructed on the proposed site will require the provision of a minimum of two parking bays each in accordance with the Residential Design Codes. In addition to this, the applicant has included the provision of six visitor car parking bays for the Wellman Street ODP area and four visitor car parking bays for the Scott Street ODP area.

Access

A 129BA Restricted Covenant under the Transfer of Land Act will be required to prevent vehicular access to both sites from James and Wellman Streets. Lots with frontage to James Street will be required to front James Street with rear lane access from Wellman Street and street access off Scott Street for ODP 127.


Remediation of Lot 10 James Street

The City approved an application for forward works, site remediation and the demolition of sheds on Lot 10 James Street on 10 August 2005. The approval was subject to conditions including the following:

• The approved works are to be carried out in accordance with the "Residential Development Corner James/Wellman Street, Guildford WA - Development Application for forward works and Site Remediation Report;

• No vehicles are to access Wellman Street via Helena Street;

• Vehicle access to the site shall be restricted to that shown on the approved site plan i.e. Via James Street only.

Public Open Space

The proposed subdivision is located within less than a 1 kilometre radius from Fauntleroy Park, Stirling Square and Spring Reserve. The applicant is proposing to provide cash in lieu of providing public open space within the proposed developments. This proposition was referred to the City's Community Facilities Planning Section in which it was advised that the provision of cash in lieu of public open space is acceptable.

Bin Access

All lots with frontage to James Street will be required to have access from the rear of the lot through to James Street to allow for rubbish bins to be wheeled for collection from James Street. The City will request that the applicant provide detailed area plans for approval which dictate the location of garages on site and the provision of an access area to the side of each dwelling to allow for bin access.

Proposed Dwellings

Development approval will be required for each new dwelling to be constructed. A notification on the ODP will be requested to ensure this requirement is included on the Certificate of Title for each lot. All dwellings will be assessed in accordance with the recommendations of the Guildford Design and Development Guide.

OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1: The Council may support the proposal unconditionally and advise the Western Australian Planning Commission accordingly. This option is not supported.

Implications: Should the proposal be supported unconditionally by the City, the WAPC may interpret that the City has no objections to the ODP as submitted.

Option 2: Council may resolve to finally endorse ODP's 127 & 128 subject to conditions and advise the WA Planning Commission accordingly.

Implications: The applications will be forwarded to the WA Planning Commission for final endorsement. Approval of the proposed developments will result in


the development of the subject land for residential purposes and the demolition of an existing MI listed building on the corner of James and Scott Streets. The proposed design and lot sizes are considered consistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the locality which is the most suitable form of development for these sites.

Option 3: The Council may form the view that the proposed ODP is not in the interests of proper and orderly planning and accordingly may exercise discretion and resolve not to approve the ODP and forward that recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission. This option is not supported.

Implications: The applicant has a right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of determination.

In considering the ODP for endorsement the WAPC may agree or disagree with Council’s decision. The final determination rests with the WAPC.

Furthermore, the applicant, if aggrieved by the decision of the Council, may exercise a right of appeal pursuant to clause 6.2.1.11 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and in accordance with Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended).

CONCLUSION

It is proposed to adopt an Outline Development Plan (ODP 127 & 128) for Lots 10 & 52 James and Wellman Streets and Lots 1 & 4 James and Scott Streets, Guildford to facilitate the subdivision and development of the subject land for residential development purposes. Minor revisions to the document will be needed to reflect the need for additional annotations on the ODP's. These can be dealt with under delegation and should not impede Council’s consideration of the Outline Development Plan.

ATTACHMENTS

• Location Plan;

• ODP 127 document;

• ODP 128 document;

• ODP 127 - Scott and James Streets, Guildford;

• ODP 128 - Wellman and James Streets, Guildford.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil


STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Clause 6.2.1.2 of TPS 9 - ODP requirement for Residential Development zoned land.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to:

1) Adopt the proposed Outline Development Plan's 127 and 128 for Lots 10 & 52 James and Wellman Streets and Lots 1 & 4 James and Scott Streets, Guildford subject to the following:

a. Amended respective ODPs being submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner with the following additional annotations/modifications:

i. Annotate on the respective ODPs that the land is affected by the ANEF 350K (20-25) and (25-30) noise contour;

ii. Annotate the density of R20 with lot sizes as shown on the respective ODPs;

iii. Annotate that the development standards are as per the Residential Design Codes;

iv. Annotate that all development must be in accordance with the Guildford Design and Development Guide;

v. Annotate on the respective ODPs restricting vehicular access onto James and Wellman Street.

Vi Annotate the use of bin pads for designated lots.

Vii Annotate on the respective ODPs that prior to subdivision and development of the land Detailed Site Plans for the ODP 127 & 128 areas are to be prepared by the developer to the specifications of the City of Swan and the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Detailed Site Plans are to address future development setbacks, access, development orientation, fencing and garage locations.

b. Prior to final adoption of the respective ODPs by the WAPC the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with the City agreeing to meeting the cost associated with the construction of future traffic calming devices on Wellman Street should the need arises following subdivision and


development of the site. Such legal agreement to be prepared by City's Solicitors at the cost of the landowner.

c. Upon receipt of the above changes to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner, forward ODP's 127 & 128 to the WAPC seeking final endorsement.

d. Advise the applicant that the following matters must be addressed as part of any future subdivision application:

i. Memorial to be drafted for the lots affected by the ANEF 350K (20-25) and ANEF (25-30) noise contours;

ii. Memorial to be drafted advising prospective purchasers that all development must be in accordance with the Guildford Design and Development Guide.

2) Advise those who lodge a submission of Council's decision accordingly.

MOTION that the Recommendation be adopted.

(Cr Alban - Cr Congerton)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY TO:

1) Adopt the proposed Outline Development Plan's 127 and 128 for Lots 10 & 52 James and Wellman Streets and Lots 1 & 4 James and Scott Streets, Guildford subject to the following:

a. Amended respective ODPs being submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner with the following additional annotations/modifications:

i. Annotate on the respective ODPs that the land is affected by the ANEF 350K (20-25) and (25-30) noise contour;

ii. Annotate the density of R20 with lot sizes as shown on the respective ODPs;

iii. Annotate that the development standards are as per the Residential Design Codes;

iv. Annotate that all development must be in accordance with the Guildford Design and Development Guide;

v. Annotate on the respective ODPs restricting vehicular access onto James and Wellman Street.

Vi Annotate the use of bin pads for designated lots.


Vii Annotate on the respective ODPs that prior to subdivision and development of the land Detailed Site Plans for the ODP 127 & 128 areas are to be prepared by the developer to the specifications of the City of Swan and the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Detailed Site Plans are to address future development setbacks, access, development orientation, fencing and garage locations.

b. Prior to final adoption of the respective ODPs by the WAPC the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with the City agreeing to meeting the cost associated with the construction of future traffic calming devices on Wellman Street should the need arises following subdivision and development of the site. Such legal agreement to be prepared by City's Solicitors at the cost of the landowner.

c. Upon receipt of the above changes to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner, forward ODP's 127 & 128 to the WAPC seeking final endorsement.

d. Advise the applicant that the following matters must be addressed as part of any future subdivision application:

i. Memorial to be drafted for the lots affected by the ANEF 350K (20-25) and ANEF (25-30) noise contours;

ii. Memorial to be drafted advising prospective purchasers that all development must be in accordance with the Guildford Design and Development Guide.

2) Advise those who lodge a submission of Council's decision accordingly.

Cr Croy returned to the Chamber at 6.17pm.

3.4 final adoption of outline development plan no. 127

Documents