m i n u t e s - city of armadale · city of armadale m i n u t e s of development services...

CITY OF ARMADALE

M I N U T E S

OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON MONDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY 2004, AT 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Cr H A Zelones JP Chairman Cr P J Hart Deputy Chairman Cr G M Hodges Cr J Everts Cr F R Green Cr J Knezevich Cr L Reynolds JP APOLOGIES: Nil OBSERVERS: Cr G T Wallace Cr R J Tizard IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R S Tame Chief Executive Officer Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services Mr P Meyrick Health Services Manager Mr G Windass A/Planning Services Manager Mr I Townson Building Services Manager Mr R Van Delft Environmental Planning Officer Ms N Cranfield Minute Secretary Public 26

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 13TH OCTOBER 2003 COMMITTEE MEETING DISCLAIMER The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff from liability of information and advice given at Committee meetings was read by the Chairman. DECLARATION OF MEMBER’S INTERESTS Cr Hodges Heritage Plaques for buildings on the Municipal Heritage Inventory -------------------Page 123 Public Open Space Strategy – Reserve 33126, 37 Amethyst Crescent, Mt Richon -----Page 141 QUESTION TIME Mr H Beck – Property Consultant for Roleystone Shopping Centre 1. In regards to the item on the Agenda regarding the proposed redevelopment and

extension to Roleystone Shopping Centre, can this Committee recommend an item to the Council which is still subject to the Executive Officer finalising issues? Can the development approval proceed without it being deferred any further?

Chairman advised that the Committee can make additional recommendations, some of which may need additional officer input and report to Council. This development proposal will be deliberated upon in the standard process of this Committee Meeting.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLVED Minutes of the Development Services Committee Meeting held on 12 January 2004, be confirmed. MOVED Cr Zelones MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 13TH OCTOBER 2003 COMMITTEE MEETING ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFORMATION BULLETIN – ISSUE No.1/2004

The following items were included for information in the “Development Services Strategy section” –

Report on Outstanding Matters – Development Services Committee Health Services Manager’s Report for December 2003 Planning Services Manager’s Report for December 2003 Submission – Public Accounts Committee Inquiry ARA – Brookdale / Wungong Demonstration Project – Workshop Town Planning Scheme No.2 - Amendment Action Table PAW Closure Report - significant actions during December 2003 Subdivision Applications - Recommendation Table (Dec 2003 / Jan 2004) Compliance Officer’s Report for December 2003 Planning Dept Monthly Admin Reports for December 2003 Building Services Manager’s Report for December 2003 Financial Statements for the period ending 31st December 2003

Committee noted the information and no additional items were raised for further report.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

INDEX

9TH FEBRUARY 2004 SCHEME AMENDMENT & STRUCTURE PLANS

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A14 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LOTS 12 & PART LOT 24 RALPHS ST AND LOTS 27 & 503 BRAEMORE ST, SEVILLE GR -------------3

PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT - LOT 51 WARTON RD, FORRESTDALE----------------------------29 DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPPING CENTRE, MEDICAL CTR, FAST FOOD OUTLET, SERVICE STATION / CAR WASH, HARDWARE AND NURSERY- PORTION OF LOT 600 EIGHTH ROAD, ARMADALE --------------------------------------------------------15

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT & EXTENSION TO ROLEYSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE - LOTS 65 & 42 WYGONDA ROAD, ROLEYSTONE------------------------------------------------------------41

PROPOSED (8) GROUPED DWELLING DEVELOPMENT - LOT 2 & 70 FOURTH RD, A/D ------------53

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CHILD CARE CTR NUMBERS - LOT 14 CAROLINE ST, MT NASURA--63

PROPOSED SERVICE INDUSTRY - LOT 107 CHAMPION DR, SEVILLE GROVE--------------------------73

PROPOSED SHED, LEAN-TO, SEA CONTAINER & AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL BUSINESS - LOT 3 (440) NICHOLSON ROAD, FORRESTDALE------------------------------------------------------------83

PROPOSED (12) GROUPED DWELLING - LOT 100 ALBANY HWY, MT NASURA-----------------------93

TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF SEA CONTAINER FOR STORAGE - LOT 5 CENTRE RD, W/F------ 105 SUBDIVISION

PROPOSED 23 LOT SURVEY-STRATA – LOT 10 & 11 BRAEMORE ST, SEVILLE GROVE ------------- 113 MISCELLANEOUS

HERITAGE PLAQUES FOR BUILDINGS ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY---------------- 123

LGA BOARD SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF TONKIN HIGHWAY AS NEW BOUNDARY WITH THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ---------------------------------------------------------- 129

PROPOSED INCLUSION OF RESERVE 2121, BROOKTON HWY KELMSCOTT & RESERVE 30196 MARMION ST, KELMSCOTT - IN THE MHI ---------------------------------------------- 133

* PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY – RESERVE 33126, 37 AMETHYST CR, MT RICHON ---------- 141

REQUEST TO NAME RESERVE 45968, BOULEVARDE AVE, BROOKDALE, THE “GERALD RUSSELL PARK” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 149

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

* CR GREEN – DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE ---------------------------------------------------- 152

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Scheme Amendment & Structure Plan

2


3

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A14 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – LOTS 12 AND PART LOT 24 RALPHS STREET AND LOTS 27 AND 503 BRAEMORE STREET, SEVILLE GROVE WARD : SEVILLE

FILE REF : A001444

DATE : 23 January 2004

REF : JEH / PRR

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: PSM

APPLICANT

: The Planning Group Pty Ltd

LAND OWNERS

: Mr M Alteri Hajex Pty Ltd J & K Rooney

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 9.9373ha (total) Map 21.04

In Brief:-

A proposed amendment to the A14 ODP was received 27 October 2003, requesting modifications to the lot and street layout and an increase in density from ‘R15’ to ‘R17.5’.

38 public submissions were received, 34 objecting and 4 supporting the proposed amendment. A submission of no objection was also received from the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Recommend that Council approve the proposed amendment subject to appropriate conditions.

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Development Area

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil. Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


4


5

Consultation

Surrounding landowners Western Australian Planning Commission Development Control Unit

BACKGROUND An application to amend the A14 Outline Development Plan (ODP) over the subject lots was submitted to Council on 27 October 2003. The proposal was initially advertised for a period of 4 weeks to 40 affected landowners and by placement of a sign on site, with the advertising period closing on 9 January 2004. Following a number of concerns being raised by Ward Councillors and members of the public regarding a proposed reduction in the Public Open Space (POS) contribution and the advertising being conducted over the Christmas / New Year period, it was determined that advertising of the proposal would be extended. The proposal was advertised to a total of 127 landowners (including the 40 landowners previously notified), the applicant was requested to erect an additional sign on site, and submissions were accepted up until 23 January 2004. Comments were also sought from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). During the advertising period a local resident distributed flyers to surrounding landowners to organise a street meeting to discuss the proposed reduction in POS. Following discussions between Council Officers and the applicant, the applicant agreed that in order to alleviate community concern, a revised plan would be submitted to indicate POS in accordance with the existing adopted ODP. A meeting between Council Officers and the applicant was subsequently held on 14 January and the revised plan discussed, prior to it being submitted formally on 19 January 2004. On Saturday 16 January 2004, Councillors and the Executive Director Development Services attended a community street meeting where the revised plan was discussed. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to reconfigure the ODP over the subject lots. By increasing the density to ‘R17.5’ in place of the nominated ‘R15’ and realigning the road layout, the applicant has increased the number of lots from 72 to 96. The POS remains unchanged. COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) At its meeting held on 29 January 2004, DCU recommended that the item be referred to Council for approval, subject to a redesign of the lot layout on the south eastern side of the POS to improve surveillance and indication of road reserve and carriageway widths. Surrounding Landowners During advertising 34 submissions objecting to the proposal and four (4) submissions supporting the proposal were received. The submissions are considered in the Analysis section. Refer to Confidential Attachment “B3” of the Agenda for location of respondents.


6DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Scheme Amendment & Structure Plan

6


7

Western Australian Planning Commission The proposed amendment to the ODP was referred to the WAPC on 11 November 2003 to provide comments to the City as to whether it is prepared to endorse the proposed structure plan. The WAPC responded on 5 December 2003 and raised no objections to the proposed changes. ANALYSIS Public Submissions 38 submissions were received on the proposal, some submissions raising more than one issue. The issues are summarised and responded to as follows, the number in brackets indicating how many times the issue was raised. Density 1. Density increase would be detrimental to the area / ‘High density’ development is

unacceptable. (15). The difference between ‘R15’ and ‘R17.5’ is 80m² to the minimum lot size (580m² vs

500m²) and 95m² to the average lot size (666m² vs 571m²). This represents, based on the length of Lot 27 Braemore Street, a reduction in the width of the lots created by approximately 2m. As the majority of land within the A14 ODP is ‘R17.5’, it is unlikely that such a small change would be detrimental to the area. With regard to the claim that the proposal is a high density development and therefore unacceptable, ‘R17.5’ is a higher density than ‘R15’, but the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia class development up to ‘R25’ as ‘low density’. The applicant has submitted that ‘R20’ is recognised as the standard density for the metropolitan area.

2. The City motto is ‘City Living Country Style’, higher densities will defeat this. (2). Refer to comments for 1. 3. The density should be ‘R20’ instead of ‘R17.5’. (1). This comment was made by one of the four (4) submissions holding no objections to the

proposal. Given that surrounding areas are either coded ‘R15’ or ‘R17.5’ it would seem raising the density to ‘R20’ is unjustified.

Public Open Space (POS) 4. The POS contains a unique stand of grass trees / developing this area will not leave

enough for recreation purposes. (22). It is noted that the developer has submitted a revised plan, leaving the POS as it is

currently proposed under the approved ODP and as such this issue is resolved.


8


9

5. The POS is used by rare red and white tailed cockatoos, as well as other fauna, that will

loose their homes if development proceeds as proposed. (20). Refer to comments for 4. 6. The price paid by original residents was in part based upon the amount of POS nearby.

To reduce it now would be unfair. (2). Refer to comments for 4. 7. Council should further develop the POS in consultation with residents. (2). The POS that the ODP indicates between Pheasant Close and Morgan Road

(approximately 1ha) is still part of private property. Until subdivision occurs and the POS is set aside and vested the Council has no authority to improve the land.

Amenity 8. The proposal will have a negative effect on property values. (12). This argument does not provide a planning basis for refusal. Refer to comments for 9. 9. The aesthetics of the area will be detrimentally affected. (2). The developer has drafted some new covenants for the area to maintain the standard of

development. With the POS remaining and house and lot sizes being appropriate for single house development, it is believed the amenity of the area will be maintained.

10. Larger blocks mean people can build larger homes, which in turn increases the value of

the area. (2). Whilst this is may be generally true, it is not necessarily the case that larger homes

increase the value of an area. In any event the argument does not provide a planning basis for refusal. The new lots would still be capable of containing houses of a similar size of those already constructed in the estate. The maximum single storey dwelling size based on the ‘R15’ average lot size could be 333m², whereas for ‘R17.5’ it could be 285m², a reduction of only 48m². The developer has indicated that average house sizes in the area are 130m² - 150m², indicating that the ‘R17.5’ lots will have ample space to build similar homes.

Design 11. The lot pattern and road pattern should remain as proposed in the original ODP. (5). An ODP is considered a guide as to how subdivision should occur in the area, but may

be modified at the discretion of Council. Any landowner(s) may submit an application to vary an ODP. The Council, and the WAPC in this instance as the variation is considered to be substantial, must give due consideration to the proposed variation and make a decision accordingly.


10

12. Original residents bought into the area with the expectation that the remainder would

be developed in accordance with the A14 ODP. (4). Refer to comments for 11. It is noted that the majority of the land covered by the ODP

is ‘R17.5’. 13. Extra lots will mean extra traffic / Extra pressure on infrastructure, such as sewerage

and electricity. (3).

It is not believed that the traffic generated by an extra 24 lots in the area will be excessive for the existing / proposed street network. Any upgrade of existing services will be borne by the developer at the subdivision stage as necessary.

14. The new design includes an ‘alley’ which are known to increase risk of crime / back

fences abut the POS increase risk of break-ins. (3).

The ‘alley’ is a small access road for the lot adjacent to the south west side of the POS. Unlike public access ways which are narrow and have little to no surveillance, this access way would be wide enough to cater for a vehicle and would be surveilled by two (2) lots. The design is not an ideal layout however and may be addressed through a redesign as discussed in the POS section of the report. This also applies to lots that no longer overlook the POS.

15. The developer knew the area was planned for development at a density of ‘R15’ when

the land was bought and should have to develop at that density. (2). Refer to comments for 11. 16. There is no planning for additional schools in the area to accommodate for the extra

children more lots would bring. (1).

It is likely that the existing schools will handle the number of extra children that 24 additional lots will bring to the area, as it is unlikely the numbers within specific age groups will be sufficient to overload current capacity. Regardless, it is the state government’s responsibility to adequately plan for educational establishments.

General 17. Smaller lots lead to anti-social behaviour and ‘lifestyle issues’ such as noise. (6).

This argument does not provide a planning basis for refusal. The City cannot predict the temperament of residents and everyone must have due consideration for the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations 1997.

18. Original residents had to conform to covenants / Covenants should be placed on any

new lots created. (5). Refer to comments for 9.


11

19. Council / Developer is just attempting to maximise its revenue with no regard for existing residents. (5).

The Council has not initiated the proposal and must consider it on its merits. Council must now decide whether the proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area. The revision of the plan by the developer to exclude the reduction in POS and the preparation of covenants for the area indicates that they are listening to residents concerns.

20. Timing of the advertising was poor and was not wide ranging. (3).

Normal procedure for advertising is to directly contact landowners immediately surrounding the proposal allowing a three (3) week comment period and for something of this nature, request the applicant to place a sign on site. In this instance, four (4) weeks were allowed due to the Christmas period. Given the concerns raised over advertising procedure however, the City increased the field of advertising, extended the submission period by a fortnight (for a total of six (6) weeks) and required that a second sign be placed on site.

Revised A14 Outline Development Plan The elements of the revision to the A14 ODP will now be examined. Public Open Space The original A14 ODP was designed so that lots on the south-eastern side of the POS would overlook the park. This provides a benefit in that passive surveillance is increased, which in turn provides greater security for those using the POS. In the plan submitted by the applicant at a density of ‘R17.5’, lots are side on to the POS and this advantage is lost. It is recommended that this feature be retained and that the applicant be requested to revise the design so that these lots overlook the POS. The ‘access lane’ issue raised in the public submissions could also be addressed in this regard. Density The A14 ODP has two densities indicated, ‘R15’ and ‘R17.5’. Given that ‘R17.5’ exists nearby, the proposed increase in zoning is not out of context with the area. The difference between these two densities is not great; a 95m² reduction in the lot size will offer the same lifestyle as those lots zoned ‘R15’. Therefore, the proposed density increase is reasonable. It is noted that under Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No.2) the developer could apply for grouped dwellings on the subject site, as could any landowner with an adequate lot size. Specific areas of the ODP have been set aside for grouped housing development and in the plan submitted, the south-eastern corner has been indicated as a group housing site. This site could potentially be developed to a density of ‘R40’. It is considered to be appropriate to provide for a range of housing by allowing some provision for group housing whilst pursuing the subdivision of the area.


12

Road Widths The Technical Services Directorate has requested that if Council approve the proposal and a revised plan is submitted, road reserves and carriageways are to be dimensioned appropriately (16m minimum, 15m where adjacent to POS). Western Australian Planning Commission Should the Council decide to pursue any changes to the A14 ODP, the City is obliged to forward a copy of the changes to the WAPC within seven (7) days of Council’s decision for endorsement. In this instance however, alterations to the plan have been suggested to produce a final version. If Council should decide that these alterations should be pursued, it is recommended the WAPC be advised of the pending revised plan and that the plan then be forwarded to the WAPC upon its submission to the City. OPTIONS 1. Council may approve the proposed amendment to the A14 ODP over Lots 27 and 503

Braemore Street and Lot 12 and Part Lot 24 Ralphs Street, Seville Grove, at a revised density of ‘R17.5’, subject to the retention of the original POS configuration, the redesign of the lot layout to provide surveillance of the POS between Pheasant Close and Morgan Road and indication of road reserve and carriageway widths.

2. Council may refuse the proposed amendment to the A14 ODP over Lots 27 and 503

Braemore Street and Lot 12 and Part Lot 24 Ralphs Street, Seville Grove, to a revised density of ‘R17.5’, on the grounds that it is not satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area and that it believes the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.

3. Council may approve the proposed amendment to the road design within the A14 ODP

over Lots 27 and 503 Braemore Street and Lot 12 and Part Lot 24 Ralphs Street, Seville Grove, but refuse the increase to a density of ‘R17.5’ on the grounds that it is not satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area and that it believes the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.

CONCLUSION With any proposed change to an adopted ODP, Council must decide whether the changes will be in the interest of orderly and proper planning for the area. With a revised plan submitted retaining the POS, the remaining major changes are the density and configuration. The density of ‘R17.5’ is consistent with other nearby areas of the ODP and is therefore seen to be reasonable. Therefore, with some modification of the road and lot layout to provide surveillance of the POS, it is recommended that the proposed amendment to the A14 ODP be supported in accordance with Option 1.


13

COMMITTEE raised concerns with the accessway in regards to the lots being side on to the POS. The original ODP was designed so that lots on the south-eastern side of the POS would overlook the park. This provided a benefit in that passive surveillance is increased, which in turn provides greater security for those using the POS. Accordingly, Part 1(a) was amended to reflect Committee’s comments and the original design of the Outline Development Plan.

D17/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Council approve the proposed modifications to the A14

Outline Development Plan over Lots 27 and 503 Braemore Street, and Lot 12 and Part Lot 24 Ralphs Street, Seville Grove, including an increase to the density from ‘R15’ to ‘R17.5’, but excluding any modification to Public Open Space, subject to the following conditions:

a) Provision of design guidelines to provide passive surveillance

of the Public Open Space between Pheasant Close and Morgan Road from its south eastern side and the access lane by appropriate arrangements for the orientation of buildings and fencing to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) The revised plan is to indicate road reservation and

carriageway widths, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

2. That officers advise the Western Australian Planning Commission

of the impending submission of a revised plan and then forward the plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for endorsement once the final version is submitted.

MOVED Cr Everts MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

Cr Wallace, Cr Everts and the Chief Executive Officer left the meeting at 7.16pm.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Development

14


15

PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPPING CENTRE, MEDICAL CENTRE, FAST FOOD OUTLET, SERVICE STATION / CAR WASH, HARDWARE AND NURSERY- PORTION OF LOT 600 EIGHTH ROAD, ARMADALE WARD : WEST ARMADALE

FILE REF : A686


REF : GIW

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Koltasz Smith

LAND OWNER

: Neerigen Brook Estate P/L

SUBJECT LAND :

Lot 600 Eighth Road, Armadale Property size 7.8ha Map 21.03

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Residential- Development Area

In Brief:-

Application is made to develop a neighbourhood shopping centre, medical centre, fast food outlet, service station / car wash, hardware store and nursery.

Proposal is consistent with the adopted Structure Plan for the subject site.

Proposal has been advertised for public comment. A total of (13) submissions received to date, including (10) supporting the proposal and (3) noting concern.

Recommend that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development- “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning & Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Commercial Strategy Retail Hierarchy Review Southern River / Forrestdale / Brookdale / Wungong District Structure Plan


16


17

Budget / Financial Implications Nil. Consultation

Development Control Unit (DCU) Surrounding Neighbours Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

BACKGROUND Council at its meeting held on 19 January 2004 resolved to finally adopt a Structure Plan for the site subject to the following requirements and modifications (D2/1/04): a) Arrangements being made to ensure the closure of the West Armadale Shopping Centre to

the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services; b) The owner of Lot 600 Eighth Road entering into a legal agreement with the City of

Armadale to facilitate the rationalisation / redevelopment of the existing West Armadale Shopping Centre to accommodate alternative (i.e. residential) development to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

c) Incorporating the following notifications on the Structure Plan: i. Provision of a bus stop subject to further negotiation and approval of Transperth. ii. Vehicular access onto Armadale to be subject to further negotiation and approval

of Main Roads Western Australia. iii. Landscaping of drainage reserve subject to further negotiation and approval of

Water Corporation. iv. Armadale Road and Eighth Road, including intersection to be upgraded / widened

to the satisfaction of City of Armadale and Main Roads Western Australia. v. All vehicular crossovers to be designed and located to the satisfaction of the City

of Armadale and Main Roads Western Australia. vi. A comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire site is to be prepared by the

applicant to the satisfaction of the City of Armadale. All landscaping including open space areas identified on the Structure Plan to be maintained by the developer.

vii. Footbridge and pedestrian access across the drainage reserve subject to further negotiation and approval of Water Corporation.

viii. A solid 2.1m high fence (at the developers cost) to be erected along the boundary abutting residential properties to the satisfaction of the City of Armadale.

ix. The proposed site is affected by the 1 in 100 year flood levels associated with adjoining the Neerigen Brook Main Drain. Further liaison will be required with Water Corporation and Waters and Rivers Commission to determine adequate finished floor levels for the proposed development.

x. Provision of a suitable pathway along Eighth Road and Armadale Road to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.


18DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Development

18


19

Part a) above has not been resolved as further evidence or confirmation from the owner of Lot 600 would be required to demonstrate that a majority of existing leases within the West Armadale Centre will expire / terminated in a timely manner. This should be addressed through a condition of approval to avoid both centres being fully operational. With regard to Part (b) above, the owner of Lot 600 Eighth Road has now entered into a legal agreement with the City. As previously advised by Council’s Solicitor, the Deed will provide a basis for Council and the owner of Lot 600 Eighth Road to reach a reasonable level of agreement regarding the intended accelerated closure of the Girraween Centre. It should be noted that the Deed will terminate in the event Council does not approve this application at its February 2004 meeting. A revised Structure Plan has been submitted by the application that addresses Part (c) above. The application has been advertised in accordance with Clause 7.2 of Town Planning Scheme No.2 and Council is requested to consider the proposal. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (4000m² of “retail shopping floor space” plus additional 1010m² of “non-retail floor space”);

Service Station (300m²); Fast Food Outlet (200m²); Medical Centre (1300m²); Retail Garden Centre / Nursery (1400m²); Hardware Store (568m²); Total retail shopping floor space not to exceed 4,500m² A traffic study has been prepared by the applicant in support of the proposal.

COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) DCU at its meeting held on 27 January 2004 raised no objection to the proposal and recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia in accordance with Clause 32 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme as the subject site abuts and proposes vehicle access onto Armadale Road (Class 3 Regional Road Reservation). Main Roads Western Australia advised that vehicular access onto Armadale Road should not be permitted as an alternative access via Eighth Road is available. Subsequent to this advice, the applicant has prepared a traffic study which has been referred to Main Roads Western Australia seeking their approval for vehicular access via Armadale Road.


20

Surrounding Landowners The application was advertised for public comment for a period of 14 days between 23 January 2004 until 9 February 2004 by way of letters to surrounding landowners and sign on site. A total of (13) submissions have been received to date from surrounding landowners including (3) noting concern and (10) supporting the proposal. Analysis Response to Submissions 1. The proposed shopping centre should replace the West Armadale shopping centre and be

restricted to a maximum retail floor area of 4,500m². Approval of this proposal will be conditional on the existing West Armadale Shopping

Centre being closed within an appropriate time frame to avoid a duplication of retail floor space. Whilst the development application currently proposes a maximum retail floor space of 4,500m², it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed to reinforce this requirement.

2. The proposed Neighbourhood Shopping Centre on the opposite side of Eight Road as

identified under the Southern River / Forrestdale / Brookdale / Wungong District Structure Plan (DSP) needs to be reconsidered to prevent an oversupply of retail floor space within the locality.

The DSP identifies a local centre on the opposite side of Eight Road. The proposal

merely represents a slight deviation in terms of the distribution of retail floorspace and therefore is unlikely to compromise the intent of the DSP. Given the current proposal, it is preferable for the proposed local centre to be relocated more centrally with the future residential precinct to better service its local catchment as opposed to conglomerating it with the adjoining Neighbourhood centre as part of future detailed Structure Planning for the area.

3. The existing Tavern at the West Armadale Shopping Centre would not be an appropriate

land use to relocate along Armadale Road. No tavern is proposed. 4. Another Child Care Centre would adversely impact existing operator within the area. A Child Care Centre is not proposed as part of this proposal and would be subject to a

separate development application.


21

Town Planning Scheme No.2 The subject site is zoned “Residential” and is designated as a “Development Area” under Town Planning Scheme No.2. Clause 5.8.3 stipulates that subdivision or development of land within a “Development Area” is to be generally in accordance with any Structure Plan that applies to the land. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with the adopted Structure Plan. Compatibility of Land Uses The proposed neighbourhood shopping centre falls within the definition of a “Shop” which is classified as a “SA” Use under Town Planning Scheme No.2 meaning that the use is not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion following public consultation in accordance with Clause 7.2. All other proposed land uses including: the service station, car wash, nursery, medical centre, hardware and fast food outlet, are not mentioned within the “Residential” zone of TPS No.2 and therefore Council would need to consider them in accordance with Clause 3.4 “Use Not Listed” provisions of the Scheme. In this regard, Council may either determine that the uses are inconsistent with the objectives and purpose of the zone and refuse to grant approval or determine that the use may be consistent with the zone and advertise the proposal in accordance with Clause 7.2 prior to making a determination. The proposed land uses must be considered on their individual merit in the context of the existing zoning and provided they do not prejudice the amenity of adjoining residential properties. The “Residential” zone objective / intent reads as follows: “A zone intended primarily for residential living with single dwelling houses on separate lots. Where Council is satisfied that proper servicing and amenity is present, medium density grouped dwellings may be permitted in recognising the varied demand for residential accommodation in the community. Council also recognises that residential living should also include the opportunities for self employment or creative activity provided that those activities do not, in Council’s opinion, prejudice the amenity of the residential environment.” Car Parking A total of 625 car parking bays are required under Town Planning Scheme No.2 for the entire development. A total of 655 bays have been provided on site, a surplus of 30 bays. Amenity Screening The proposed 10m buffer has been incorporated to provide a separation between the proposed hardware / nursery and the rear boundary of adjoining properties. Construction of a solid 2.1m high fence (at the developers cost) along the rear property boundary is considered necessary to provide security and additional screening.


22

The outdoor storage and display areas associated with the hardware and nursery (in particularly shade structures) will need to be appropriately screened from public vantage points and Armadale Road with suitable fencing to ensure a high quality aesthetic appearance is achieved. In this regard, a detailed elevation plan will be required to demonstrate the final location and design of fencing on site. It is acknowledged that all other servicing areas associated with the overall development including the service station, medical centre and fast food outlet appear to be situated behind the building line, however more detailed elevation plans will be required to demonstrate that all servicing and bin storage areas are screened from public vantage points. Noise Existing traffic travelling along Armadale Road would currently generate a certain level of noise. The subject site is relatively expansive and therefore the separations between activities on site and the adjoining properties would mitigate noise. In addition, compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 will be required. Traffic & Pedestrian Issues Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is likely to increase traffic volumes, appropriate traffic management devices will need to be implemented in consultation with Main Roads Western Australia. In this regard, as vehicle access along Armadale Road is not currently permitted (as advised by Main Roads Western Australia), access will need to be obtained via Eighth Road. A pedestrian crossing will be required to provide accessibility to residents north of Armadale Road. The location and design of a crossing would be subject to further negotiation with Main Roads Western Australia and should be addressed as a condition of approval. In order to improve pedestrian access, Council’s Technical Services Directorate require footpaths to be constructed along Armadale Road and Eighth Road. This should be imposed as a condition of approval. Layout & Design The submitted elevations plan lack sufficient detail to provided specific comment in terms of building material and overall design. In this regard, given the prominent location and scale of the proposal, more detailed elevation plans depicting design, colour and materials of buildings will be required to ensure a high quality of development is achieved. The layout provides uncluttered distribution of built form and sufficient open space between buildings to reduce the appearance of building bulk over the site. The main shopping centre building is set back an appropriate 22m from the proposed road widening along Armadale road to limit the amount of parking visible from Armadale Road. Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy No.9: Metropolitan Centres Policy (MCP)


23

The purpose of the MCP is to define the scope, function and scale of various shopping centres throughout the Metropolitan Region, including Local, Neighbourhood, District, Regional and Strategic Regional centres in terms of desirable land uses and retail floor space. The applicant is applying for the Neighbourhood Centre as defined under the MCP. In the context of the MCP, such centres “should be promoted as predominantly for convenience retailing and (in larger centres) weekly food and groceries shopping. Provision should also be made for small offices which serve the local community, as well as health, welfare and community facilities”. SPP No.9 (MCP) requires that shopping floorspace within Neighbourhood Centres should generally be confined to an area of 4,500m² (Net Lettable Area) unless consistent with a Commission endorsed Local Planning Strategy or centre plan for the area. The Policy also states that Council is unable to grant approval where a proposal is in excess of 4,500m² in the absence of an endorsed Local Planning Strategy or centre plan for the area, otherwise endorsement by the Commission is required to enable delegation of development control to local governments under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The maximum allowable “retail shopping floor space” is based on land uses defined under Appendix 4 of the MCP. In this regard, the retail component of the proposed Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, Service Station and Fast Food Outlet are only included in the calculation of “retail shopping floor space” under the MCP. The total floor area of these land uses proposed in the development equates to 4,500m² in accordance with the adopted Structure Plan and in compliance with the MCP. Council’s Commercial Strategy (1999) and Retail Hierarchy Review (2003) The subject site is not identified as a potential retail centre under Council’s Commercial Strategy or the Retail Hierarchy Review (2003). The proposal would however replace the nearby existing West Armadale Shopping Centre, which is of a comparable size at 4042m² and order in the retail hierarchy as a designated Neighbourhood Centre. The Retail Hierarchy Review (2003) identifies a proposed local centre (250m²-600m²) on the adjacent parcel of land on the eastern side of Eighth Road in keeping with the District Structure Plan. Given the current proposal, it is preferable for the proposed local centre to be relocated more centrally to the future residential precinct to better service its local catchment as opposed to conglomerating it with the adjoining Neighbourhood centre as part of future detailed Structure Planning for the area. The proposal is not considered to compromise the Retail Hierarchy Review provided it replaces the existing West Armadale Centre. OPTIONS 1. Council may approve the application subject to appropriate conditions 2. Council may refuse the application if it is of the view that the proposed land uses are not

consistent with the intent of the Residential zone.


24

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to a compatible land use and poses minimal impact on the amenity of surrounding residents. It should also be noted that no significant objections were raised by nearby landowners to the proposal to warrant concern. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the adopted Structure Plan for the site. A legal agreement between the City and the owner of Lot 600 Eighth Road has been executed to enable both parties to reach a reasonable level of agreement regarding the intended accelerated closure of the West Armadale Shopping Centre. Notwithstanding this, further evidence will be required to demonstrate that expiration / termination of existing leases within the West Armadale Shopping Centre have substantially progressed. In this regard, it is recommended that Council adopt Option 1 above. Acting Planning Services Manager tabled additional submissions received from adjoining landowners which identified further information for consideration, in addition to that outlined in the report. Executive Director Development Services advised of further information received from the applicant indicating the completion date of the Shopping Centre and the intention of a phased closing down of the West Armadale Shopping Centre. Executive Director Development Services also advised that as per the approved Structure Plan the provision of a dual-use path along Eighth Road and Armadale Road is required to be added to the Recommendation as a condition of approval. Accordingly, Part 2(a) was amended and a new Part 2(l) was added to the Recommendation. D18/2/04 RECOMMEND

1. That Council determines that the proposed Medical Centre, Fast Food Outlet, Service Station / Car Wash, Hardware and Nursery are consistent with the objectives and intent of the “Residential Zone” in accordance with Clause 3.4 “Use Not Listed” of Town Planning Scheme No.2.

2. That Council approve the application for a proposed

Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, Medical Centre, Fast Food Outlet, Service Station / Car Wash, Hardware and Nursery at Lot 600 Eighth Road, Armadale subject to the following conditions:

a) The provision of a strategy for the closure of the West

Armadale Shopping Centre to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) The maximum allowable retail floor space not to exceed

4,500m² in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy No.9: Metropolitan Centres Policy.


25

c) Detailed elevation plans depicting building design, colour

scheme and the use of building material types relative to the external appearance of the development (including fencing) is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. The development to be completed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved elevation / schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

d) All rubbish bin storage area and servicing areas associated

with the development is to be appropriately screened from public vantage points. Details of the proposed screening is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

e) A comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire site

(including shade trees within the car parking area) is to be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. All landscaping including open space areas identified on the Structure Plan to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

f) A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan demonstrating

compliance with Water Sensitive Design Principles and the Urban Water Management Strategy is to be submitted to and approved by Executive Director Technical Services. All drainage work is to be constructed in accordance with the approved plan.

g) All driveways and car parking areas are to be constructed,

sealed, drained and kerbed to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

h) Provision of a bus stop to the satisfaction of the Executive

Director Technical Services and Transperth. i) Armadale Road and Eighth Road, including intersection to be

upgraded / widened to the satisfaction of City of Armadale and Main Roads Western Australia.

j) All vehicular crossovers to be designed and located to the

satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and Main Roads Western Australia.

k) A solid 2.1m high fence (at the developers cost) to be erected

along the boundary abutting residential properties to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.


26

l) Provision of a dual-use path along Eighth Road and

Armadale Road to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

3. That the applicant be advised of the following: a) The proposed site is affected by the 1 in 100 year flood levels

associated with adjoining the Neerigen Brook Main Drain. Further liaison will be required with Water Corporation and Waters and Rivers Commission to determine adequate finished floor levels for the proposed development.

b) Landscaping of drainage reserve subject to further negotiation

and approval of Water Corporation. c) Footbridge and pedestrian access across the drainage reserve

subject to further negotiation and approval of Water Corporation.

d) With regard to Condition j) above, compliance with conditions

as outlined by Main Roads Western Australia is required. It should be noted that vehicular access via Armadale Road is not permitted, unless otherwise approved by Main Roads Western Australia.

MOVED Cr Knezevich MOTION CARRIED (6/0)

Chief Executive Officer returned to the meeting at 7.24pm.


27

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Scheme Amendment & Structure Plans

28DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Scheme Amendment & Structure Plans

28


29

PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT – LOT 51 (897) WARTON ROAD, FORRESTDALE WARD : FORREST

FILE REF : A028343


REF : RVD

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Allerding Burgess

LAND OWNER

: C & TA Zerafa

SUBJECT LAND :

Lot 51 (897) Warton Rd Property size 5.0007ha Map 16-05

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Rural / Water Protection Rural / Groundwater Protection

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development - “To balance the needs of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”.

In Brief:- Item recommitted from February 2004

Council meeting. Additional information has been included regarding Metropolitan Region Scheme and EPA Guidance Note No.48 in the March 2004 agenda item.

Proposal for a Scheme Amendment for a Special Use zone on Lot 51 (897) Warton Road to permit continued use of a Depot that is currently subject to action by the City’s compliance officer.

Recommend that Council decline to initiate the Scheme Amendment on the grounds that: - it is incompatible with the objectives

and character of the surrounding Rural – Groundwater Protection zone

- it is incompatible with the objectives and desirable land uses specified in the City’s Rural Strategy,

- it is incompatible with the Metropolitan Region Scheme Rural – Water Protection zone;

- there is a general presumption against industrial land uses in the Category A Groundwater Management Area;

- it would contradict the intent of Clause 3.4 (b) of the Scheme; and

- is a land use that would be more appropriate within the General Industry zone.

COMMITTEE resolved that the proposal be recommitted for further consideration in conjunction with additional information being received from the applicant.

Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Council Policy / Local Law Implications City of Armadale Rural Strategy Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


30


31

Consultation

Department of Environment Development Control Unit

BACKGROUND In April 2003 the City’s Compliance Officer initiated investigations relating to four trucks, four low loaders, four men working on-site, a quantity of power poles and a multitude of other materials being stored at Lot 51 (879) Warton Road, Forrestdale observed within an area cordoned off by a green colorbond fence. Subsequent investigations concluded that the use being carried out on the land would be classified as a “Depot” under Town Planning Scheme No.2, which is a use not listed in the class of uses table for the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone. In the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone non-listed uses are not permitted. In May 2003 the landowner was advised that the use of the land for a Depot was illegal and should cease. The landholder contacted a planning consultant who wrote to the City requesting initiation of a Scheme Amendment for the subject land. The landholder and planning consultant subsequently met with City officers to discuss the proposal. The City wrote to the planning consultant in June 2003 advising that:

The proposal is more consistent with the objective of a light industry zone and should be located there;

The proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone;

Spot zoning was not favoured because it would set a precedent that other landholders would also then wish to pursue;

If advice was received from the Department of Environment that the area in the vicinity bore J80 was suitable for a wider range of land-uses, then proposals for Depot uses could be reconsidered.

In September 2003 the planning consultant forwarded a letter from the Department of Environment stating that the nearby Public Water Supply Bore J80 had been decommissioned due to groundwater contamination and the proposal described by the consultant would be acceptable at Lot 51 (879) Warton Road, Forrestdale. The City of Armadale then wrote to the Department of Environment seeking advice on whether Depot uses would be acceptable in the vicinity of Public Water Supply Bore J80 or the Jandakot Underground Water Pollution Control Area generally. The Department of Environment’s response, received in November 2003, included the following concluding comment: “Therefore, the Department would not support a scheme amendment for the broad approval of all depots within the Jandakot Public Drinking Water Source Area. The correspondence to Allerding Burgess was advice only and the City of Armadale has the right to decline the application if “the City does not support spot zonings”.


32


33

This proposal was considered by the Development Services Committee on 12th January 2004 and Council resolved at its meeting of 19th January 2004 that the Committee’s recommendation not be adopted and be recommitted to the next Development Services Committee. This item includes more detailed analysis of the proposal against the Rural Groundwater Protection Zone objectives, consideration of the compatibility of the proposal with the Metropolitan Region Scheme zone and additional information regarding Environmental Protection Authority draft Guidance Note No.48 “Groundwater Environmental Management Areas”. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The applicant proposes a Special Use zone over Lot 51 (879) Warton Road, Forrestdale, as described in the following table.

Prescribed Special Use Requirements Particulars of land

Uses per the Rural Groundwater Protection zone and: Electrical Pylon Storage Facility

Uses per the Rural Groundwater Protection zone

The use and development standards of the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone apply, except as otherwise provided below.

Electrical Pylon Storage Facility

Use and Development shall generally be in accordance with a Development Guide Plan with has been adopted by Council and signed by the Chief Executive Officer.

No more than 7 vehicles (with a tare weight

greater than 1 tonne) associated with the proposed use are to be parked on the property at any one time.

No servicing or repair of vehicles is to occur

on-site.

Hours of operation to be between 7:30am and 3:30pm except for callout emergency events.

Landscaping to be provided in accordance

with an adopted Development Guide Plan.

Lot 51 (879) Warton Rd, Forrestdale

The applicant notes that the Depot covers 4000m2 of the 5ha property. The applicant has suggested that the Scheme Amendment could include a sunset clause so that the use expires after five years.


34

COMMENT Analysis Town Planning Scheme No.2 and Statement of Planning Policy No.2.3 Jandakot Groundwater Protection Currently the subject land and the land surrounding it is zoned Rural – Groundwater Protection under Town Planning Scheme No.2. An Electrical Pylon Storage Facility would be considered to be a Depot under Town Planning Scheme No.2, and the remainder of this report refers to the Electrical Pylon Storage Facility as a Depot. A Depot is a permitted use in the General Industry zone and is not listed as a use for the Light Industry zone. As summarised in the Background section above, a Depot is not a use listed in Table 4.1 of Town Planning Scheme No.2 that lists land uses that can be considered in the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone and Clause 3.4 (b) of the Scheme states that “no additional land uses are permitted other than those listed in Table 4.1”. A spot zoning to permit a Depot on the subject land would contradict the intent of Clause 3.4 (b). The objectives for the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone are the same as the objectives for Statement of Planning Policy No.2.3 Jandakot Groundwater Protection which are: a) to ensure that all changes to land use are compatible with long-term protection and

maintenance of groundwater for public supply and maintenance of associated ecosystems;

b) to prevent land uses likely to result in contamination of groundwater through nutrient or contamination export;

c) to balance environmental protection with the economic viability of the existing land uses;

d) to maintain or increase natural vegetation cover; and e) protect groundwater quality and quantity in order to maintain the ecological integrity of

important wetlands hydraulically connected to that groundwater, including wetlands outside the zone.

The proposal would be contrary to objectives (a), (b) and (e), as discussed below. Objective (b) Objective (b) seeks to prevent land uses likely to result in contamination of groundwater. Unless an exceptionally high standard of design and management is applied to ensure rain water from the depot area does not reach the groundwater, groundwater contamination could arise from the proposal.


35

Groundwater or soil contamination is likely to arise from: (i) leaching of chemicals used to prevent white ant attack on power pylons, particularly

from the older pylons; (ii) contaminated soil associated with the pylons; (iii) parking of heavy vehicles on-site which can lead to hydrocarbon contamination,

particularly if machinery is parked in the open. Vehicle repair or servicing on site can lead to hydrocarbon soil contamination from leakage, spillages or inappropriate disposal of used products.

With regard to (iii), the Scheme Amendment sought by the applicant prohibits servicing or repair of vehicles on-site. However, ensuring that vehicles are not serviced or repaired on-site is almost impossible to police, as is the inappropriate disposal of liquid hydrocarbon wastes. Given the likelihood of soil and groundwater contamination, the proposal is considered to be contrary to objective (b) of the surrounding Rural Groundwater Protection zone and the Statement of Planning Policy No.2.3. Objectives (a) and (e) Objectives (a) and (e) seek to ensure that ecosystems and wetland water quality for wetlands connected through groundwater flow to the Rural Groundwater Protection zone are protected. The subject lot includes a dampland (a seasonally waterlogged basin wetland) with a “Multiple Use” management category within about 20m of the existing Depot and the subject lot is surrounded by other wetlands (see Location Plan). In the direction of groundwater flow there is a Resource Enhancement category wetland within about 250m and a Conservation Category wetland within 650m. The soils in this area are essentially beads of silica that have little capacity to absorb or hold contaminants. If contaminated groundwater reaches the nearby wetlands it could adversely affect water quality and the “maintenance of associated ecosystems”. Given the likelihood of groundwater contamination occurring and the proximity of wetlands, the proposal is considered contrary to objectives (a) and (e) of the surrounding Rural Groundwater Protection zone and the Statement of Planning Policy No.2.3 Compatibility with Metropolitan Region Scheme zone The subject land is zoned Rural – Water Protection under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Under the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959, local government Town Planning Schemes are to be in accordance with and consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Whilst the Metropolitan Region Scheme text does not specify the uses that would be consistent with the Rural – Water Protection zoning, it is considered likely that a depot use would be considered inconsistent with the zone, and that the Western Australian Planning Commission may not grant approval to advertise the amendment proposed by the applicant.


36

Environmental Protection Authority Guidance Note No.48 – Groundwater Environmental Management Areas Environmental Protection Authority Guidance Note No.48 “Groundwater Environmental Management Areas” identifies that the subject lot is within the “Category A” Environmental Management Area because groundwater from the subject lot flows to Forrestdale Lake. The Environmental Protection Authority recommends a “general presumption against new industrial land uses in these (Category A) catchments”. Local Rural Strategy and land use compatibility The Principal Policy Objective for the Forrestdale Rural Planning Area is “To protect the water resources, wetlands and remnant vegetation whilst encouraging landscape enhancement, maintenance of rural character and good land management practices to allow the land to be used to its highest potential” The protection of water resources has been discussed above. A Depot use is not considered to be consistent with maintenance of rural character, being more suited to the General Industry zone. The Local Rural Strategy lists desirable/ conditional land uses for the Forrestdale Rural Planning Area as rural residential, grazing, recreation, tourist (farm stays, farm restaurants), tree farming and floriculture. Operation of a Depot would be incompatible with several of the desirable/ conditional land uses for the Planning Area. In particular the proposal would be incompatible with rural residential development because most people living in rural residential developments have an expectation of peace and quiet. Boundary setbacks Currently the electrical pylon storage facility (i.e. the Depot) is enclosed by a fence located approximately 4m from the boundary between Lot 51 and Lot 50 to the south, about 30m from the boundary of Lot 13 to the east, and approximately 75m from the nearest building. Whenever boundary setbacks are specified for land use classes in the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone, and if the proposed Scheme Amendment proposed by the applicant was to pertain, setbacks of 15m from the front, rear and side boundaries would apply. Therefore, the existing Depot fence at 4m from the boundary is too close to the side boundary, and would need to be moved if the Depot was to be formally approved as part of a subsequent Development Application.


37

Desirability of spot zoning A spot zoning is not favoured for this proposal because:

it would represent an ad-hoc decision to accommodate a land use incompatible with the objectives of the surrounding zone;

it would set an undesirable precedent for other landholders to seek spot zonings to

accommodate a range of other land uses; and

it would contradict Clause 3.4 (b) of Town Planning Scheme No.2 that no additional land uses are permitted in the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone other than those listed in Table 4.1 of the Scheme.

OPTIONS 1. Council may decline to initiate a scheme amendment on the grounds that it would be

incompatible with the objectives, character and land uses envisaged by the surrounding Rural – Groundwater Protection zone and the City’s Rural Strategy, it is incompatible with the Metropolitan Region Scheme, there is a general presumption against industrial land uses in the Category A Groundwater Management Area, and it would be ad-hoc decision making that would set an undesirable precedent contracting the intent of Scheme Clause 3.4 (b).

2. Council may consider initiating a spot zoning with a sunset clause or seek to initiate a

zoning that covers the portion of the Jandakot Groundwater Mound affected by the shutdown of Bore J80.

3. Council may request the Western Australian Planning Commission to initiate an

amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme to modify the boundary of the Rural – Water Protection zone of the MRS Scheme and subsequently amend the City’s Town Planning Scheme.

CONCLUSION The proposal is not supported because it is contrary to the objectives of the surrounding Rural – Groundwater Protection zone, contradicts the intent of Clause 3.4 (b) of Town Planning Scheme No.2 and represents ad-hoc decision making. If a Scheme Amendment was contemplated the existing Depot also would not comply with setbacks typical for the Rural-Groundwater Protection zone. The type of land use sought by the applicant is a permitted use in the General Industry zone and should be relocated to an appropriately zoned area. Therefore it is recommended that Council decline to initiate a scheme amendment for Lot 51 Warton Road, Forrestdale.


38

Cr Everts returned to the meeting at 7.28pm. Chief Executive Officer left the meeting at 7.28pm and returned at 7.37pm Officer’s report recommends – That Council decline to initiate the proposed Scheme amendment to rezone Lot 51 Warton Road, Forrestdale to Special Use to permit the operation of a Depot (Electrical Pylon Storage Facility) for the following reasons: a) the proposal is incompatible with the objectives and character of the surrounding Rural –

Groundwater Protection zone; b) the proposal is incompatible with the objectives and desirable land uses for the Forrestdale

Rural Planning Area as specified in the City’s Rural Strategy; c) the proposal would contradict the intent of Clause 3.4 (b) of Town Planning Scheme

No.2 and would establish an undesirable precedent for other proposals and land uses; d) the proposal is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme zoning; e) there is a general presumption against industrial land uses in the Category A

Groundwater Management Area; and f) the land use sought by the applicant would be more appropriate within a General

Industry zone. For Committee’s information, Chairman tabled photographs showing the depot operation facilities and surrounding rural area. The Chairman advised that he had visited the site with the Environmental Planning Officer and observed that there was no evidence of vehicle maintenance or any storage of oil drums and no low-loaders were in use on the property. The scale of the operation appeared small and contained within a fenced area. COMMITTEE raised concerns as to the contamination of the surrounding soil and wetlands connected through groundwater flow which could adversely affect water quality. COMMITTEE resolved that the proposal be recommitted for further consideration in conjunction with additional information being received from the applicant. D19/2/04 RECOMMEND That the application to initiate the proposed Scheme amendment to

rezone Lot 51 Warton Road, Forrestdale to “Special Use” to permit the operation of a Depot (Electrical Pylon Storage Facility) be recommitted.

MOVED Cr Everts MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


39



40


41

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION TO ROLEYSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE – LOTS 65 AND 42 WYGONDA ROAD, ROLEYSTONE WARD : ROLEYSTONE

FILE REF : A134334


REF : JEH/EP

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Doepel & Associates Architects

LAND OWNER

: Evangelos Litis Nominees P/L & Frank Papas Nominees P/L

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 1.2574 ha (Lot 65), 2023m2 (Lot 42); Map 26.07

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Shopping

Tabled Items Nil

In Brief:- Application is made to redevelop

Roleystone Shopping Centre including an increase in floor area of approximately 528m².

Proposal represents an overall improvement to the existing centre and facilitates improved pedestrian access to Jarrah Road.


Committee additionally recommended the following conditions:- - Provision for trolley storage /

pick-up areas. - The applicant to provide for the

retention of key tree(s) within the parking areas.

- The continuation of one-way traffic circulation within the main car parking area.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Metropolitan Region Scheme Statement of Planning Policy No.9 - Metropolitan Centres Policy Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974 Council Policy / Local Law Implications City of Armadale Retail Hierarchy Review (April 2003) City of Armadale Commercial Strategy (Draft)


42


43


Development Control Unit Council’s Parks & Reserves Department

BACKGROUND On 6 August 2003 Council received an application for additions and alterations to the Roleystone Shopping centre. The proposal did not address design concerns associated with the existing shopping centre and did not facilitate improved integration or pedestrian access between other land uses and facilities in the centre of Roleystone. The matter of the integration of the Roleystone Hall with the proposed redevelopment of the shopping Centre and the opportunities to create a village centre was referred to Development Services Committee by Council at its meeting of 6 October 2003. Initial discussions and negotiations on 21 October 2003 between the City and the shopping centre owner, resulted in the owner of the shopping centre expressing a willingness to consider alternative design options subject to a commitment from Council that it would conduct works to complement a revised design which better relates to the street and surrounding land uses. A report discussing this issue was submitted to the City Strategy Committee Meeting on 11 November 2003 where Committee recommended as follows: “That a working group comprised of appropriate technical officers prepare a program of works to be submitted for the consideration of Council for the purpose of improving the streetscape and integration of facilities in the centre of Roleystone”. Further discussions with Technical Services has indicated that short term measures will be taken to calm traffic on Jarrah Road and provide line markings to allow on street parking. The current proposal (representing a revised application) was subsequently submitted on 19 December 2003. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The application proposes the following:

Demolition of approximately 382m2 of existing shopping centre buildings;

Approximately 910m2 of new building / extensions to the existing shopping centre (including 365m2 extension to the existing Dewsons supermarket and relocation and 130m2 extension to an existing retail liquor outlet);

Relocation of several shops to other positions in the complex;


44


45

Demolition of existing building on Lot 42 Jarrah Road to allow for new access to parking

areas;

Revised parking and landscaping layout;

New pedestrian access link to Jarrah Road;

External walls to be rendered in ‘sand’ colour and existing roof tiles cleaned and painted with materials used in extensions to match.

In total the development represents an increase in Gross Leaseable Area (GLA) of 528m2 from 2332m2 to 2860m2. COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) DCU considered the proposal at its meeting held on 8 January 2004 where it was recommended that the application be supported subject to resolution of issues summarised below: Technical Services Directorate

The proposed parking area adjacent to the Jarrah Road entrance/exit will to be redesign to allow better traffic flow within the lot.

Provision of adequate parking.

Health Services Department

As the existing shopping centre development already exceeds the requirements of the Government Sewerage Policy any further development must be approved by the Health Department of WA.

Council’s Parks & Reserves Department Parks and Reserves Department has assessed the application to remove trees as indicated on the submitted plans and advised that the existing red gum (Eucalyptus calophylla) trees are not considered a suitable species in situations where there is a high degree of vehicle or pedestrian movement and as such should not be retained. On this basis it is recommended that the trees indicated on the drawings be removed.



46


47

ANALYSIS Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No.2) The subject lots are zoned “Shopping” under TPS No.2 and the proposed redevelopment of the existing shopping centre is classified as a “P” (permitted) use. The relocation and increase in floor area allocated to the liquor store is classified as an “AA” (discretionary) use. The floor area allocated to the retail liquor outlet is proposed to increase from approximately 130m2 to 260m2. Compliance with Town Planning Scheme Provisions

Standard Requirement Proposed Plot Ratio 1.0 0.28 Car Parking (Total Site) 198 161 Landscaping (10%of site) 1257m² 1920m² Height Maximum 4 storeys Single storey

Car Parking The existing development was approved with 156 car-parking bays. This represented a shortfall of 30 parking bays when applying the precise requirements of TPS No.2. TPS No.2 requires the provision of parking at the rate of 8 spaces per 100m² GLA. This standard may be relaxed under Clause 7.6 provided Council is satisfied that the development would be consistent with orderly and proper planning of the locality and would not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development. It is considered that it is reasonable to relax the standard to 6 spaces per 100m² on the grounds that this is a more common standard applied to shopping centres and indeed is the standard to be included in TPS No.4, and the redevelopment is in large part an extension rather than a demolition and rebuild, which will significantly benefit the community by the proposed improvements to landscaping, traffic circulation and the opening up of the centre to Jarrah Road. Calculations of the parking requirement based on a relaxed standard of 6 bays per 100m² would lead to a requirement of 167 bays. Notwithstanding the above, a 10 parking bay concession is considered appropriate in view of the arrangements being made (between the owner of the Shopping Centre and the City) for on street parking and the Shopping Centre being redesigned to incorporate a “breezeway” to access Cross Park. In this regard the required number of bays has been reduced from 167 bays to 157 bays. As the application proposes a total of 161 parking bays on site, a surplus of 4 parking bays has been provided. As a portion of the proposed parking area overflows onto the adjacent Lot 42 Wygonda Road a condition requiring the amalgamation of Lots 42 and 65 is considered appropriate.


48

Tree Preservation Order / Landscaping All trees over 0.6m in diameter on Lot 65 Wygonda Road are subject to a tree preservation order that was imposed in 1989. The tree preservation order states “approval for any future development shall be deemed to permit removal of any trees in designated development areas” (Lot 65 Wygonda Road). The redevelopment proposes new landscaping areas around the perimeter of existing parking areas, which will retain a number of existing trees. The redesign of the parking layout will also result in the removal of several trees and replacement with shade trees. It is considered that the proposal will result in an overall improvement to the landscaped and parking areas. A Landscaping Plan will be required as a condition of any formal planning approval. Building Design The proposed shopping centre redevelopment represents an improvement to the existing facility. The proposal eliminates under utilised “dead” areas within the existing centre and facilitates improved pedestrian access to Jarrah Road through the inclusion of a breezeway. Existing facades are proposed to be rendered and the overall appearance of the centre generally improved. Given the significant constraints resulting from the location and orientation of existing buildings the proposed design of the centre is considered satisfactory. Metropolitan Centres Policy Roleystone is classified as a ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ under the Metropolitan Centres Policy. Under the policy, Neighbourhood Centres “should be promoted as predominantly for convenience retailing and (in the larger centres) weekly food and groceries shopping. Provision should also be made for small offices which serve the local community, as well as health, welfare and community facilities”. The policy also states that shopping floor space should generally be confined to 4500m2 unless consistent with an endorsed local planning strategy or centre plan. The proposed extensions are consistent with the Metropolitan Centres Policy and therefore referral to WAPC is not required. City of Armadale Retail Hierarchy Review (April 2003) The City of Armadale Retail Hierarchy Review describes the Roleystone shopping centre as follows: “Pleasant location for poorly designed neighbourhood centre containing a few dead areas. Bright modern large Dewsons supermarket provides valuable service to locals. Vandalism appears to be a problem, which is partly a function of the centre’s design”.


49

City of Armadale Commercial Strategy (Draft) The commercial strategy identifies Roleystone Shopping Centre as being well located within its catchment area. Additionally, it is identified as forming an integral part of the Roleystone community as a meeting place. State Government Sewerage Policy The Health (Treatment Of Sewage And Disposal Of Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974 only allows Local Government to approve single dwellings on single lots, and any other building, which produces not more than 540 litres of effluent per day (supermarkets produce about 500 litres per day). Premises other than those mentioned above must be approved by the Health Department of WA. The existing development already exceeds the requirements of the Government Sewerage Policy and therefore any further development must be approved by the Health Department of WA. This should be imposed as a condition of approval. OPTIONS 1. Council could approve the application for the redevelopment of Roleystone Shopping

Centre at Lot 65 Wygonda and Lot 42 Jarrah Road, Roleystone subject to appropriate conditions.

2. Council could defer approval of the application for the redevelopment of Roleystone

Shopping Centre at Lot 65 Wygonda and Lot 42 Jarrah Road, pending approval from the Health Department of WA.

CONCLUSION The proposed redevelopment of the Roleystone Shopping Centre represents an improvement to the existing facilities in terms of visual appearance and building design. Pedestrian access to Jarrah Road is improved and existing under-utilised areas within the existing complex are eliminated. The proposal represents an extension of an approved land use that is generally compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal requires the relaxation of parking requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.2, however there is a rational for the application of a standard of six (6) bays per 100m² GLA. The proposal results in the removal of trees subject to a tree preservation order, however these are proposed to be replaced with suitable species. A number of existing trees are also proposed to be retained in new landscaping areas. The proposal is considered to represent an overall improvement to landscaped areas.


50

The requirement for the Health Department of Western Australia to approve the proposal is governed by separate legislation and Council may therefore impose this as a condition of planning approval. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt Option 1 above and approve the application. Cr Wallace returned to the meeting at 7.52pm. COMMITTEE raised concerns as to –

traffic flow within the main car parking area and the preferred one-way traffic circulation implemented in the car park at present;

the provision for trolley storage / pick-up areas; and the redesign of the parking layout and landscaping plan proposes the removal of a

large number of trees from the site. Accordingly, new Parts (g), (h) and (i) were added to the recommendation. D20/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Council approve the application for the Redevelopment of

the Roleystone Shopping Centre on Lot 65 Wygonda Road and Lot 42 Jarrah Road Roleystone subject to the following conditions:

a) Amalgamation of Lot 65 Wygonda Road and Lot 42 Jarrah

Road to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) Submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for the site.

The landscape plan is to include plant species and method of irrigation of the landscaped areas. The landscape plan is to be approved to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved plan.

c) A schedule providing details of the colour scheme and

building materials relative to the external appearance of the proposed development, including renovations to the existing development to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. The development to be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.


51

d) A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan that reflects

Water Sensitive Design Principles is to be submitted by the applicant, and such plan is to be approved by the Executive Director Technical Services. All drainage work to be constructed as per approved plan.

e) All hard standing areas including car-parking areas,

crossovers, driveways and vehicle manoeuvring areas shall be constructed, drained, sealed, kerbed, marked and continuously maintained in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

f) The site to be connected to an appropriate wastewater

system to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services and Health Department of Western Australia.

g) Provision for trolley storage / pick-up areas to the

satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. h) The applicant to provide for the retention of key tree(s)

within the parking areas to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

i) The continuation of one-way traffic circulation within the

main car parking area to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

2. That the applicant is advised that approval from the Health

Department of WA must be obtained for the provision of sewer connection.

MOVED Cr Hart MOTION CARRIED (7/0)



52


53

PROPOSED EIGHT (8) GROUPED DWELLING DEVELOPMENT – LOT 2 (NO.8) & 70 (NO.6) FOURTH ROAD, ARMADALE WARD : ARMADALE

FILE REF : A29967

DATE : 2 February 2004

REF : EP

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: P Henderson

LAND OWNER

: P Henderson

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 2129m² Map 22-02

In Brief:-

The application proposes an eight (8) grouped dwellings development with associated car parking and landscaping after demolishing the existing houses on site.

The proposal generally satisfies provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.3 and Residential Design Codes and is consistent with requirements of the Group Housing Development Policy.

Recommend approval subject to appropriate conditions.

ZONING MRS/TPS No.3

: Urban/Residential “R40”

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – to balance the needs of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.3 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Grouped Housing Development Policy 4.3.13 Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


54


55

Consultation

Development Control Unit (DCU) Abutting landowners

BACKGROUND The application proposes to demolish the existing houses and redevelop the sites by constructing 8 grouped dwellings. Although a grouped housing development is a permitted (“P”) use within this Residential “R 40” zoned area, given the application’s non compliance with clause 3.5.6 of Council’s Grouped Housing Policy (the Policy) which relates to the requirement of Communal Open Space, the application is referred to Council for determination. The application also requests Council’s approval for minor variations to the Residential Design Codes. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL Details pertaining to the application include the following:

Construction of four (4) single storey dwellings and four (4) double storey dwellings after demolishing the existing houses on sites;

Two units at the front of the property will have direct access off Fourth Road while the remaining 6 units are proposed to be serviced by a central internal driveway;

Units are to be of brick and “Colorbond” construction; Residential and visitor parking will be accommodated on site.

COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) DCU considered the application at its meeting on 3 February 2004 and recommended approval subject to appropriate conditions including pro rata contribution towards City Centre drainage construction (at the rate of $2.65 plus GST / m²) of site area. Comments from Adjoining Landowners As the application proposes a front setback variation to the garages of the two units fronting Fourth Road the application was advertised to the adjacent landowners for comment. No submissions were received. Analysis Town Planning Scheme No.3 (TPS No.3) Grouped Dwelling development is a permitted (“P”) use within the Residential “R40” zone under Town Planning Scheme No.3.


56


57

Residential Design Codes (RD Codes) The development generally complies with lot sizes, open space, outdoor living area, driveways and private and visitor car parking requirements in accordance with the “R40” density provisions of the RD Codes. However the application proposes the following variations to the requirements of the RD Codes:

Minor side and rear / setback variations to unit No.1, 2, 3 and 4 (1m provided instead of 1.5m requirement);

Southwest side of the balcony of unit 8 overlooking into the adjacent property; Nil boundary setback to garage wall of unit 1 along northwest boundary; Balcony in unit 5 projecting more than 1m (1.2) into the building setback area.

The proposed boundary setback variations for units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered acceptable, as it would satisfy the performance criteria requirements in terms of providing adequate sun and ventilation to the subject buildings, to the adjoining neighbours and outdoor living areas. It is not likely to impact on privacy between adjoining properties provided adequate screening is installed. This could be addressed as a condition of approval. Southwestern side of the balcony in unit 8 should be screened to ensure privacy between adjoining properties. Although the owner affected by the proposed nil setback was consulted by Council’s letter, no response has been received to date. A nil setback is supported within a high-density residential area to make effective use of space. It is acceptable under the RD Codes for a boundary wall of up to 3.5m with an average of 3m. The proposal is marginally in excess of this. The matter of the balcony projecting over 1m into the building setback area can be considered under acceptable development requirements as the total projection does not exceed 20% of the frontage of the site as provided by the RD Codes. Group Housing Development Policy (The Policy) Site and Location The site is considered to be strategically located as it is in close proximity to the Armadale Shopping City, to public transport routes (bus / train stops), Francis Xavier Primary School, Armadale High School and recreation reserve land. Design Guidelines The detailed elevation plans demonstrate a 25º-roof pitch and brick and “Colorbond” construction. The internal design with a mixture of single and double storey units reflect a satisfactory architectural design with major improvement to the visual amenity of Fourth Road streetscape compared to the existing neglected old dwelling houses.


58


59

Communal Open Space Clause 3.6.5 of the Policy requires provision of communal open space calculated at 12.5m² per unit for grouped dwelling developments on Lots of 2000m² or more and comprising eight (8) or more dwellings. The application proposes a variation to the communal open space requirement. It should be noted that such a requirement has now been deleted from the Policy in the draft policy review. Provision of communal open space is not required under the Residential Design Codes. Therefore, it is considered onerous to impose such a requirement on the development. Fencing A front fence constructed with a combination of federation limestone (1.1m high) and timber picket infill is proposed to screen the outdoor living areas of the units fronting Fourth Road. All internal dividing fences are proposed to be constructed of hardifence. As the development is located within the City Centre Residential Area, high quality fencing to all property boundaries and internal fencing would be required to maintain a high standard of visual amenity. The proposed 4m wide driveway, car parking, manoeuvring and visitor parking provisions are provided in a practical manner. OPTIONS 1. Council could approve the proposed development of eight (8) units at Lot 2 and 70 Fourth

Road, Armadale, subject to appropriate conditions. 2. Council could approve the application subject to submission of a revised design

demonstrating compliance with RD Code requirements. CONCLUSION The proposal generally complies with TPS No.3 provisions, the Policy requirements and the Residential Design Codes. The site is located within the City Centre Area and provides easy access to the Armadale Shopping City, to public transport routes (rail / bus station), recreational open space, Frances Xavier Primary School and Armadale High School. The overall development will significantly enhance the visual amenity of the site thereby contributing to the streetscape of Fourth Road and the Armadale City Centre. Consequently, option 1 is recommended. D21/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council approve the application for an eight (8) unit Grouped Dwelling Development at Lot 2 & 70 Fourth Road, Armadale subject to the following conditions: 1. Amalgamation of Lot 2 & 70 Fourth Road, Armadale to the

satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.


60

2. A pro rata contribution towards City Centre drainage construction

at the rate of $2.69m² of site area to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

3. Screening of southwest side of the balcony of unit 8 to protect

privacy between adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

4. Submission of a detailed schedule of materials, textures and

colours for the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. The development is to be completed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

5. All boundary fencing and internal dividing fences to be of

adequate height to provide privacy between adjoining properties and constructed in high quality (“Colorbond” / limestone) material in a colour to complement the colour scheme of the proposed units to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. All fencing to be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

6. The submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for the site

indicating plant species and method of irrigation. The landscape plan is to be approved by the Executive Director Technical Services and all landscaping is to be completed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the said officer.

7. All internal driveways to be brick paved in a colour to

complement the colour scheme of the proposed units to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

8. All hard standing areas including car-parking areas, crossovers

and driveway vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, drained, sealed, kerbed, marked and continuously maintained in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

9. A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan that reflects Water

Sensitive Design Principles is to be submitted to the Executive Director Technical Services and such plan approved prior to issue of the building licence. All drainage work to be constructed as per approved plan.

MOVED Cr Green MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


61



62


63

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CHILD CARE CENTRE NUMBERS – LOT 14 (No.2) CAROLINE STREET, MOUNT NASURA WARD : ARMADALE

FILE REF : A003777


REF : PRR

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A / PSM

APPLICANT

: Roberts Day

LAND OWNER

: ABC Developmental Learning Centres

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 2491m² Map 23.04

ZONING MRS / TPS No.2 Tabled Items

: Urban / Residential ‘R15’

In Brief:-

On 25 August 2003, the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal upheld an appeal lodged against the refusal by Council of a child care centre on the subject site.

To date, a planning approval has not been issued due to disagreement over the conditions of approval.

An application to extend the number of children attending the centre from 71 to 75 children was received 28 November 2003.

The proposal was advertised to surrounding landowners resulting in two (2) objections being submitted.

Recommend that Council approve the extension in numbers subject to appropriate conditions.

Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications

Social Infrastructure – “To have in place the range of services to enhance the well being and safety of the community”.

Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”.

Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Community Services (Child Care) Regulations 1988 Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 Council Policy / Local Law Implications 4.3.15 – Child Care Centres Policy 4.3.2 – Highway Development Policy


64


65


Development Control Unit Surrounding Landowners

BACKGROUND Council initially refused an application for a child care centre on this site on 15 July 2002. An appeal was then submitted by the applicant to the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal (TPAT) against the refusal. After mediation, a report was referred to Council’s meeting of 16 December 2002 noting the arguments and additional information put forward by the appellant. Council resolved that officers were to prepare a case against the appeal for a substantive hearing. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the TPAT ruled in favour of the appellant on 25 August 2003, deeming that the application should be approved. Accordingly, officers drew up appropriate conditions of approval, which were forwarded via Council’s solicitors to the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with two (2) of the conditions of approval, requesting their deletion. These conditions related to the submission of a management plan for the centre (i.e. how many children would be outside for how long etc) and the submission of a schedule of colours for the development. Through Council’s solicitors, the City informed the appellant on 24 November 2003 of the reasoning behind these standard conditions and indicated that they should remain on any approval issued. The appellant has not yet responded to this correspondence and a planning approval is yet to be issued. This situation not withstanding an application was submitted for the increase of the number of children able to attend the child care centre from 71 to 75. Because a planning approval has not been issued for the previous application upheld on appeal, consideration of this application is being treated as a revised application, or revised plan. This means that all elements of the proposal must be considered again, however, the only element that has changed from the last time Council considered the application is the proposed number of children the centre must cater for. Due to the inconsistency with the maximum of 30 children specified under Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No.2), the application has been referred to Council for a decision. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to increase the number of children attending the child care centre from 71 to 75. As originally reported in July 2002, the remainder of the details are as follows:

Number of staff – 12 (Staff are qualified in Childhood Education and undertake further ‘in house’ training at the ABC Early Childhood Training College.)

Hours of operation – 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday.


66


67

Access proposed off Caroline Street with no access to Albany Highway.

The proposed building design is based on a design formula established by ABC.

The proposed centre is an ABC Learning Centre which provides high quality, affordable early childhood care and education with a range of programs and services including the following:

- Development programs (eg. music programs, dancing lessons, excursions etc). - Holiday care and community involvement. - Child care ranging from long day care, to after school and holiday care for older

children. - Before / after school pick up service. - Information on child care issues. - Centres planned to suit the needs and interests of small children, including

computers in the pre-school class. COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) At its meeting held on 29 January 2004, DCU recommended that the item be referred to Council for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. Surrounding Landowners The application was referred to surrounding landowners for comments for a period of two (2) weeks. Two (2) submissions were received objecting to the proposed increase in numbers. The issues raised are discussed in the Analysis section. Refer to Confidential Attachment “B1” of the Agenda for location of respondents. ANALYSIS Public Submissions Two (2) submissions objecting to the proposal were received during advertising. The issues raised are now responded to. 1. The increase in traffic will affect the peace of the area. 2. Additional traffic turning into Caroline Street from Albany Highway poses a safety risk

given the volume of traffic on the Highway, the nearby crest of a hill and subsequent gradient at that point as well as a dual carriageway.

3. Increased noise will affect nearby shift workers.


68

4. The development will lower surrounding property values. Points one (1) to three (3) were raised by surrounding landowners during the original

advertising period in April – May 2002. The TPAT considered both the appellant’s and the City’s evidence from acoustic experts and traffic engineers at the substantive hearing relative to these issues.

The TPAT decided that it was satisfactorily demonstrated by the appellant that these

issues could be addressed in such a way that they would not be detrimental to the surrounding area.

Point four (4) was also raised during the original advertising period and as was the case

then, the argument is not substantiated with reason or evidence to support the claim. 5. Children will be exposed to exhaust fumes from Albany Highway, posing a health risk. All developments must have frontage to a constructed road. Given this, the potential

risk of health problems related to vehicle emissions exists in all cases and is not specific to this site only. With no statutory powers to enforce in this regard, the argument cannot be considered a planning basis for refusal.

6. Commercial and residential areas should be separate. There are in fact two separate zonings for commercial and residential development,

however a child care centre is a use that ca be considered at the discretion of Council within the ‘Residential’ zone. Given the nature of the service child care centres provide, it seems logical to allow consideration of their placement in ‘Residential’ zones.

7. Given Council’s initial stance, it is inappropriate to approve a further extension. Council pursued the refusal of the child care centre as far as is possible under the current

planning legislation, but the decision of the TPAT to approve the development has considerable bearing on the current revised application. The only element that has changed from the application that was before the TPAT to that which is now before Council is an increase in the number of children by four (4). Given the reasons cited by the TPAT for approving the original application, it seems very unlikely that refusing the revised application and potentially proceeding to another appeal situation would be of any benefit.

Town Planning Scheme No.2 A child care centre is an ‘SA’ use in the ‘Residential’ zone under TPS No.2 and specifies a maximum number of 30 children per centre. In this regard, it is important to consider the deliberations of the TPAT in their decision that the development should be approved. The TPAT ruled that the appellant has satisfactorily addressed the issues raised in Clause 7.3.2 of TPS No.2 (Matters to be Considered by Council), and therefore the development should be approved through the utilisation of Clause 7.6 (Relaxation of Standards).


69

It is noted that Clause 7.3.2 includes the potential for impact on amenity caused by additional noise and the potential safety issues caused by additional traffic, as mentioned in the public submissions. An additional four (4) children would not create enough of a difference to traffic and noise calculations for a refusal to be justified. Design The design elements required by TPS No.2 and Council’s Child Care Centres Policy are all satisfied by the revised plan, as they remain unaltered from the original proposal. The only recalculation required is that with respect to parking. The Child Care Centres Policy requires one (1) bay per every five (5) children or one (1) bay per every ten (10) children plus one (1) bay for each staff member on site, whichever is the greater. Under the previous application with 12 staff and 71 children, 20 car parking bays were necessary. With 12 staff and 75 children, this figure remains unaltered. The Building Department have advised that there may be an issue with the additional children from the perspective of the Community Services (Child Care) Regulations 1988, administered by the Department for Community Development (DCD) based on the allowable floor space to child ratio. This is however a matter for the DCD and the applicant will be advised to seek approval from their office separately. The Building Department also advised that an additional emergency exit was required as some rooms exceeded the maximum distance to an exit. This can be addressed through the Building Licence. OPTIONS 1. Council can approve the proposed child care centre with capacity for 75 children at Lot 14

(No.2) Caroline Street, Mount Nasura, subject to appropriate conditions as were originally outlined as a result of the TPAT upholding the appeal.

2. Council can refuse the proposed child care centre with capacity for 75 children at Lot 14

(No.2) Caroline Street, Mount Nasura, on the basis that the increase in numbers from the original application influences the evidence presented at the TPAT relative to traffic and noise and may have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area.

It is noted that pursuing the second option may result in the matter being referred back to the TPAT and could incur legal costs. CONCLUSION The stance Council originally took to refuse this proposal ended up with the matter being determined by a substantive hearing of the TPAT. It is noted that through the submission of revised plans, the opportunity presents itself for Council to once again pursue the refusal of the development. There are two points to recognise in this regard, that the original application is still current and could be pursued by the applicant in the event this revision is refused and that an extension to the number of children by four (4) would not be likely to have a great difference on the original findings of the TPAT, should the matter be taken to appeal once again. In this regard, it is recommended that the minimum of 30 children standard be relaxed in accordance with Clause 7.6 of TPS No.2 and the extension be approved in accordance with Option One (1).


70

D22/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Council approve the application for a child care centre with a

capacity for 75 children at Lot 14 (No.2) Caroline Street, Mount Nasura, subject to the following conditions:

a) The submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for all

landscaped areas as indicated on the site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. Such plan to include plant species and method of irrigation of the landscaped areas. The landscape plan is to be approved by the Executive Director Development Services and all landscaping is to be completed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) All car parking bays are to be sealed, marked, kerbed, and

drained to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

c) Operating hours limited to 6.30am to 6.30pm Monday to

Friday, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

d) A management plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of

the Executive Director Development Services, addressing the supervision and number of children allowed in outside play areas at any one time. All external activities to be conducted in accordance with the approved management plan.

e) Storm water design is to be to water sensitive design principles

to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

f) A schedule of colours and textures of materials (including

fencing) to be used for the proposed development is to be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. The development is to be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule.

g) All fencing is to be erected in accordance with the approved

plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

h) A road safety barrier or crash attenuator is to be installed

along the Albany Highway frontage of the lot to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and Main Roads Western Australia.


71

2. That the applicant be advised: a) With regard to condition 1 a), d) and f), it is expected that the

required details will be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Licence.

b) With regard to condition 1 f), please note that Zincalume or

white or bright colours are not acceptable unless otherwise approved by Council.

c) That compliance with the Department for Community

Development’s Community Services (Child Care) Regulations 1988 and the Department of Environment’s Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is required.

d) That any proposed signage requires a separate application

and approval from Council. e) That any changes in numbers of children (75) or staff (12)

above the levels indicated in this application will require approval from Council.

f) That an additional emergency exit is necessary and should be

addressed through the Building Licence.



72


73

PROPOSED SERVICE INDUSTRY – LOT 107 (NO.87) CHAMPION DRIVE, SEVILLE GROVE WARD : WESTFIELD

FILE REF : A100385


REF : EP

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: H J RONCHI

LAND OWNER

: H J RONCHI

SUBJECT LAND :


ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Industrial/Showroom

In Brief:-

The application proposes to redevelop the existing “Auto Repair” business site by demolishing the existing buildings and establishing a tyre fitting “Service Industry” and a “Showroom” component.

With minor modifications the proposal will comply with the Town Planning Scheme No.2 requirements and provisions of the Industrial Design Guidelines.

Recommend that application be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Metropolitan Region Scheme Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Industrial Design Guidelines (Local Planning Policy 4.3.12) Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


74


75

Consultation

Development Control Unit Abutting Landowners

BACKGROUND In 1992 (Amendment No.80), Council rezoned a number of “Light Industrial” zoned properties including the subject site along this section of Champion Drive to “Showrooms”, as it was considered a better and desirable land use for this section of Champion Drive, which interfaces with the Champion Drive shopping centre. The site is presently used for Vehicle repair / Light Industrial purposes. The current application proposes to redevelop this industrial (Auto repairs) site for a “Service Industry” and incorporate a “Showroom” component at the front of the building facing Champion Drive. Under the current zoning of the site a “Service Industry” is a Discretionary “AA” use and therefore the application is referred to Council for determination. The applicant also requests Council to vary the TPS No.2 requirement of 200m² minimum floor area for “Showrooms” to incorporate an 113m² “Showroom” component to the development. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The proposal entails the following:

Demolishing the existing buildings on site;

Construction of the new 657m² building in tilt up concrete/glass to accommodate a tyre servicing business. The building will consist of a 113m² showroom area, 215m² workshop area and a 327m² non enclosed covered/roofed area;

The building incorporating a parapet wall along the western perimeter of the site;

Construction of ten (10) vehicle parking bays;

Improvements to the verge area to including landscaping and brick paving as an alternative to providing landscaping on site;

COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) The proposal was considered by the Development Control Unit at its meeting of 15 January 2003, where it was recommended approval subject to compliance with the Town Planning Scheme No.2 requirements, provision of toilet facilities, connection to reticulated sewer and removal of the access crossover at the western end of the site.



76


77

Neighbour Comment As the design of the proposed building incorporates a parapet wall along the western perimeter of the site and given the nature of the operation within a showroom zoned property, the application was advertised to the abutting landowners for comment. No response has been received. ANALYSIS Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No2) The proposed “Tyre Fitting” use falls within the ambit of a “Service Industry” within the “Showroom” zone, which is a Discretionary use under TPS No.2. Although the properties along this section of Gillam Drive are now (since 1992) zoned “Showroom” it was traditionally used for Light Industrial purposes as evident from the existing activities on properties adjacent and abutting the subject lot. Whilst a “Showroom” is a permissible use on the site, TPS No.2 stipulates, “The minimum tenancy floor space for a Showroom shall be 200m²”. Given the already established “Service Industry” nature of the site the applicant requests Council to vary the TPS No.2 requirement to allow the proposed 113m² “Showroom” component as a reception point to the servicing aspect and to improve the appearance of the development. Clause 7.6 of TPS No.2 however, provides for relaxation of standards if Council is of the opinion that the development is consistent with the proper and orderly planning of the locality and does not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality. Given the existing “Industrial” nature of the site, the proposed “Showroom” component would enhance the aesthetics and streetscape and contribute to achieving the City’s intent of “requiring development to be of high quality appearance” for the “Showroom” zone. It is therefore, considered reasonable for Council to vary the TPS No.2 requirement to allow the reduced floor area for the “Showroom” component as proposed to assist developers improve the amenity and standards of the Showroom zone and the Kelmscott Industrial Area. Compliance with Industrial Design Guidelines Building Design The City’s Industrial Design Guidelines Policy (The Policy) requires the facades of industrial buildings to be constructed of brick, masonry or concrete while the Policy Statement Objectives for the “Showroom” zone stipulates, “Council shall require development to be of high quality appearance”.



78


79

The proposed glass and tilt-up concrete building construction is considered to have a reasonable architectural standard to achieve the above objectives of the policy. The proposed new building with a showroom component would be a major improvement to the site compared to the existing situation of the property. The proposed colour scheme for the development is not available at this stage. If the application is approved such requirement could be imposed as a condition of approval. Boundary Setbacks The proposal indicates a nil setback (parapet wall) to the western side of the property, which is acceptable as the TPS No.2 allows “Nil” setbacks to the side. Under the Policy “parapet walls will be considered by Council if in its opinion the proposed development is of a high architectural standard, provides service access to the rear of the lot and complies with UBBL (Building Codes of Australia) requirements.” As stated above, given the improved architectural design of the proposed building demonstrates high quality streetscape within this “Showroom” zone, the parapet wall is considered acceptable. All other setbacks comply with the TPS No.2 requirements. Access and Vehicle Parking The submitted plan indicates two access crossovers from Champion Drive to the site. The City’s Technical Services Directorate requires the removal of the access point at the western end of the site as it may create traffic conflicts given its location being directly opposite the existing service station crossover on the opposite side of the road. The existing median strip along this section of Champion Drive does not allow right turning movements into this property. The submitted plan indicates 10 parking bays on site as opposed to the 21 bay requirement under TPS No.2. The required number of parking bays can be provided on site by redesigning the development to relocate the proposed building further to the rear of the site as the leach drains indicated on plans would not be necessary if the site is to be connected to reticulated sewer as required by Council’s Health Department. The area allocated for the second access crossover could also be used for providing additional parking. The applicant is aware of the situation and has expresses his willingness to redesign the development to satisfy the City’s requirements. An amended site plan to demonstrate the proposed changes to satisfy the TPS No.2 requirements and Policy provisions could be imposed as a condition of approval. Landscaping Council’s Town Planning Scheme No.2 stipulates a 2m wide landscaping strip requirement along the perimeter of a site abutting a street unless utilised by access crossovers. The Policy requires 8% of the total area to be landscaped (unless otherwise determined by Council) to soften hard building surfaces.


80

The submitted plan indicates no landscaping on the property but proposes paving and landscaping of the verge to compensate for lack of on site landscaping. A site inspection indicated that the property currently contains a neglected 1m wide landscaping strip along the street perimeter of the site. The Policy states “Council may reduce this landscaping strip requirement to 1m where the applicant is willing to undertake landscaping and reticulation of the verge area to Council’s satisfaction between the roadway and property boundary”. The proposed landscaping and treatment of the verge and upgrading of the existing 1m wide landscaping strip along the site perimeter abutting Champion Drive, would reasonably satisfy the policy requirement and intent and objectives of the policy. A detailed landscaping plan demonstrating the above and incorporating the two existing mature trees will be required as a condition of approval. Other requirements The City’s Health Department requires the property to be connected to the reticulated sewer system. This could be imposed as a condition of approval. OPTIONS 1. Council could determine that the application may be consistent with the objectives and

purpose of the zone and approve the application subject to conditions. 2. Council could refuse the application if it is of the view that the proposal is inconsistent

with the intention of the Showroom zone. CONCLUSION The proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the “Showroom” zone and with minor modifications will comply with the TPS No.2 requirements and the Industrial Design Policy guidelines. The proposal is expected to significantly improve the streetscape appearance of Champion Drive. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved in accordance with Option 1, subject to appropriate conditions. COMMITTEE raised concerns as to the removal of significant trees on site and requested a revised site plan showing a lesser car parking provision and the retention of key trees be submitted. Accordingly, Part 2(a) of the Recommendation was amended. D23/2/04 RECOMMEND

1. That Council determine the application to vary the 200m² minimum floor area requirement of the TPS No.2 for showrooms to establish a 113m² Showroom component to the proposed Service Industry on Lot 107 (No.87) Champion Drive, Seville Grove is in accordance with Clause 7.6 of Town Planning Scheme No.2 and approve the relaxation of such standard.


81

2. That the application to redevelop Lot 107 (No87) Champion

Drive, Seville Grove to establish a Service Industry and Showroom be approved subject to the following conditions:

a) Submission of a revised site plan to demonstrate the

retention of key trees and the provision of twenty one (21) on site Parking bays, removal of the access crossover at the western end of the site and provision of a 1m wide landscaping strip on site to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) Submission of a detailed schedule of materials, textures and

colours for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. The development is to be completed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

c) The submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for the

site demonstrating the plant species and method of irrigation. The landscaping areas to include the verge area between the road and the property line and incorporation of the existing mature trees on site. The landscape plan is to be approved by the Executive Director Technical Services and all landscaping is to be completed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the said officer.

d) The property to be connected to the sewerage system. e) All hard standing areas including car-parking areas,

crossovers, driveways and vehicle manoeuvring areas shall be constructed, drained, sealed, kerbed, marked and continuously maintained in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

Note – the intention of 2(a) is to allow for a lesser car parking

provision necessary to achieve the retention of key trees on site.

3. That the applicant is advised that a planning application will need to

be submitted to Council indicating the comprehensive advertising sign format for the site. Subsequent applications for sign licences shall conform to the planning consent as issued by Council.

MOVED Cr Reynolds MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


82


83

PROPOSED SHED, LEAN-TO, SEA CONTAINER AND AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL BUSINESS – LOT 3 (440) NICHOLSON ROAD, FORRESTDALE WARD : FORREST

FILE REF : A042363


REF : PRR

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A / PSM

APPLICANT

: Mrs D C Matsen

LAND OWNER

: D C & S K Matsen

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 4.0469ha Map 17.03

ZONING MRS / TPS No.2

: Rural / General Rural

In Brief:-

Council received an application for a shed, lean-to, sea container and an associated automotive electrician business on 29 December 2003 as a result of a compliance inspection (i.e. structures already exist, business in operation).

The proposal was advertised to surrounding landowners for two (2) weeks, resulting in one (1) submission, a petition of 270 signatures supporting the application.

Recommend that Council approve the shed, lean-to and sea container on site and refuse the auto electrician business.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Draft Outbuildings Policy Draft Sea Containers, Railway Carriages and Other Decommissioned Transport Conveyances Policy Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


84


85

Consultation

Surrounding Landowners Development Control Unit

BACKGROUND On 8 July 2003, a member of Council’s Liaison and Compliance team was on a site inspection regarding another matter when unauthorised activities were noticed on the subject property. The officer noticed a commercial vehicle for sale, an auto electrician business conducted from a shed and lean-to, advertising signage on the property and verge, storage of derelict motor vehicles and parts, and siting of a sea container. The officer wrote to the owners of the property noting the unauthorised uses under Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No.2), requesting an application. After several letters and phone calls, an application for a Home Occupation Permit (HOP) was submitted on 31 October 2003 for an office associated with a mobile auto electrical business. This application is still under consideration. A business search by Council’s lawyers revealed that an auto electrical business was registered on 14 February 1995 with 440 Nicholson Road, Forrestdale listed as the principal place of business and postal address. The City received applications for the sea container and lean-to on 4 November 2003 and two (2) members of the Compliance and Liaison team and a Planning Officer undertook another site inspection on 9 December 2003. It was at this time that the photographs included in this report were taken. During the site visit it was noted that there were a number of motor vehicles on site, most of which were not registered to the owner of the subject property and some of which were undergoing repairs. The shed stored a considerable quantity of motor vehicle parts and equipment not usually associated with normal servicing of a residents’ private motor vehicle. Following correspondence sent after this site visit, the original applications were superseded by a new application, which included the shed, lean-to, sea container and the auto electrical business run from the site, received 29 December 2003. A petition of 270 signatures supporting ‘Forrestdale Mobile Auto Electrics’ accompanied the application. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as no delegation exists to refuse a ‘Use Not Listed’. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The applicant’s son proposes to utilise 440 Nicholson Road, Forrestdale as a base for a mobile auto electrical business, with himself as the only employee. The application states that 90% of the work done would be mobile utilising a van, with approximately six (6) vehicles a week being serviced on site to make up the remaining 10%. Work hours would be from 7.30am to 4pm. The servicing of vehicles on site would take place with the use of several existing structures that are also the subject of this application. A 12m by 12m (144m²) Zincalume and steel shed with a 4m wall height and a 6m apex height would serve as the workshop and storage for parts. Adjoining the shed is a 12m by 6.7m lean-to that shelters a sea container (approximately 12m long), which is used for further storage associated with the business. The structures are located approximately 27.6m from the northern property boundary and 57.3m from the eastern property boundary (Nicholson Road).


86


87

COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) At its meeting of 29 January 2004, DCU recommended that the application be referred to Council for a resolution in two parts – that the structures on the property be approved and that permission for the business activities on site be refused as the zoning of the area is inappropriate. Surrounding Landowners The proposal was advertised by the City to surrounding landowners from 16 January 2004 to 3 February 2004, resulting in no submissions. It is noted however, that several of the signatures in the petition supporting the application were from neighbouring properties. Petition A petition containing 270 signatures was submitted with the application. The prayer of the petition reads: “I have been operating this service for the local community and surrounding areas for the last eight years. It now appears that because of the zoning of this area, for me to continue as a service to the Forrestdale community I am required to lodge an application with the Armadale City Council to run my business from 440 Nicholson Road, Forrestdale. My business is mainly based on my being a mobile service with a limited amount of repairs being done at the workshop on the above property. For me to continue with my business, I request your support by signing your name below. The list will then be attached to my application, which I will be lodging on 29 December 2003. The list will hopefully support my application to Council in being successful to continue my business and my livelihood. I grew up in the Forrestdale area and have lived here since the 1970’s. My parents are long time residents and ratepayers of this area. I am asking for public support in this matter so please help me by signing your name below. In anticipation I, and my family, thank you for your support”. ANALYSIS Petition It is clear that the applicant’s son has the support of the local community. Whilst this support is significant, it does not change the fact that the business has been set up without the approval of Council. As such Council must consider whether the auto electrical business is an appropriate land use within the ‘General Rural’ zone and make a decision accordingly.


88

Town Planning Scheme No.2 The Policy Statement for the ‘General Rural’ zone under TPS No.2 indicates that it is a “zone intended for the conservation of natural resources, the maintenance of an open broad acre rural character, the fostering of rural uses and rural industries in circumstances where they do not constitute a nuisance. Where compatible such uses promoting tourism, recreation and entertainment where it does not impact on the amenity of surrounding properties may be permitted…” The definition of ‘Industry’ under TPS No.2 includes “the carrying out of any process for and incidental to: a) the making, altering, repairing or ornamentation, painting, finishing, cleaning, packing or

canning or adapting for sale, or breaking up or demolition of any article or part of any article…

…and includes, when carried out on land upon which the process is carried out in and connected with that process, the storage of goods, any work of administration or accounting, the sale of goods resulting from the process and the use of land for the amenity of persons engaged in the process”. It is clear that the application for an auto electrician falls within the ‘Industry’ definition and is therefore considered a ‘Use Not Listed’ within the ‘General Rural’ zone. The City may determine whether a ‘Use Not Listed’ may be considered consistent with the objectives and purpose of a zone under TPS No.2. However in this instance, the nature of the use is not consistent with the objectives of the ‘General Rural’ zone and would be more appropriate within a ‘General Industry’ or ‘Light Industry’ zone. As there is no delegated authority to refuse a ‘Use Not Listed’, the proposal is referred to Council for a decision. Should Council be satisfied that the use is consistent with the objectives and purpose of the ‘General Rural’ zone however as outlined by Clause 3.4 of TPS No.2, Council may consider approving the application. Home Occupation Permit (HOP) If the proposal did not involve the repair of vehicles on site and was purely a mobile business with an office of no more than 20m² located at 440 Nicholson Road, Forrestdale, the matter could be dealt with as a HOP quite easily. An HOP application is yet to be determined by the City for the office associated with mobile business. When the additional storage space in the shed, lean-to and sea container is taken into consideration however, a substantial variation to the 20m² would need to be considered. Given the extensive nature of the space needed (office and storage) it is clear that the scope of the business activities on site is beyond the definition of a HOP and is not consistent with the objectives of the ‘General Rural’ zone. The best option is for the business is to relocate to a ‘General Industry’ or ‘Light Industry’ zone with similar uses.


89

Precedent There is some concern that should the business component of the application be allowed to proceed, a precedent will be set allowing businesses of an industrial nature to be set up within the ‘General Rural’ zone. This is not what the zone is intended for and it would be detrimental to the City. Structures The structures themselves on the subject property pose no concern. The shed and lean-to are within the parameters of Council’s Outbuildings Policy and Council’s Sea Containers Policy allows the consideration of sea containers on ‘General Rural’ lots. The one element Council must consider under section 7.1.2 of TPS No.2 is that the shed and lean-to are constructed of ‘Zincalume’. As this is considered a reflective material, Council must be satisfied that its use will not have a detrimental impact upon surrounding landowners and the amenity of the area. Given the existing number of ‘Zincalume’ sheds in the area and the fact that it is screened by a number of trees from Nicholson Road, the use of ‘Zincalume’ is not considered to detract from the amenity of the area and is acceptable in this instance. The sea container is screened from view by the lean-to and therefore satisfies the requirements of the Sea Containers Policy. It is therefore recommended that Planning Approval be granted for the shed, lean-to and sea container on the subject property. OPTIONS 1. Council can approve the shed, lean-to and sea container (including the use of ‘Zincalume’)

and refuse permission to operate an auto electrician business from Lot 3 (440) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale.

2. Council can approve the shed, lean-to and sea container (including the use of ‘Zincalume’)

and the operation of an auto electrician business from Lot 3 (440) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale.

CONCLUSION Unauthorised activities have been identified which have lead to an application to legitimise the uses. While there has been some support for the continuation of the automotive electrician business the use is clearly contrary to the objectives of the ‘General Rural’ zone and would create an undesirable precedent. Such uses should be appropriately located in a ‘General Industry’ or ‘Light Industry’ zone. Accordingly it is recommended that the business use be refused, although the development of the structures be approved, in accordance with Option 1.


90

Officer’s report recommends – 1. That Council unconditionally approve the shed, lean-to and sea container component of the

application on Lot 3 (440) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale. 2. That Council refuse the automotive electrician business component of the application on

Lot 3 (440) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale on the following grounds: a) An automotive electrical business is considered an industrial use and is therefore

deemed unsuitable for the ‘General Rural’ zone. b) Approval of the business would create an undesirable precedent within the ‘General

Rural’ zone. COMMITTEE resolved that the proposal be recommitted for further consideration in conjunction with additional information being received. D24/2/04 RECOMMEND That the application to approve the shed, lean-to and sea container

component of the application on Lot 3 (440) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale be recommitted.

MOVED Cr Hodges MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


91



92


93

PROPOSED TWELVE (12) GROUPED DWELLING DEVELOPMENT – LOT 100 ALBANY HIGHWAY, MOUNT NASURA WARD : ARMADALE

FILE REF : A200818


REF : EP

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Dykstra & Associates

LAND OWNER

: Heritage Pioneer Development Pty Ltd

SUBJECT LAND :


ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Residential “R15”

In Brief:-

Proposal involves a twelve (12) grouped dwelling development on this property.

The application was advertised to surrounding landowners and eight (8) submissions were received.

The proposal generally satisfies provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.2 and the Residential Design Codes and is consistent with requirements of the Group Housing Development Policy.


Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications 4.3.13 – Group Housing Development Policy Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


94


95

Consultation

Development Control Unit Surrounding Landowners Main Roads WA Water Corporation

BACKGROUND Council in February 1999 considered an application to rezone this land from “Residential” to Special Use “Medical Centre” and resolved not to initiate the amendment as the proposal did not comply with Council’s Highway Development Policy. The site is currently vacant with some remnant vegetation around the northern and eastern perimeter of the property. The “Special Use” zoning of Lot 60 Carawatha Avenue (directly between the subject lot and Carawatha Avenue) makes provision for vehicle traffic access from Carawatha Avenue, to the subject lot through Lot 60 Carawatha Avenue, Mount Nasura as part of such “Special Use” zoning requirements. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL Details pertaining to the application include the following:

Construction of six (6) single storey dwellings and six (6) double storey dwellings; All units having access from an internal driveway connecting to Carawatha Avenue; Units are to be of brick and tile construction; Residential and visitor parking to be accommodated on site; A 5m wide strip of land along Albany highway perimeter to be reserved for future road

widening purposes. COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) At its meeting held on 29 January 2004, DCU recommended that the application be referred to Council for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. Main Roads WA (MRWA) The application was referred to MRWA for comment as the western boundary of the property abuts Albany Highway. MRWA has advised that the development is acceptable subject to the following conditions:

No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Albany Highway reserve;

No earthworks shall encroach onto the Albany Highway reserve;

No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Albany Highway reserve;


96


97

The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Albany Highway reservation;

Redundant driveways shall be removed and the verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost.

Water Corporation As the subject land is adjacent to a Water Corporation pumping station the application was referred to Water Corporation, which has provided the following comments: “A buffer zone for noise pollution requires an area a minimum of 16m from the pump station building. The Water Corporation will manage the impacts of noise in accordance with the associated Environmental Protection Act (noise) 1986 and guidelines, but to ensure no impact the Water Corporation request that no formal living or outside living areas abut the common boundary within the buffer”. The submitted plan indicates an adequate setback from the pump station building to the development. Surrounding Landowners The application was advertised to eleven (11) surrounding landowners for comment. Seven (7) submissions objecting to the proposal and one (1) submission noting concern were received. Refer to Confidential Attachment “B2” of the Agenda for location plan of respondents. Public Submissions The issues raised are summarised and addressed as follows:

No Statement Number of submittees

holding this view

1

The proposed access to the site being in close proximity to the busy intersection of Albany Highway and Carawatha Avenue would create traffics problems. Has a traffic survey being carried out?

Council’s Technical Services has advised that the traffic generated by the proposed development is not considered significant to warrant a traffic study.

3

2

Proposed access to the site through Lot 60 is too narrow to provide emergency service and there is insufficient turn around areas on site.

The development proposes an access driveway of over 6m wide, which is considered satisfactory for any emergency access and turn around requirements. Council’s Technical Services requires a 15m wide road reserve to access the site from Carawatha Avenue.

2



98


99

No Statement Number of submittees

holding this view

3

We purchased these properties with the expectation of living in natural surrounds with trees and birds. Having neighbours as close as 1m from the boundary who would complain about our pets will impact on our privacy and expectation of “City Living Country Style”.

This locality is zoned Residential “R15” and the subject property has potential for subdivision into at least 7 residential blocks. Council has to consider each application on its merit and the City will ensure that any residential building irrespective of the distance from the neighbours property, complies with the Residential Design Codes.

4

4

High-density living is not for the foothills areas of the Darling Range. This proposal is inconsistent with the established low-density semi rural character of the area as the proposed block sizes are too small. We will be looking at blank walls instead of trees and this development will inhibit our existing views.

Higher density development is preferred in close proximity to the Commercial Centres in order that greater number of people benefit from close proximity to public transport, community and commercial facilities within the area. Council’s Grouped Housing Development Policy makes provisions for this type of development. Views are not considered a planning issue.

4

5

Noise created by children, loud music, parties domestic activities by 12 families living in these houses will be a major problem.

These are scenarios that would be associated and would be expected within any residential development within the residential zone. There are Environmental Protection Regulations to regulate any excessive noise generated from residential activities.

5

6

This development will create major drainage problems. There is a winter creek running through the property and it serves as a compensating basin for this area.

A site inspection has confirmed that no creeks exist on site. Council’s Technical Services has advised that drainage issues associated with the property could be resolved. Prior to commencement of the development the applicant will need to submit a detailed drainage design for the site approval from Technical Services.

5

7

Proposed lighting of the site would interfere with the neighbouring properties.

Lighting is expected to be similar to any other street/residential area lighting, which is unlikely to impact on the neighbouring properties.

3

8

Why is Council allowing a private access road through public parkland?

The access way is not through the parkland but through the existing “Special Use” zone portion of Lot 60 Albany Highway. The “Special Use” zoning of this land makes provision for public road access through this land to the subject Lot 100 Albany Highway.

1


100

ANALYSIS Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS No.2) Grouped Dwelling development is a discretionary use under Town Planning Scheme No.2. The Residential Zoning table of TPS No.2 stipulates that ‘Council may approve grouped dwelling development not exceeding a maximum of “R40”, where it is satisfied that the amenity of the locality will not be prejudicially affected’. The prevailing residential density code of the subject site is “R15”. The development represents a density of “R25” in terms of the number of units proposed. However, given the site constraints the applicant requests that the development be assessed under “R30” density development standards. Vehicle Access The proposed development on Lot 100 Albany Highway has access off Carawatha Avenue through Lot 60 Albany Highway, via an accessway as provided for by the Special Use No.85 zoning requirements under TPS No.2. Council’s Technical Services requires this access to be formalised via a dedicated road designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s guidelines for subdivisional development. The road is to be designed with a 15m wide road reserve and a 9m radius-turning circle at the north end of the road. Residential Design Codes (RD Codes) The development generally complies with lot sizes, open space, outdoor living and private and visitor car parking requirements in accordance with the “R30” density provisions of the RD Codes. Setbacks Given the topography and lot configuration constraints of the site the application proposes a rear setback variation to the units located along the northern perimeter of the site and the unit on proposed survey strata lot 12. (The setback variation ranges progressively from 300mm at Lot 2 to 900mm at Lot 8). The existing houses on properties abutting this site to the north are located at a reasonable setback (approximately 8m) from the subject common property boundary while the unit on Lot 12 abuts the recreation reserve land to the rear. The development generally meets the performance criteria standards in terms of providing adequate light, ventilation and privacy between adjoining properties provided privacy screening to all outdoor living areas and major openings are provided. In view of the objections received from the adjoining neighbours it would be prudent to request the application to be redesigned to satisfy RD Code side/rear setback requirements.


101

Pedestrian Access Where a communal accessway between a public street or a communal car parking area and individual dwellings serve 10 or more dwellings, the Residential Design Codes require provision of safe and comfortable access for pedestrians separate from vehicular access. The submitted design does not make provision for such a pedestrian path. However, given the width of the internal driveway (6-7m) it would be possible to incorporating a pedestrian path into the design. This can be imposed as a condition of approval. Group Housing Development Policy (The Policy) Density Council’s Grouped Housing Policy provides for a density increase of 10 units above the prevailing RD Code density applicable to the area under the Town Planning Scheme No.2 for grouped housing developments in residential areas zoned ‘R20’ and below based on certain criteria. This stipulation allows a density of “R25” for this site, which is the density represented by the number of units proposed. Site and Location The site is considered to be strategically located as it is in close proximity to the Armadale Health campus, public transport routes (bus / train stops) along Albany Highway, Kingsley Primary school and recreation reserve land. Design Guidelines The detail plans demonstrates 18º to 25º-roof pitch and brick and tile construction. The internal design with a mixture of single and double storey units reflect a satisfactory architectural design. A 1.5m limestone retaining wall with 1.5m infill powder coated metal panels is proposed for the Albany Highway frontage of the site. All other boundary fencing and internal dividing fencing are proposed to be constructed of “Colorbond” and limestone material. A detailed schedule of colours and textures of material will be required in order to ensure a high standard of non-reflective finish is obtained. The landscaped, visually permeable frontage would contribute to the Albany Highway streetscape character while the 150m² communal open spaces will contribute to the internal amenity of the site. However, a comprehensive landscape plan will need to be submitted by the applicant as a condition of approval. The proposed wide brick paved driveways will adequately provide for car parking, manoeuvring and visitor parking. OPTIONS 1. Council could approve the proposed development of twelve (12) units at Lot 100 Albany

Highway, Armadale, subject to appropriate conditions.

2. Council could refuse the proposed development on the basis that it would, in its opinion, be of detriment to the amenity of the locality on the grounds that it does not comply with certain aspects of the Residential Design Codes.


102

a) Submission of a revised plan to indicate the side/rear boundary setback requirements of the Residential Design Codes where the development abuts a residential property and a pedestrian access path separate from vehicular access to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

CONCLUSION The proposal generally complies with TPS No.2 provisions, the Policy requirements and the Residential Design Codes. The site is conveniently located in close proximity to public transport routes (rail / bus station) recreational open space, medical facilities and the Kingsley Primary School. The overall development will significantly contribute to the visual enhancement of this undeveloped property thereby improving the streetscape of Albany Highway without requiring direct access onto Albany Highway. Council is required to be satisfied that the proposal will not be of detriment to the amenity of the locality. In view of the objections it would be appropriate for Council to require side setback requirements of the RD Codes to be met to minimise impact on neighbours. Consequently, option 1 is recommended. COMMITTEE indicated a preference for the access from Carawatha Avenue to be located within the allocated open space area if possible. D25/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Council approve the application for a twelve (12) unit

Grouped Housing Development at Lot 100 Albany Highway, Mount Nasura subject to the following conditions:

b) Submission of a detailed schedule of materials, textures and

colours for the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. The development is to be completed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

c) All boundary fencing and internal dividing fences to be of

adequate height to provide privacy between adjoining properties and constructed in high quality (“Colorbond” / limestone) material in a colour to complement the colour scheme of the proposed units to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. All fencing to be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.


103

d) The submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for the site. The landscape plan is to include plant species and method of irrigation of the landscaped areas and incorporate any existing trees on site if possible. The landscape plan is to be approved by the Executive Director Technical Services and all landscaping is to be completed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

e) The access road from Carawatha Avenue to Lot 100 Albany

Highway to be designed and designated as a 15m wide road reserve and a 9m radius turning circle at the north end of the road to the specifications and satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

f) All internal driveways to be brick paved in a colour to

complement the colour scheme of the proposed units to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

g) All hard standing areas including car-parking areas,

crossovers and driveway vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, drained, sealed, kerbed, marked and continuously maintained in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

h) Street lighting to be provided in accordance with Australian

Standards 1158 to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

i) A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan that reflects

Water Sensitive Design Principles is to be submitted to the Technical Services Manager and such plan approved prior to issue of the building licence. All drainage work to be constructed as per approved plan.

2. a) The applicant is advised to comply with all conditions

imposed by Main Roads WA. b) The applicant is advised to make application for a street name

and installation of street signs in accordance with the City of Armadale standards for the new road reserve.

MOVED Cr Zelones MOTION CARRIED (7/0)



104


105

TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF SEA CONTAINER FOR STORAGE – LOT 5 CENTRE ROAD, WESTFIELD WARD : WESTFIELD

FILE REF : A74205


REF : LJB

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: R Birch

LAND OWNER

: Kelmscott Church of Christ

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 1.67 ha Map 22-08

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban/ Residential ‘R15’

In Brief:-

Application is made to erect a 12 metre long sea container on the subject land for temporary storage use.

The proposal does not comply with Council’s ‘Sea Containers, Railway Carriages and other decommissioned Transport Conveyances Policy’ (Sea Containers Policy).

The application is not considered to detract from the existing streetscape and amenity of the area.

Recommended that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development – “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Sea Containers, Railway Carriages and other decommissioned Transport Conveyances Policy (14 January 2002) Budget / Financial Implications Nil.


106


107

Consultation Development Control Unit (DCU) BACKGROUND Council received the application on 9 January 2004 to erect a sea container on the subject land for temporary storage use. Since the proposal does not comply with Council’s Sea Containers Policy, the application has been referred to Council for determination. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL Details pertaining to the application include the following:

The placement of a 12 metre long, 2.4 metre wide, 3 metre high sea container on the site for storage purposes.

The sea container is to be located beside the Kelmscott Church of Christ church building, adjacent to the playground fence.

The sea container is to be located approximately 30 metres from the Centre Road property boundary and 45 metres from the Lake Road property boundary.

The applicant has advised the following:

The container will be painted either a green or sand colour to match the surrounding buildings on site.

The container is required due to a lack of storage area. The container is a short term measure until funding is available to further develop

permanent storage areas on site. COMMENT DCU at its meeting held on 15 January 2004 recommended that the application be approved subject to placement of the container being limited to a temporary period of 12 months. DCU raised concerns about the design of the proposed storage facility, which would establish an undesirable precedent if located on site on a permanent basis. ANALYSIS Town Planning Scheme No.2 Under TPS No.2, the subject land is zoned Residential (R15). The existing land use is classified as ‘Public Worship’ in accordance with TPS No.2. The proposal is considered to be incidental to the predominant land use. As the use is not listed under the zoning table the Council should consider whether the use is consistent with the objectives of the zone and apply the provision on any relevant adopted policies. The required setbacks of 7.5 metres have been provided in accordance with TPS No.2.



108


109

Contextual Analysis The subject property is a relatively large and well vegetated site. There is no residential development on the site. Kelmscott Church of Christ and associated facilities (i.e. car parking and children’s playground) are located on the site area. John Wollaston Community School is located on the opposite side of Centre Road. The existing vegetation along Lake Road as well as the children’s playground adjacent to the proposed location of the sea container would obscure the container from Lake Road. Existing vegetation along Centre Road property boundary would provide partial screening of the container from Centre Road and the John Wollaston Community School site. A landscape plan should be submitted to demonstrate improved screening along the Centre Road property boundary. Council’s Sea Containers Policy The application does not comply with the Council’s Sea Container Policy in that the policy states, “Sea containers… have the potential to adversely impact on the visual amenity of residential areas and are therefore not acceptable in the Residential Zone.” However, due to the existing use and nature of the site, the site is not considered to be residential in line with the zoning and as such there would be no impact on the amenity of local residents. In addition, the proposal is to use the sea container for storage only as a short term or temporary measure. Therefore, in regard to both points, the proposal does not compromise the intent of the policy. OPTIONS 1. Council may refuse the application if it is of the view that the proposal does not comply

with the intent of Council’s Sea Container Policy. 2. Council may approve the application subject to appropriate conditions on the grounds

that the proposal does not impact on the amenity of the surrounding land uses and so does not compromise the intent of the policy.

CONCLUSION Although the application does not comply with the Council’s Sea Container Policy, given the proposed location and colour of the sea container, the screening vegetation present and the proposed temporary use of the container, the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the surrounding land uses. It is recommended that option No.2 be adopted.


110

D26/2/04 RECOMMEND That Council approve the application for the placement of a sea

container at Lot 5 Centre Road, Westfield subject to the following conditions:

a) Submission of a comprehensive landscape plan to demonstrate

screening of the proposed sea container from Centre Road to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. Landscaping to be installed and continuously maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

b) The external surfaces of the proposed sea container be painted in a

colour scheme to complement the existing development to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

c) The approval is valid for a temporary period of 12 months from the

date of this approval.



111


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Subdivisions

112


113

PROPOSED 23 LOT SURVEY-STRATA – LOT 10 AND 11 BRAEMORE STREET, SEVILLE GROVE WARD : SEVILLE

FILE REF : A220272


REF : GIW

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Cottage & Engineering Surveys

LAND OWNER

: Develop Search Pty Ltd

SUBJECT LAND :

Lot 10 & 11 Braemore Street, Seville Grove Property size 8875m² & 1656m² Map 22.40

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Residential Development Area

In Brief:-

Application for a 23 lot survey-strata subdivision has been received from the Western Australian Planning Commission for Council’s comment / recommendation.

Proposal to facilitate a grouped housing development at a residential density of R30.

Recommend Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports the survey-strata subdivision of Lot 10 Braemore Street only subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommend Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it does not support the amalgamation / subdivision of Lot 11 as it is to be reserved for Parks and Recreation.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Development- “To balance the need of development with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives”. Legislation Implications Town Planning & Development Act 1928 Metropolitan Region Scheme Act 1959 Town Planning Scheme No.2 A14 Consolidated Outline Development Plan Council Policy / Local Law Implications Grouped Housing Policy


114DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Subdivisions

114


115

Budget / Financial Implications Cost associated with acquiring Lot 11 Braemore Street for Parks and Recreation purposes. Consultation

Development Control Unit (DCU) Council’s Technical Services Directorate (TSD) Council’s Parks and Reserves Department

BACKGROUND A preliminary application was received on 19 September 2003 to which Council officers provided initial comments and feedback on the proposal. As part of the preliminary submission, a draft concept plan and design guidelines were prepared by the applicant. A legal agreement exists between the City and the owner of Lot 10 Braemore Street requiring the owner to complete deferred subdivisions works relating to drainage, retaining and uniform fencing. Lot 11 was set aside for future resumption by the City for Public Open Space purposes as part of a previous subdivision of the original lot (formerly Lot 25). A survey-strata application to create 23 lots received on 18 December 2003 has been referred to Council by the Western Australian Planning Commission for its comment / recommendation. As the application proposes the amalgamation and subsequent development of Lot 11 as grouped housing, which is earmarked as Public Open Space under Council’s A14 Outline Development Plan, the proposal is referred to Council for determination. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

Proposal to amalgamate Lot 11 with Lot 10 to facilitate a 23 lot survey-strata subdivision to accommodate grouped housing;

Lot areas between 300m² – 448m²; Residential density equivalent to R30; Internal roads and visitor parking to form common property; Uniform fencing, roads, visitor parking and lighting to be constructed prior to

development; Developer proposes to enforce / administer private covenants through a body corporate to

ensure a high quality development is achieved. COMMENT Development Control Unit (DCU) DCU at its meeting held on 8 January 2004 raised no objection to the proposal.


116


117

Technical Services Directorate TSD raised no objection to the proposal and advised the following: 1. A Water Corporation drain may traverse a portion of Lot 11 that would therefore need

to be excised and amalgamated into the adjoining Parks and Recreation reserve. 2. The internal driveways should be redesigned to provide for a single vehicular access

point onto Braemore Street. Parks and Reserves Department Council’s Parks and Reserves Department raised no objection to the proposal to amalgamate Lot 11 as part of the survey-strata development and advised that there is no vegetation on site worthy of retention. Analysis Town Planning Scheme No.2 and Outline Development Plan A14 The subject site is zoned “Residential” and is designated as a “Development Area” under Town Planning Scheme No.2. Clause 5.8.3 stipulates that subdivision or development of land within a “Development Area” is to be generally in accordance with any Structure Plan that applies to the land. In this case, the area is guided by an adopted Structure Plan referred to as the Urban Unit A14 Consolidated Development Plan (ODP). Lot 10 is identified as a “grouped housing” site and Lot 11 is earmarked for Public Open Space purposes under Council’s Urban Unit A14 Consolidated Development Plan. Council may at its discretion approve a density of up to R40 under Town Planning Scheme No.2 for the subject site. Residential Design Codes Subsequent development on each individual lot would require separate development applications to be submitted for determination under the Residential Design Codes as survey-strata lots constitute “grouped dwellings” as opposed to “single dwellings”. In addition, it is a requirement for developments on lots less than 350m² to be subject to a development application. The requirement for development approval will enable Council officers to assess the development in accordance with the Residential Design Codes, Council’s Grouped Housing Policy and TPS No.2 to ensure a high standard of development is achieved. Density The proposed density at R30 is considered reasonable and consistent with other grouped housing sites within the A14 ODP area.


118DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Subdivisions

118


119

Council’s Grouped Housing Policy (GHP) The proposed survey-strata does not make provision for communal open space as required by Clause 3.6.5 of Council’s GHP. Notwithstanding this however, Council at its discretion may waive this requirement if the subject site abuts and provides direct access to a public open space reserve. As the subject site directly abuts a Public Open Space area, it is considered appropriate to relax this provision. Concept Plan A concept plan was initially prepared by the applicant at the request of Council officers to demonstrate how grouped dwellings could be accommodated on site. The concept plan only includes Lot 10 Braemore Street and is generally acceptable subject the following: 1. Provision for a vehicle turning / manoeuvring area at the end of each internal road is

required; 2. The drainage easement must be kept clear from all development including overhangs of

buildings; 3. The design of the dwellings and fencing must provided for passive surveillance of the

adjoining Public Open Space area and Braemore Street.

The concept plan would form a guide for assessing future development applications on the proposed survey strata lots. Design Guidelines The applicant also proposes to enforce specific Design Guidelines under the Strata Titles Act 1985 to ensure a high standard of development is achieved. The draft design guidelines are generally acceptable however they will require minor modifications to ensure consistency with the Residential Design Codes. This could be imposed as a condition of subdivision accordingly. Amenity Compliance with the Residential Design Codes, private covenants imposed by the developer and Council’s grouped housing policy requirements will ensure that subsequent development of the site will achieve a high standard of design. As an example, open style fencing will be required along Braemore Street and adjoining the public open space area to provide for passive surveillance and an inviting streetscape. In addition, all infrastructure including uniform boundary fencing, lighting, driveways will be installed prior to clearance of the survey-strata subdivision and development of individual lots.


120

Traffic It is acknowledged that concern has been raised about speeding traffic along Braemore Street and the potential for landowners / subdividers to contribute towards traffic calming devices. As the majority of land along Braemore Street has been subdivided, it is considered to be inequitable to impose such as requirement on the proposed development and remaining landowners. It is recommended however that this matter be referred to Council’s Technical Services Directorate for further investigation into the need for traffic treatments. Public Open Space As the previous landowner / subdivider had provided the required 10% POS contribution, Lot 11 was set aside for future resumption by the City for Public Open Space purposes as part of a previous subdivision of the original lot (formerly Lot 25). Whilst Council Officers originally raised no objection to the integration of Lot 11 into the proposed survey-strata development, recent objections raised by local residents towards reducing POS in the A14 ODP area needs to be taken into consideration. In reference to recent public submissions received from local residents objecting to the proposed modifications affecting Lot 27 Braemore Street, the community has an expectation that POS areas identified on the A14 ODP will be utilised for such purposes. In addition, as Lot 11 contributes to the overall 10% POS contribution within A14 ODP area allowing it to be amalgamated into the proposed survey-strata development would result in a reduction of POS. This also raises issues of inequity for owners who have already made a contribution towards the overall 10% provision. In this regard, it is recommended that Lot 11 be purchased by Council through the Trust Funds accrued during the operation of the A14 ODP as intended and reserved for Parks and Recreation purposes accordingly. Notwithstanding the above, Council may however feel it is an appropriate opportunity to dispose of Lot 11 by allowing it to be amalgamated into Lot 10 and therefore avoiding the need to purchase the property. OPTIONS 1. Council may recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports

the proposed survey-strata proposal. 2. Council may recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports

the proposed survey-strata of Lot 10 Braemore Street only and acquire Lot 11 for Parks and Recreation purposes.


121

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered appropriate to facilitate grouped housing development on the subject site. A relatively high standard of design is expected as compliance with the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Grouped Housing Policy will be enforced for each lot through subsequent development applications. In addition, the developer’s proposal to enforce and administer private covenants would also ensure a high standard of development is achieved. As Lot 11 is identified as Public Open Space under Council’s A14 Consolidated Outline Development Plan, it is recommended that this land be retained and acquired by Council for such purposes, and in the interest of equity. In this regard, it is recommended that Council adopt option 2 above. D27/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Council advise the Western Australian Planning

Commission that it supports the survey-strata subdivision of Lot 10 Braemore Street, Seville Grove only subject the following conditions:

a) A revised Diagram or Plan of Survey (Deposited Plan)

excluding Lot 11 and indicating a single vehicular access point via Braemore Street is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services / Executive Director Technical Services.

b) Lot 11 being shown on the Diagram or Plan of Survey

(Deposited Plan) as a "Reserve for Recreation" and vested in the Crown under section 20A of the Town Planning and Development Act at cost to Council to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

c) Design Guidelines to be prepared by the developer to the

satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. d) All common property areas including driveways, footpaths,

landscaping, uniform fencing and lighting is to be installed to the satisfaction the Executive Director Development Services / Executive Director Technical Services.

e) The land being provided with an adequate outlet drainage

system constructed at the subdivider's cost in accordance with Council's Drainage Reticulation Design to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

f) Drainage easements as may be required by Council being

granted free of cost in a position satisfactory to the Executive Director Technical Services.


122

g) No work shall commence on site until construction drawings

have been lodged with and approved by the Executive Director Technical Services; such drawings to include measures for the continuous stabilisation of any earthworks during the course of the construction period to ensure all soils will be retained within the bounds of the subject land.

h) Land being graded and stabilised at subdivider's cost,

including construction of a retaining wall in accordance with the Deed of Agree to the specification and satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

i) Any buildings having necessary clearances from new

boundaries. j) All lots being connected to the water reticulation system of the

area to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation. k) All lots being connected to the sewer reticulation system to the

area to satisfaction of the Water Corporation. 2. That Council further advise the Western Australian Planning

Commission that it does not support the amalgamation or subdivision of Lot 11 Braemore Street as the subject lot is identified for Public Open Space purposes under Council’s A14 Consolidated Outline Development Plan.

3. That Council request Technical Services Directorate investigate the

issue of speeding traffic and need for traffic treatments along Braemore Street.


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Miscellaneous

123

Cr Hodges declared a non-financial interest in this item on the basis that her place of employment appears on the Municipal Heritage Inventory list. As a consequence, there may be a perception that her impartiality on the following matter may be affected, but declared that she would disregard this association, consider the matter on its merits and vote accordingly. HERITAGE PLAQUES FOR BUILDINGS ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY WARD : ARMADALE,

KELMSCOTT & ROLEYSTONE

FILE REF : GOV/47


REF : HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Community Heritage Advisory Committee

LAND OWNER

: Various

Tabled Items Nil.

In Brief:-

Council resolved in May 2003 to prepare a specific heritage plaque and to undertake an annual program of presentations to private and public building owners of properties listed on the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI).

The Community Heritage Advisory Committee has proposed seven “A” listed heritage buildings for plaques and staff have suggested a further three buildings for consideration.

Recommend that heritage plaques be presented to the owners of the proposed properties, the Executive Director Development Services in conjunction with the Mayor approve the wording on the plaques, and the plaques be presented to the various owners in ceremonies arranged at a time convenient to the Mayor and the owners.

Officer Interest Declaration Mr Carder and Mr Fouché are members of the Community Heritage Advisory Committee and there may be a perception on the basis of this non-financial interest that their impartiality may be affected. They declare that they have put aside that association and considered the matter on its merits. Strategic Implications Relates to:

The Challenges Ahead – Protecting our history and heritage; and Our commitment to the future to create a caring and vibrant City, rich in history, heritage

and lifestyle.


124

Legislation Implications Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. Town Planning & Development Act 1928. Town Planning Schemes Nos 2 and 3. Municipal Heritage Inventory

Note: Legislation does not require the erection of plaques nor legislate on shape or style.

Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil. Budget / Financial Implications Approximately $300 to $500 for wording inserts for the plaques ($30 to $50 each). Ten blank plaques are already on hand. This is budgeted for in the 2003 2004 Development Services Budget. Consultation

Community Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) BACKGROUND At its meeting of 19 May 2003 Council resolved (D90/5/03): 1. That Council undertake an annual programme of plaque manufacture for

both private and public “A” Management Category buildings in Council’s Municipal Heritage Inventory.

2. That Council:

Adopt the Council Crest as the basis of a heritage plaque; Agree that the heritage plaques are to be of bronze and at least 24

centimetres in diameter with the words “City of Armadale” and “Historic Site” prominent;

Agree that the heritage information for individual plaques is to be imprinted on a separate plate to be attached to the centre of the main plaque.

3. That the Mayor formally present plaques to private owners at appropriate

times throughout the year. The plaque prepared according to Council’s resolution is considered to be an eye-catching and impressive design that the City can be proud to present to both public and private owners. Pictured is the plaque that was prepared for the Birtwistle Local Studies Library.


125

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The Community Heritage Advisory Committee has recommended that the following properties be considered for the provision of heritage plaques:

Dale Cottages (Site No.A05 in the MHI);

The Old Narrogin Inn (A17);

The Armadale District Hall (A02);

The St Mary-in-the-Valley Cemetery at Kelmscott (K23);

St Matthew's Anglican Church, Armadale (A01 & A30);

St Francis Xavier Church, Armadale (A29);

Buckingham Cottage - Coolgiebrie, Bristol Road, Roleystone (R03)). It is suggested that as well as the proposals by CHAC, consideration also be given to the provision of heritage plaques to:

The site of the Kelmscott swimming pool (K12 & K13);

The site of the endless winding gear tower in the Grove at Dale Cottages (A05);

Willow Heights (B05).


126

COMMENT Analysis CHAC Proposals The properties proposed by CHAC, apart from Dale Cottages, are all “A” Management Categories in the MHI. The Old Narrogin Inne and the Armadale District Hall are perhaps two of the most important heritage buildings in Armadale and have recently been entered in the State’s Register of Heritage Places. Buckingham Cottage and St Mary in the Valley Cemetery are currently under consideration for entry into the State’s Register of Heritage Places. Dale Cottages is constantly developing and a plaque is a fitting memorial to commemorate the achievement for aged care in Armadale. All these places are worthy of recognition by the provision of a heritage plaque. Presentation of plaques to private owners should be the subject of negotiation with the owners. Further Proposals Recent decisions to close the swimming pool in Kelmscott and to approve the dismantling and storage of the endless winding gear from Dale Cottages have engendered a degree of public debate and the provision of memorial plaques to commemorate the sites would therefore be an appropriate gesture by Council. Willow Heights (a “B” Management Category) was moved from its position on Albany Highway south to Settlers Common after negotiations with Main Roads WA. Main Roads WA assisted in the upgrading and renovation of the building and it seems appropriate that a commemoration of the building, removed from the line of sight, could be undertaken to remember the former meeting place of the Plymouth Brethren and as a monument to early settlers in the Bedfordale district. OPTIONS 1. Approve the list of properties proposed by CHAC and staff and prepare plaques for

presentation at times suitable to the Mayor and recipients. 2. Decline to approve the supplied list and nominate a list of properties considered as

important. CONCLUSION The properties proposed by CHAC for heritage plaques include some of the most important and impressive heritage properties in the Municipality. It is recommended that plaques be prepared for the properties and that plaques be prepared to commemorate the Kelmscott Swimming pool, the Winding Gear at Dale Cottages and Willow Heights, notwithstanding their designation below Management Category “A” in the MHI.


127

COMMITTEE was of the view that the heritage plaques needed to be presented for permanent display and installation at the subject properties. Accordingly, Part 1 of the Recommendation was amended. D28/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That heritage plaques be presented for permanent installation

(after appropriate consultation with private owners) to the owners of:

Dale Cottages; The Old Narrogin Inn; The Armadale District Hall; The St Mary-in-the-Valley Cemetery at Kelmscott; St Matthew's Anglican Church, Armadale; St Francis Xavier Church, Armadale; Buckingham Cottage (Coolgiebrie, Bristol Road, Roleystone); The site of the Kelmscott swimming pool; The site of the endless winding gear tower in The Grove at

Dale Cottages; and Willow Heights.

2. That the Executive Director Development Services in conjunction

with the Mayor approve the wording on the plaques. 3. That the plaques be presented to the various owners in ceremonies

arranged at a time convenient to the Mayor and the owners.



128DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING – Miscellaneous

128


129

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF TONKIN HIGHWAY AS NEW BOUNDARY WITH THE CITY OF GOSNELLS WARD : WESTFIELD & SEVILLE

FILE REF : BND/1


REF : HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

LAND OWNER : Crown Land, Western Australian Planning Commission, Ministry for Transport, and Della-Vedova

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Maintain effective liaison with other levels of government and regional bodies.

In Brief:-

In February 2002 Council resolved to seek a change to the Local Government boundary with the City of Gosnells between Ranford Road and Seaforth Avenue, by moving the boundary northwards to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway

The City of Gosnells concurs with the proposed change of boundary though suggesting Albany Highway as the eastern boundary.

The Local Government Advisory Board is considering the matter but considering the lapse of time is seeking confirmation that the Councils still support the change

Recommend that Council endorses its decision of 5 February 2002 (T3/02 part 4 refers) to approve the proposed amendment of the local government boundary with the City of Gosnells by moving the boundary northwards to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway between Ranford Road and extending it to Albany Highway and seek the Local Government Advisory Board’s approval thereof.

Legislation Implications Local Government Act 1995. Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil. Budget / Financial Implications Some administrative costs but these are not yet identified or quantified. Consultation Nil.


130

BACKGROUND At its meeting of 25 February 2002 Council resolved, amongst other things (T3/02 part 4):

“That Council approve the proposed amendment of the local government boundary with the City of Gosnells between Ranford Road and Seaforth Avenue, by moving the boundary northwards to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway and that the Executive Director Development Services seek formal concurrence from the City of Gosnells to approach the Department of Local Government upon receipt of any such concurrence to instigate Ministerial approval of the amendment”.

The City of Gosnells advised that at its ordinary meeting on 26 June 2001 its Council resolved:

“That Council (i.e. City of Gosnells) consent to the amending of the Gosnells – Armadale district boundary relocated from its existing position to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway road reservation between Ranford Road and Albany Highway provided that the City of Armadale meet all costs in relation to the boundary change”.

DETAILS OF REQUEST The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) has advised regarding the request that it is presently seeking comments from landowners affected by the proposed change in the boundary where it adjoins the Tonkin Highway reserve. It will examine the matter further when they are received. The LGAB states:

“In the meantime, as it is almost 2 years since the City of Armadale resolved to support this proposed change and more than 2 years since the City of Gosnells supported it, it may be appropriate to seek confirmation that the two councils still support the change.”

COMMENT Analysis Moving the Local Government boundary between Armadale and Gosnells to the middle of the Tonkin Highway reserve remains the most appropriate option in view of the construction of the Tonkin Highway. The highway will effectively sever from the City of Gosnells and remove from them a portion of land adjoining the Armadale boundary. Council previously resolved for the new boundary to extend to Seaforth Avenue. Council may wish to seek its extension to Albany Highway in line with the City of Gosnells resolution. This will add a portion of railway reserve to the rest of the land sought. However, Seaforth Avenue will become a cul-de-sac as the Tonkin Highway construction progresses and will no longer provide access to Gosnells. A letter has been sent to the City of Gosnells to enquire whether it still supports the change.


131

OPTIONS 1. Endorse its previous decision to approve the proposed amendment of the local

government boundary with the City of Gosnells between Ranford Road and Seaforth Avenue, by moving the boundary northwards to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway and advise the Local Government Advisory Board accordingly.

2. Endorse its previous decision to approve the proposed amendment of the local

government boundary with the City of Gosnells by moving the boundary northwards to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway between Ranford Road and extending it to Albany Highway and seek the Local Government Advisory Board’s approval accordingly.

3. Decide to rescind the portion of Resolution T3/02 relating to the Local Government

boundary change and seek no change to the boundary with the City of Gosnells between Ranford Road and Seaforth Avenue.

CONCLUSION Extending the proposed boundary change to Albany Highway will create a more appropriate and logical cadastral boundary, Albany Highway being a major road. It is therefore recommended that Council endorse its previous decision but seek approval from the Local Government Advisory Board to extend the eastern boundary to Albany Highway in accordance with Option 2. COMMITTEE was of the view that the proposed new boundary with the City of Gosnells be moved northeast to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway between Ranford Road and extending it to Canning River was appropriate. Accordingly, the recommendation was amended. D29/2/04 RECOMMEND That Council endorses its decision of 5 February 2002 (T3/02 part 4

refers) to approve the proposed amendment of the local government boundary with the City of Gosnells by moving the boundary northeast to the centreline of the Tonkin Highway between Ranford Road and extending it to Canning River and seek the Local Government Advisory Board’s approval accordingly.



132


133

PROPOSED INCLUSION OF RESERVE 2121, BROOKTON HIGHWAY KELMSCOTT AND RESERVE 30196 MARMION STREET KELMSCOTT – FORMER DISPLACED PERSONS MIGRANT CAMPS - IN THE MUNCIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY WARD : KELMSCOTT

FILE REF : A177586 & A182420


REF : HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

APPLICANT

: Kelmscott Migrant Camps History Group

LAND OWNER

: Crown, vested in Council; and Crown, vested in the Roman Catholic Church

SUBJECT LAND :

Reserve 2121, Brookton Highway, Kelmscott Property size 3.873ha Map 24.06 Reserve 30196, Marmion Street, Kelmscott Property size 6.332ha Map 23.06

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Urban / Parks & Recreation (Local) Urban / Public Purpose Primary School

In Brief:- Council resolved in September 2003 to

seek public comment prior to determining whether or not to place Reserves 2121 and 30196 in the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and to seek a suitable name for Reserve 2121.

Advertising was undertaken and support was received for inclusion of Reserve 2121 in the MHI. The occupier of Reserve 30196 was opposed to including the reserve in the MHI, though they were willing for the site to be commemorated with a plaque.

Two names were suggested for Reserve 2121 though further consideration of suitable names is suggested.

Recommend that Council includes Reserve 2121 in the MHI, does not include Reserve 30196 in the MHI but commemorates it with a suitable plaque and entry in interpretive material, refers the naming of Reserve 2121, the design of a suitable memorial structure and the wording of interpretive material back to the Community Heritage Advisory Committee for further consideration.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Mr Carder and Mr Fouché are members of the Community Heritage Advisory Committee and there may be a perception on the basis of this non-financial interest that their impartiality may be affected. They declare that they have put aside that association and considered the matter on its merits. Strategic Implications Relates to:

The Challenges Ahead – Protecting our history and heritage; and Our commitment to the future to create a caring and vibrant City, rich in history, heritage

and lifestyle.


134

Flames Trees and remains of foundations on reserve 2121

Reserve 30196 – Site of Migrant Camp No 2 but devoid of visible artefacts.


135

Legislation Implications Town Planning Scheme No.2 Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil. Budget / Financial Implications Future possible costs for two (2) heritage plaques (approximately $230 each) and an interpretive sign and memorial (not costed as yet). Consultation

Community Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) Kelmscott Migrant Camps History Group (KMCHG) Public (via newspaper advertisements and submissions received)

BACKGROUND At its meeting of 15 September 2003 Council resolved: 1. To advertise Reserve 2121 and Reserve 30196 (as the sites of the former displaced persons

migrant camps) in the local newspapers seeking public comment on whether they should be considered for inclusion in the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and seeking suggestions for an appropriate name for Reserve 2121.

2. That a final decision on inclusion of the Reserves in the MHI and a name for Reserve 2121

be deferred until comments received thereon are considered. The reserves were the site of migrant camps where displaced persons from Europe were housed in Nissen huts after World War 2. The men were employed by the Metropolitan Water Supply and the families ultimately integrated into the society. Reserve 2121 is signposted as “Morrison Park”. However, this appears to be an unofficial name that has not been approved by the Geographic Names Committee. It is surmised that the name was unofficially adopted from a housing estate in the vicinity, as research has not yet identified a likely alternative source. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The KMCHG is requesting Council to consider placement of Reserves 2121 and 30196 in the MHI as the site of the camps which played an important part in the development and history of the Municipality.


136

COMMENT The proposal was advertised in both local newspapers. Thirteen submissions were received. All thirteen supported the inclusion of Reserve 2121 in the MHI. Nine supported the inclusion of Reserve 30196 in the MHI and one submission objected to its inclusion. There were only two suggestions for a name for Reserve 2121. Analysis The letters of support have been received from various interested local people, including people and relatives of people who lived in the camps. Reserve 2121 Brookton Highway, Kelmscott There was no opposition received to the proposal to place Reserve 2121 Brookton Highway, Kelmscott, the site of Migrant Camp No.1, in the Municipal Heritage Inventory. Submittees supported the need to recognise the important contribution to the Municipality made by the many people who passed through the camps. Only two names were suggested for the currently named “Morrison Park”. Two people suggested naming the reserve “Pyke Gardens” in memory of C Frank (Jim) Pyke, who was the Metropolitan Water Supply’s foreman at the MWS Yard in Kelmscott who arranged the building and management of the camps, employed the men, organised and supervised them at work, organised English language classes for them and generally oversaw the comfort of the families. The other suggestion was to name the reserve MWS Camp Park to recognise the main focus of the camp. Keeping in mind the use of the reserves, another name to consider may be “Migrant Camp Park”. Whilst these names may have merit, it is suggested that a final decision on naming the reserve be deferred at this stage. Council may wish to refer the matter back to CHAC for further consideration and a definitive suggestion to Council. The KMCHG are also keen to have a unique sign construction for Reserve 2121 to contain interpretive material about the camps. Though some designs have been considered, further work is required on the substance of the interpretive material and the form and cost of the interpretive sign before the matter can be presented to Council. Reserve 30196 Marmion Street, Kelmscott Whilst nine (9) submittees supported the inclusion of Reserve 30196 in the MHI, the site of Migrant Camp No.2, the Catholic Education Office of Western Australia opposed its inclusion. They were supportive of the placement of a plaque to recognise the previous historical use of the site but stated “given there is virtually no evidence of the former use of the site in existence I do not believe there is any justification for placing the site on Council’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and wish to express the strongest opposition by this office to doing so”.


137

A further submittee also raised the question whether listing of Reserve 30196 could be achieved without restricting the Good Shepherd School’s utilisation of the land in unison with the needs of its students, neighbours and its historic importance. It is suggested that the approach suggested by the Catholic Education Office of Western Australia is appropriate to consider. The site can be recognised by the production and presentation of a plaque, rather than inclusion in the MHI. This accords with the wishes of the Catholic Education Office though it could be noted that an MHI entry would not inhibit development by the school should it be looking in the future to utilise portions of the reserve. The major point of recognition will be the more visible Reserve 2121 on Brookton Highway, which is utilised just as public open space. Interpretive material proposed for the site can also refer to the part Reserve 30196 played in the displaced persons accommodation, employment, training and integration. OPTIONS Reserve 2121 1. Include Reserve 2121 (the site of Migrant Camp No.1) in the MHI. 2. Decline to include Reserve 2121 (the site of Migrant Camp No.1) in the MHI. Naming of Reserve 2121 Brookton Highway 1. Seek approval from the GNC to formally name Reserve 2121 “Pyke Gardens” instead

of Morrison Park. 2. Seek approval from the GNC to formally name Reserve 2121 “MWS Camp Park” (or

alternatively Metropolitan Water Supply Camp Park) instead of Morrison Park. 3. Seek approval from the GNC to formally name Reserve 2121 “Migrant Camp Park”. 4. Decide to retain the name “Morrison Park”. 5. Defer a decision on a new name until after further consideration and consultation. Reserve 30196 Marmion Street 1. Include Reserve 30196 (the site of Migrant Camp No.2) in the MHI and present a

heritage plaque to the Good Shepherd School commemorating the historic importance. 2. Decline to include Reserve 30196 (the site of Migrant Camp No.1) in the MHI but

present a heritage plaque to the Good Shepherd School commemorating the historic importance of the site.

CONCLUSION Reserve 2121 Given the community support to recognise the historical and social importance of the migrant camp on Reserve 2121, it is recommended that the Reserve be included in the City’s MHI.


138

Naming of Reserve 2121 Brookton Highway Whilst both names suggested have some merit, it is recommended that further investigation and analysis of a suitable name be undertaken prior to a formal decision. The name “Morrison Park” does not appear to have any important historical background and should not be retained. Reserve 30196 Marmion Street Whilst recognising its historical importance and quite prepared to memorialise it by plaque, the occupiers of Reserve 30196 have reservations about entering the reserve in the MHI. It is suggested that the reserve not be entered into the MHI but that a plaque be presented to the Good Shepherd School and its part in the history of the Municipality be noted in interpretive material to be prepared for the Reserve 2121. COMMITTEE supported the inclusion of Reserve 2121 in the MHI, and requested that it also be listed as a Category (C) in the Inventory. Accordingly, Part 1 of the recommendation was amended. D30/2/04 RECOMMEND That Council: 1. Include Reserve 2121 (the site of Migrant Camp No.1) in the City

of Armadale’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, in category (C). 2. Defer a decision on renaming Reserve 2121 and refer the matter

back to the Community Heritage Advisory Committee for further consideration of a suitable name for the reserve and a recommendation to Council.

3. Not include Reserve 30196 (the site of Migrant Camp No.2) in the

City of Armadale’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. 4. Approve preparation of a heritage plaque to commemorate Reserve

30196, with wording approved by the Executive Director Development Services, to be presented by the Mayor to the Good Shepherd Primary School in a ceremony arranged at a time convenient to the Mayor and the School.

5. Refer the matter of a suitable memorial structure to commemorate

the history of the reserves and the wording of the interpretive material to the Community Heritage Advisory Committee for further consideration and a recommendation to Council.



139




140


141

Cr Hodges declared an interest in this item on the basis that she resides in close proximity to the subject site and left the meeting at 9.07pm. * PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY – RESERVE 33126, 37 AMETHYST CRESCENT, MT RICHON WARD : ARMADALE

FILE REF : POS/1


REF : CRG

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

Tabled Items Nil.

In Brief:-

Council previously considered public submissions for reserves within the Public Open Space Strategy stages 4 and 5.

Consideration of Reserve 33126 (37 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon) was recommitted to the Development Services Committee.

Recommended that Council amend draft Town Planning Scheme 4 to show Reserve 33126 (37 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon, Coastal Plain South 3 Precinct) as P&R (local), in light of submissions.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Social Infrastructure Item 2.3 Develop a Strategic Plan for the provision of recreation services and facilities Legislation Implications Land Administration Act 1997 Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Council Policy / Local Law Implications ADM 11 Vesting of Crown Reserves in Urban Areas. Budget / Financial Implications Costs for managing minor passive reserves are about $1,600 per hectare. Retention of the reserve would cost around $224 annually for maintenance. This estimate is likely to be conservative as a result of the increased costs in setting up maintenance operations in comparison to the amount of time actually spent maintaining the reserve.



142


143

If the reserve is cancelled and sold, this would generate funds for use to improve facilities in the same precinct. Funds must be used in accordance with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s guidelines. Consultation Public consultation consistent with Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s (Land Asset Management) guidelines for the administration of Section 20A reserves has taken place for this reserve. For a reserve to be cancelled, Council needs to demonstrate to the Minister for Lands the level of citizen’s support. Consultation involved writing to all landholders within 100m walking distance of the reserve, signposting, and newspaper advertising. Submissions were open from 16 May 2003 to 27 June 2003. Nine submissions opposed to the sale of Reserve 33126 (37 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon) were received (see Analysis section of this item), as well as one submission suggesting a use of the funds raised from the sale of public open space. BACKGROUND Stages 4 and 5 of the Public Open Space Strategy (hereafter referred to as the POS Strategy), was considered by Council on 19 January 2004. At this meeting, consideration of Reserve 33126 was recommitted to the Development Services Committee, to decide whether the reserve should be sold as recommended in the strategy, or retained as a reserve for public recreation. Reserve 33126 is 1,407m2 in area and zoned R15 which requires an average lot size of 666m2. Recommendation (D12/1/04):- “That the matter of cancellation and disposal of Reserve 33126 (Coastal Plain South (3) Precinct) be recommitted to the next Development Services Committee”. Reserve 33126 (37 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon) is currently vested in the City of Armadale for public recreation. Officers recommended that it be retained for this purpose because:

Other open space is difficult to access as a result of the terrain; The open space provides access to Petalite Street, providing neighbourhood

permeability, and The reserve provides sheltered (shade) POS, through its canopy of native trees.

A decision to retain the reserve will require a change to the draft Town Planning Scheme 4 in light of previous council resolutions. Disposal of the reserve is to be reconsidered in light of a drainage pipe that runs through the reserve.


144

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL It is proposed to retain Reserve 33126 at Amethyst Cr Mt Richon, and amend draft TPS4 to show the reserve as P & R (local). ANALYSIS Public Submissions Nine submissions opposed to the proposed sale of the land were received. Submissions are summarised below.

Community value of natural bushland interspersing suburban housing – 2 submissions, Valued as a conservation area for fauna and flora values –3 submissions, Valued as an area for children to recreate (2 submissions) with no similar area within

walking distance (1 submission). Fears if sold, children will recreate on the road (1 submission),

General passive recreational area (2 submissions) including elderly people (1 submission), Valued for the ‘nature experience’ for children (2 submissions), Area utilised for local community social events (2 submissions), Valued as access route to Petalite Street (3 submissions), Community perception of ‘little remaining free space (1 submission), Community have in past, contributed to the maintenance of the area (1 submission),

Three submissions identified the area as an important conservation resource. Whilst the reserve has remnant trees, and may provide habitat for native birds species, the size of the parcel would not be a significant conservation resource. The area was also described as a natural setting with valuable native flora and fauna. Whilst the reserve is not a viable natural area, it does contain native trees which provide aesthetic values. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The lack of close recreational areas was addressed in two submissions. The closest area for children to play is on Emerald Place (approximately 300m further), or Carwick Road (approximately 500m further). However, the access of these areas involves the accent and decent of steep hills. The vacant land does provide a forum for children to recreate in a natural area (ie: without the provision of facilities). This was recognised in one submission. Three submissions recognised the value of the reserve for access to Petalite Place. Alternative access to Petalite Place is via the road (step accent). One submitter identified the perception that there is little remaining free space in the area. The precinct currently has 12.5% POS of the residential area, and if the recommendations are implemented, 12.4% of the residential area will remain POS. One submission suggested the funds raised if the reserve is sold, to be used for Reserve 35613 (within the same precinct). This reserve is far larger (runs along the Nerrigin Brook) and would be an economical, environmental and functional alternative to the Amethyst Crescent Reserve.


145

Drainage Infrastructure Whilst the Development Services Committee previously recommended that Reserve 33126 should be cancelled and sold, it is understood consideration of the reserve was recommitted to the Development Services Committee by Council to investigate a drainage pipe that occurs on the property. Map 1 shows the location of the drainage pipe through the reserve. This land parcel (1047m2) would be suitable for sale, with the creation of a 3-4m drainage easement through the centre of the land. Subdivision of the land to create two blocks would not meet the average or minimum lot size requirements under the R15 zoning (minimum of 580 m2). If the reserve were to be cancelled and the land sold with a drainage easement through the property, the access-way which links the reserve with Petalite Street will need to be considered. This access-way also contains drainage infrastructure. There is merit in the retention of the reserve with respect to the location of drainage infrastructure through the centre of the land parcel, the lack of neighbourhood permeability, and the strong community support for the retention of the reserve. However, the Public Open Space Strategy identified the land parcel as failing to meet economic, functional and environmental criteria for retention. Policy Consideration Council policy ADM 11 stipulates that local reserves less than 4000m2 should not be accepted for vesting unless there are inadequate neighbourhood parks. Reserve 33126 at Amethyst Cr Mt Richon does not meet the criteria for vesting acceptance of POS under this Council policy. However, in this instance the City already accepted vesting of the reserve many years ago. Analysis clearly identifies that there is a case for, and against, the recommendation to retain the reserve. This is summarised in the table below.

Case for the retention of Reserve 33126 Case for the cancellation and sale of Reserve 33126 • Serves as access-way to access

Petalite Street • Clearly valued by local residents • Provides a sheltered (shady)

environment for recreation • Other open space in the locality is

difficult to access due to the steep nature of the terrain

• Large block size can not be subdivided and sale of one land parcel will require the creation of a drainage easement

• Does not meet criteria for vesting acceptance as per Council Policy ADM 11

• Will require ongoing resources for management of a small area (uneconomical to retain)

• Is suitable for sale with the creation of a drainage easement

On balance it is recommended to retain Reserve 33126 for public recreation, and amend draft TPS4 to show the reserve as P&R (local).


146

Figure 1 – Reserve 33126 CONCLUSION Consideration of reserve 33126 at 27 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon was recommitted to the Development Services Committee for consideration of drainage infrastructure that occurs on the land parcel. Drainage infrastructure has been investigated on the reserve, and the land has been identified as suitable for sale. The land could be sold as one large land parcel (1047 m2) and would require the creation of a 3-4 metre drainage easement through the property. Given that the land is already vested in the City, no resolution by Council is needed to accept vesting of the reserve. D31/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council amend draft Town Planning Scheme 4 to show Reserve 33126 (37 Amethyst Cr Mt Richon, Coastal Plain South 3 Precinct) as P&R (local), in light of submissions.

* ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED


Cr Hodges returned to the meeting at 9.13pm.


147



148


149

REQUEST TO NAME RESERVE 45968, BOULEVARDE AVENUE, BROOKDALE – THE “GERALD RUSSELL PARK” WARD : FORREST

FILE REF : A233897


REF : HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: A/PSM

LAND OWNER

: Crown vested in the City of Armadale

SUBJECT LAND :

Property size 1.5339HA Map 21.40

ZONING MRS/TPS No.2

: Parks and Recreation / Parks and Recreation (Region)

In Brief:- Council resolved on 15 September

2003 that Reserve 45968 be nominated as an appropriate reserve to name after Mr Gerald Russell and that the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) be requested to consider the nomination.

GNC sought advertising to ascertain community support for the naming.

Two responses were received to the advertising and letter drop. Both supported the proposal.

Recommend that Reserve 45968 is an appropriate reserve to name after Mr Gerald Russell and that as no objections have been received to the proposal, the Geographic Names Committee be requested to consider the nomination. Once GNC approval has been granted, a suitable sign to be manufactured and erected on the reserve. The Mayor to dedicate the park at a ceremony for family and friends at a mutually suitable time.

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications To foster ownership, pride, and a supportive and caring community. Legislation Implications Local Government Act 1995 Land Administration Act 1997 Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil. Budget / Financial Implications $1000 approximately for construction and erection of appropriate Signage.


150

Consultation

Geographic Names Committee BACKGROUND At its meeting of 15 September 2003 Council resolved that Reserve 45968 be nominated as an appropriate reserve to name after Mr Gerald Russell and that the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) be requested to consider the nomination. Mr Russell was a resident from the Brookdale area who was killed in action in 1953 during the Korean War. The GNC advised that advertising should be carried out to ascertain community support for the proposal. The matter was advertised in both local newspapers and by a letter drop to some 30 nearby landowners. COMMENT Analysis Only two written responses were received – one from a local resident and one from the developer of the Brookwood Estate. Both supported the proposal. There has been no opposition expressed. It is suggested that should the naming be approved, signage advising the name of the park and a brief outline of Gerald Russell be prepared and erected in the reserve. Wording, agreed as appropriate by Cr F R Green, that could be considered is:

GERALD RUSSELL PARK Reserve 45968

Named in memory of Private Gerald William Russell, a resident from the Brookdale area who

was killed in action in Korea on 12 May 1953. It would seem fitting to have the Mayor dedicate the park at a ceremony on the reserve for descendants of Mr Russell, RSL members and friends. OPTIONS 1. Note the submissions and seek approval from the GNC to name Reserve 45968 the

“Gerald Russell Park”, and erect a suitable sign upon approval to be dedicated by the Mayor in a ceremony at the reserve, with invitations to descendants of Mr Russell, RSL members and friends.

2. Note the submissions and seek approval from the GNC to name Reserve 45968 the “Gerald Russell Park”, and erect a suitable sign upon approval and but decline to hold a dedication ceremony by the Mayor.

3. Decline to name Reserve 45968 the “Gerald Russell Park”.


151

CONCLUSION

Council has already resolved to name Reserve 45968 after Mr Gerald Russell. The submissions from the necessary advertising have supported the proposal so it is recommended that the GNC be approached to seek approval to name Reserve 45968 the “Gerald Russell Park”. A suitable sign naming the reserve and identifying Mr Russell would be appropriate and it would appear fitting to ask the Mayor to dedicate the park at a ceremony to which descendants of Mr Russell, RSL members and friends are invited. D32/2/04 RECOMMEND 1. That Reserve 45968 is an appropriate reserve to name after Mr

Gerald Russell and that as no objections have been received to the proposal, the Geographic Names Committee be requested to consider the nomination.

3. That once approval of the name has been received from the

Geographic Names Committee, an appropriately worded sign be manufactured and erected on Reserve 45968. The wording of the sign to be as outlined in the body of this report.

4. That the Mayor to dedicate the park at a ceremony arranged at a

time convenient to the Mayor and descendants of Gerald Russell, RSL members and friends.


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9TH FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE MEETING

152

LATE ITEMS Nil. COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS Cr Green Development Services Committee 1. Councillor Green advised of his intention not to renominate for Council at the next

election and to resign from the Development Services Committee. D33/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Cr R J Tizard and Cr F R Green be appointed as Member and Deputy Member respectively of the Development Services Committee. * ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORTS The Executive Director Development Services updated the Committee on future development proposals in the Armadale Shopping City and the site occupied by Woolworth’s in the City Centre.

MEETING DECLARED CLOSED AT 9.55 PM

m i n u t e s - city of armadale · city of armadale m i n u t e s of development services...

Documents