Source: http://vincent.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/11/COM_20191105_AGN_4168_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 21:46:43
Document Index: 146750570

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 11']

Agenda of Council Briefing - 5 00 2019
Council Briefing Agenda 5 November 2019
5 Strategy and Development 8
5.1 No. 48 (Lot: 60; D/P: 414285) and No. 50 (Lot: 61; D/P: 414285) Cowle Street, West Perth - Multiple Dwelling (Amendment to Approved) 8
5.2 No. 536 (Lot: 216; D/P: 2672) Charles Street, North Perth - Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising of Two Commercial Tenancies and Two Multiple Dwellings. 103
5.3 Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (No. 20 (Lot: 100) Brentham Street, Leederville) - Outcomes of Advertising. 155
5.4 LATE REPORT: Design WA Stage 2 - Precinct Design. 163
6 Infrastucture and Environment 164
6.1 LATE REPORT: Management of Services at Weld Square for People Experiencing Homelessness. 164
7 Community and Business Services. 165
7.1 Investment Report as at 30 September 2019. 165
7.2 Financial Statements as at 30 September 2019. 174
7.3 Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 24 September 2019 to 21 October 2019. 241
7.4 LATE REPORT: Floreat Athena Football Club Inc. - Lease - Final Report 263
8 Chief Executive Officer 264
8.1 Cities Power Partnership. 264
8.2 LATE REPORT: Lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville to Minister for Works - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. 286
8.3 Council Workshop, Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2020. 287
8.4 Annual Corporate Business Plan Quarterly Update. 290
8.5 Appointment of community members and Elected Members to the City of Vincent Audit Committee and amendment of Terms of Reference. 300
8.6 Appointment of an alternate member for the Mindarie Regional Council meeting - 12 December 2019. 306
8.7 Appointment of Elected Members to CEO Performance Review Panel 307
8.8 Appointment of Elected Members to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel 312
8.9 Information Bulletin. 317
9 Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 365
10 Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 365
11 Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 366
11.1 LATE REPORT: Management of Loftus Community Centre. 366
12 Closure. 367
5 Strategy and Development
5.1 No. 48 (Lot: 60; D/P: 414285) and No. 50 (Lot: 61; D/P: 414285) Cowle Street, West Perth - Multiple Dwelling (Amendment to Approved)
2. Original Development Approval issued 8 February 2016 ⇩
3. Amendment to Approval issued 3 March 2017 ⇩
4. Amendment to Approval issued 23 October 2017 ⇩
5. Development Plans ⇩
6. Written Submission ⇩
7. Minutes from 15 October 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council ⇩
8. Landscape Plan ⇩
9. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩
10. Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response ⇩
12. Environmentally Sustainable Design Report ⇩
To consider an application for development approval for amendment to approved (extension of time) for a five storey multiple dwelling development at Nos. 48 and 50 Cowle Street, West Perth (the subject site).
The application proposes an extension of time for an additional one year to substantially commence the previously approved development.
West Perth Management Pty Ltd and Cowle Street Management Pty Ltd
Vacant and Single House
The subject site is bound by Cowle Street to the south, Dorrien Gardens Reserve to the north. The development site includes two lots, being No. 48 and No. 50 Cowle Street with a total development area of 4,007 square metres.
The subject site is zoned Residential R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and is located in the Residential Built Form Area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). No. 48 Cowle Street currently comprises of one single house which is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a Category B Management category. No. 50 is currently vacant. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.
The history of development approvals on the subject site are as follows:
· On 8 February 2016 the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved a development application for the demolition of three dwellings and retention of one Heritage Listed Dwelling; and construction of a five storey residential development comprising of 74 multiple dwellings and car parking for No. 48 (Lot: 10) and No. 54-70 (Lot: 41) Cowle Street, West Perth the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 2;
· On 8 March 2016, Council resolved to remove lot formerly known as No. 68-70 (Lot: 41) Cowle Street, West Perth, from the Municipal Heritage Inventory, following a catastrophic fire;
· On 21 July 2016, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved a subdivision application for the amalgamation of No. 48 (Lot: 10) and No. 54-70 (Lot: 41);
· On 3 March 2017 the JDAP resolved to grant approval minor modifications to the approved development. The minutes of this meeting can be found in Attachment 3;
· On 31 March 2017, the WAPC approved a subsequent subdivision application for the realignment of the lot boundaries to reflect the proposed staging of the development;
· On 23 October 2017 the JDAP resolved to grant approval for an extension of time to substantially commence the development approval, the decision extended the term of approval until the 8 February 2020, the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 4; and
· On 4 September 2018, the City cleared the conditions of subdivision approval and became party to an Easement agreement for a right of carriageway to ensure vehicle access point for both Lots is continuously provided.
The current development application, which is included in Attachment 5 submitted on 1 July 2019 is seeking an additional one year extension of time to substantially commence the development with the period proposed to be extended to the 8 February 2021. There are no proposed changes to the development plans. The applicant’s written submission is included as Attachment 6.
15 October 2019 OMC
The subject application was previously presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 15 October 2019. At this meeting, Council resolved the following:
The minutes of this Council Meeting are included in Attachment 7. Administration’s assessment in respect to this reason for deferral is included within the Comments section below. Additional information received from the applicant following the deferral is included in Attachment 6.
The previous development application was assessed against the standards of the City’s Residential Design Elements Policy and Part 6 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes). The previous development application was approved with departures to the plot ratio, height, street and lot boundary setbacks set out under Part 6 of the R Codes.
State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments (R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments) came into effect on the 24 May 2019 and replaced State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes for each design element. Proposals are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the Element Objectives for each design element. While addressing the Acceptable Outcomes is likely to achieve the relevant Element Objectives, they are not a deemed-to-comply pathway and the proposal is still to be assessed against the relevant Element Objectives. Where Acceptable Outcomes are not met, proposals may still satisfy the Element Objective via alternative means or solutions.
The Element Objectives and/or Acceptable Outcomes that are not achieved in the proposal are as follows
Built Form Policy Clause 5.6 Building Height
C 5.6.1 Three storeys
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.2 Building Height and Built Form Policy Clause 5.6 Building Height
O 2.2.1 The height of the development responds to the desired future scale and character of the street and local area, including existing buildings that are unlikely to change.
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.3 Street Setbacks and Built Form Policy Clause 5.2 Street Setback
A 2.3.1 4.8 metres
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.4 Side and Rear Setbacks and Built Form Policy Clause 5.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks
A 2.4.1 Side Setback: 3.0 metres
A 2.4.1 Rear Setback: 3.0 metres
A 2.4.1 Lot Boundary Wall Height
Two storeys shall not exceed two-thirds the length of the boundary
North: 1.5 metres
West: Nil to 5.1 metres
North: 1.1 metres to 1.6 metres
West: Nil
North: 1.1 metres to 2.9 metres
East: Nil to 9.1 metres
West: Nil to 14 metres
North: 2.3 metres to 3.9 metres
East: Nil to 10.2 metres
West: 1.3 metres to 15.2 metres
North: 2.1 metres to 3.95 metres
East: Nil to 9.0 metres
Eastern Lot Boundary Wall
Does not exceed two-thirds the length of the boundary
Western Lot Boundary Wall
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.5 Plot Ratio
A 2.5.1 1.0 (4,007 square metres)
1.5 (6,012 square metres)
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 2.7 Building Separation
A 2.7.1 Fourth Storey
Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 12 metres
Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 7.5 metres
Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 4.5 metres
Setback between Habitable Rooms/Balconies: 5.3 metres
Setback between Habitable Rooms and Non‑Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres
Setback between Non-Habitable Rooms: 5.3 metres
A 2.7.1 Fifth Storey
Setback from habitable rooms/balconies to boundary: 9.0 metres
Setback from habitable rooms/balconies to boundary: 3.8 metres
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.4 Communal Open Space
O 3.4.1 Provision of quality communal open space that enhances resident amenity and provides opportunities for landscaping, tree retention and deep soil areas.
Communal open space proposed within the central space between dwellings. There is no active recreational facilities, such as barbeque facilities.
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.5 Visual Privacy
A 3.5.1 Setback of unenclosed private outdoor spaces: 6.0 metres
Unenclosed private outdoor spaces
Apartment U2-107: Nil setback to eastern boundary
Apartment U2-206: Nil setback to eastern boundary
Apartment U2-306: Nil setback to eastern boundary
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.7 Pedestrian Access and Entries
A 3.7.2 Pedestrian entries are protected by the weather
No weather protection at pedestrian entries
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 3.9 Car and Bicycle Parking
A 3.9.1 Residential Bicycle Parking Bays: 37
Visitor Bicycle Parking Bays: 8
Residential Bicycle Parking Bays: 25
Visitor Bicycle Parking Bays: 10
A 3.9.2 Motorcycle/Scooter Parking Bays: 9
Motorcycle/Scooter Parking Bays: Nil
A 3.9.3 Residential Car Parking Bays: 66
Visitor Car Parking Bays: 9
Residential Car Parking Bays: 80
Visitor Car Parking Bays: 10
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.1 Solar and Daylight Access
A 4.1.1 (a) At least 70 percent of dwellings have living rooms and private open space obtain two hours of direct sunlight
67 percent (50 of 74) of dwellings have living rooms and balconies that receive at least two hours of direct sunlight
A 4.1.1 (b) Maximum of 15 percent receive no direct sunlight
21 percent (16 of 74) of dwellings receive no direct sunlight
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.9 Universal Design
A 4.9.1 At least 5 percent of dwellings are designed to Platinum Level as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia)
Nil dwellings meet Silver of Platinum Level requirements as there is no disabled parking provided for the residents of the development and bathroom entrances are less than 1.2 metres wide.
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.15 Energy Efficiency
A 4.15.1 (b) All dwellings exceed the minimum NATHERS requirement for apartments by 0.5 stars (5.5 star rating required)
Dwelling ratings vary between 5.0 and 8.1 stars.
Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Clause 4.16 Water Management and Conservation
O 4.16.1 Minimise potable water consumption throughout the development.
No details relating to initiatives to minimise potable water consumption throughout the development.
An assessment of how the proposal meets the Element Objectives of the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments is discussed in the Comments section below.
Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation for a period of 21 days from 7 August 2019 to 29 August 2019. The method of consultation being a sign on site, an advertisement in the local newspaper, 438 letters being distributed to all landowners and occupiers within 150 metre radius of the subject site (as shown in Attachment 1) and the proposal being published on the City’s webpage.
At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of five submissions were received, all in objection to the proposal. The concerns raised were in relation to the following matters:
· The height of the development dominating the existing streetscape and detracting from the established characteristics of Cowle Street;
· Overshadowing onto the south-eastern apartment building;
· The proposal does not incorporate materials and design elements that maintain the heritage characteristics of the street;
· The lack of landscaping due to the proposed setbacks; and
· The increase in traffic to the site, and impact it would have on the surrounding locality as a result of parking and additional vehicles attracted to the area.
A summary of submissions and Administrations response is included in Attachment 9. The summary of submissions and the applicant’s response is included in Attachment 10.
The proposal was originally presented to the City’s Design Review Panel (formerly Design Advisory Committee) on 1 July 2015, prior to a development application being lodged. An amended proposal was presented to the DRP on 19 August 2015. The proposal was further presented to DAC on 28 October 2015, following lodgement of the development application.
The current application was referred to the DRP on 14 August 2019. The DRP provided the following comments and recommendations:
· The development is designed sensitively to the context even though it is over plot ratio and height;
· The applicant should consider:
o What landscaping species are capable of reaching maturity in the locations proposed;
o How landscape would facilitate resident outdoor hang-out spaces;
o Location of crossovers and replacement verge tree; and
o Potential alternative treatment to where plan currently indicates the use of grass cell;
· The applicant should consider details relating to and the design of the multiple entrance for visitors;
· The applicant should consider simplifying and reducing the raised walkways widths in the internal courtyard areas as they appear complex and impact on access to sunlight at lower courtyard levels; and
· Further communal open space should be considered for residents to be able to sit and engage with other residents.
Following presentation at DRP, the applicant provided a landscape plan to address the above comments. The landscape plan can be found in Attachment 8.
· Policy No. 7.5.4 – Substantial Commencement of Development;
· Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plan; and
· Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties.
State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 2 Apartments
The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides comprehensive guidance for the development of multiple dwellings and mixed use development and focuses on improved design outcomes for apartments that are responsive and appropriate to the context and character of the site and locality. This is a performance based assessment and applicants are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the objectives of each design element as well as the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.
The matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development was originally determined by the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) and there has been significant changes to the statewide planning framework, with the implementation R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.
When assessing the application for an extension of time, Administration have considered the following:
1. Changes in the planning framework since development approval was granted;
2. Whether the development is likely to receive approval now; and
3. If the applicant has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development.
This is discussed in further detail below. The applicant has addressed the above matters in Attachment 6.
1. Changes to the Planning Framework
The previous applications for the subject site were assessed against the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), in which the subject site was zoned Residential with a density coding of R80, and associated State and local planning policies. TPS1 included two provisions which were relevant to the application at the time that the previous applications were determined, being:
· (20)(2) Subject to compliance with the procedures set out in the Residential Planning Codes for notifying affected owners and occupiers, the Council may grant an increase in the permitted density by up to 50 percent if - ….
(b) the proposed development conserves or enhances an existing dwelling or existing dwellings worthy of retention; and
· (27) Where desirable to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place listed in the Heritage List or to enhance or preserve heritage values in a Heritage Area, the Council may vary any site of development requirement of the Scheme provided that, where in the Council’s opinion the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site which is the subject of consideration for variation, the Council shall:
(a) consult the affected parties by following one or more the provisions dealing with advertising uses pursuant to Clause 37; and
(b) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its decision to grant the variation.
The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) was approved by the Minister for Planning and was gazetted on 16 May 2018. LPS2 proposed no changes to the zoning or density coding of the subject site, which remains as Residential R80. Clauses 20 and 27 of TPS1 were not included in LPS2.
Although Clause 27 was not included in LPS2, Clause 12 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations includes a provision to the same effect. This provision came into effect in 2015, prior to the first development approval on the site, and remains applicable to the current application:
· 12(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to -
(a) Facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Action 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or
(b) Enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.
State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 Apartments
The previous applications for development approval for the subject site were assessed against Part 6 of the R Codes. On 24 May 2019, the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments were gazetted which replaced the previous Part 6.
Where an amendment to approval dated granted prior to 24 May 2019 are proposed, Administration is required to assess the proposal against R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides a performance based assessment through Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes in lieu of the deemed-to-comply pathway provided by the former Part 6. Administration has assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments, which are detailed further below.
2. Whether the proposal is likely to receive approval now
Since JDAP’s most recent decision to approve an amendment to the approved development in August 2017 the planning framework has changed. To determine whether the development is likely to receive approval now, the development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.
The proposal is for an extension of time to the approval period to substantially commence development. The development application does not propose any changes to the previously approved built form.
The proposed plot ratio of 1.5 is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.5 of the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 for the following reasons:
· The dwellings are separated into four buildings across the two sites, which assists in dispersing the impact of building bulk across the subject site and limiting the impact on the adjoining properties. Building bulk is further mitigated as the elevations are well articulated through the use of contrasting materials, colours, openings and façade depths that moderate the visual impact of the built form;
· The development provides for sufficient on-site car parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors, and diversity in the dwelling types proposed including one, two and three bedrooms. As discussed further in the report, sufficient landscaping is provided across the subject site to provide increased amenity for occupants;
· In considering the bulk and scale, the development is consistent with the future desired built form of the locality as envisaged by the Built Form Policy and LPS2. While the development represents a departure from the current built form of the locality, which consists predominantly of single storey development, as well as two and three storey developments, the heritage listed dwelling is being conserved to contribute towards retaining elements of the current streetscape;
· It is noted that the Italian Club located on the corner of Cowle Street and Fitzgerald Street approximately 115 metres from the site has an approved Local Development Plan that permits heights up to 8 storeys which, if developed will significantly alter the built form outcomes in this area;
· The development has been designed to suitably mitigate any impacts of bulk and scale as noted above, which includes the highest portion of the development located adjacent to the adjoining reserve, and away from the street; and
· The proposal is consistent with the promotion of higher density development within close proximity to the Perth CBD and other high amenity areas including the Leederville Town Centre, and is well serviced by public transport.
As noted above, Clause 20(2) of the City’s previous TPS1 provided for increased density for the retention of heritage listed dwellings. Although this was not included in LPS2, the development has been assessed against the current planning framework, which includes a performance based approach under the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. For the reasons outlined above, the development is consistent with the element objective with respect to plot ratio, and the approval of the previous applications was not reliant on the ability to seek increased density as was available at the time those decisions were made.
Similarly, although Clause 27 of the City’s previous TPS1 provided for varying of Scheme requirements when the heritage properties were being retained and enhanced this was not included in LPS2, however a similar provision remains part of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 under Clause 12, and is applicable. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 12 and the proposed plot ratio is acceptable.
The development incorporates a total of four buildings, which vary in height from single-storey to five-storeys. The four buildings fronting Cowle Street propose heights of single-storey, two-storey and four-storeys. The single-storey building is a retained character dwelling which is listed on the City’s MHI. The two buildings facing Dorrien Gardens Reserve are five-storeys.
The proposed building height is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The development is spread over four buildings, with two four-storey buildings, one two-storey building and one single-storey building fronting Cowle Street and two five-storey buildings fronting Dorrien Gardens Reserve, which breaks up the building bulk as viewed from the public realm;
· The fourth storey of the building fronting Cowle Street on No. 50 is contained within the proposed roof form and the two-storey building is located on the lot boundary abutting a single dwelling, which mitigates the perception of building height when viewed from the street and the adjoining residential property;
· The development has been designed to respond to the adjoining multiple dwellings at Nos. 28-44 Cowle Street, with the proposed lot boundary walls abutting the existing lot boundary walls, and the height of the development ensures solar and daylight access to the adjoining dwellings;
· The height of the building responds to the slope of the land, with the basement car parking responding to the existing ground level of the subject site, which minimises the extent of excavation required for the development;
· The proposal incorporates various roof forms, extensive glazing, balconies along the façade fronting Cowle Street and Dorrien Gardens Reserve, landscaping within the front setback area and a variety of colours, materials and design elements including natural brown materials, facebrick, render and timber-look cladding and pitched roof, that are consistent with the existing streetscape, which contribute to mitigating the impact of building bulk and scale when viewed from the public realm and adjoining properties; and
· The development is abutting a three-storey apartment building and Cowle Street to the south and does not result in overshadowing onto private outdoor living areas or habitable spaces, with shadow cast from this development falling onto the adjoining footpath and road reserve.
The proposed street setback is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The development is broken into four buildings fronting Cowle Street, with two four-storey buildings, one two-storey building and an existing character house mitigating the impact of building bulk and scale when viewed at a pedestrian scale of the public realm;
· The proposed street setbacks are consistent with the retained dwelling at No. 48 Cowle Street;
· The development provides a clear transition between the public and private realms, with the inclusion of fencing surrounding the outdoor living areas and clearly delineated entrances for visitor vehicle and pedestrian access;
· There is adequate privacy measures including the street fence and location of courtyards and balconies, to ensure privacy from the public realm to the habitable spaces of dwellings;
· The location of outdoor living areas of the upper levels and the habitable internal spaces on the ground floor enables passive surveillance onto the public realm; and
· The application incorporates design elements, colours and materials including natural brown, facebrick, render and timber-look cladding and pitched roofs, and staggered boundary setbacks of the balconies and walls that reflect the existing characteristics of the street and maintain the existing established streetscape.
Side and Rear Setbacks, Building Separation and Visual Privacy
The proposed lot boundary setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Elements 2.4, 2.7 and 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the relevant local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The application provides a sympathetic, transitional relationship between the subject site and the western adjoining single dwelling with the two-storey building being located adjacent to this residential development;
· Building separation is proportionate with the height of the development, with taller buildings being located to the northern and eastern lot boundaries and having larger setbacks to lower density residential development on the adjoining western lot;
· The development responds to the multiple dwellings located at Nos. 28-44 Cowle Street, on the adjoining eastern lot, by proposing lot boundary walls abutting existing lot boundary walls;
· The proposal provides adequate landscaping opportunities, provision of deep soil areas and ability to provide high level landscape amenity, and private outdoor living spaces within setback areas, which mitigates the impact of building bulk on the street and adjoining properties and provides adequate residential amenity for future residents;
· The proposal has been designed to ensure adequate access to natural ventilation and sunlight, and ensures outdoor living areas and external services are located to reduce the impact of noise on adjacent properties within the subject site and to adjoining residential properties, providing adequate amenity protection to future residents;
· The orientation of private outdoor living areas minimises direct overlooking onto other private outdoor living areas within the development and on adjoining residential properties whilst allowing for passive surveillance over Cowle Street and Dorrien Gardens Reserve; and
· The setbacks proposed reflect the existing lot boundary setbacks and are consistent with the existing design characteristics of the streetscape, by incorporating pitched roofs and varying materials to mitigate the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining lower density residential dwellings.
Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas and Landscape Design
The proposed landscape plan satisfies the Element Objectives of Element 3.3 Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments, and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The previous approval included a condition requiring that there be a minimum of 15 mature trees of at least 500 litres to be provided onsite, which would provide a canopy of at least 25 percent (1,017 square metres);
· The subject site includes 16.8 percent (675.4 square metres) of deep soil area;
· The submitted landscaping plans identifies a vegetable garden, a number of citrus trees, and planting and deep soil areas in private outdoor living areas, and landscaping within all common and circulation areas;
· The proposed landscape plan provides internal canopy to the development and a high level of amenity for residents and visitors using the communal and circulation areas; and
· The proposed landscaping in the street setback area would contribute to the landscape amenity of the street.
Administration has recommended that Condition 7 relating to landscaping of the original approval be amended requiring an updated landscape and reticulation plan be submitted to and approved by Administration prior to commencement of development that provides for onsite landscaping and planting to satisfy the Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.
The proposed communal open space satisfies the objectives of Element 3.4 of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The development reflects the overall objectives of R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and the Built Form Policy, and is appropriate for the context of the site for the following reasons:
· The development provides communal open space central to the development, with landscaping and seating infrastructure proposed;
· The proposed communal open space provides quality landscaping and enhances residential amenity to the subject site;
· The communal open space is located on the ground floor and has pathways that make it universally accessible, to provide amenity to all residents;
· The layout of dwellings in relation to the location of the communal open space would mitigate the impact of noise on residents within the site, and with it located central to the site, mitigates the impact on neighbouring properties;
· The subject site is located within 200 metres of Robertson Park and 500 metres of Hyde Park, and is located between Charles Street and Fitzgerald Street which are designated commercial and district centre zones under the LPS2;
· Each dwelling has a large balcony or courtyard, which enhances the residential amenity of residents and provides adequate space for the provision of social interaction; and
· The common spaces and circulation areas provide adequate space for meaningful landscaping and passive recreational opportunities for the subject site.
The proposed pedestrian access and entries are consistent with the objectives of Element 3.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments given the proposed pedestrian access is universally accessible, with the main entry being centrally located to the development. There are three pedestrian access points along Cowle Street, between private outdoor living areas, which provides a safe environment for visitors.
The proposed car and bicycle parking is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments for the following reasons:
· The subject site is located within 200 metres of a high frequency bus route on Fitzgerald Street, and adequate pedestrian and cyclist network and the proposed car parking is sufficient in accordance with Table 3.9 of Residential Design Codes Volume 2;
· The centrally located vehicle access point is designed for safe access and egress to the site for both visitors and residents;
· There is clear differentiation between resident and visitor vehicle parking, with the open-aired visitor parking located towards the front of the subject site and the basement resident parking behind gates located to the centre of the site;
· The vehicle access and pedestrian access are clearly defined maintaining a safe environment for vehicle users and pedestrians;
· There is adequate provision of bicycle parking for residents, and an existing condition of approval would ensure there be adequate provision of bicycle parking for visitors; and
· The location, orientation and design of visitor and resident car parking minimises the impact of the parking in relation to visual and environmental amenity on adjoining residential properties and the public realm.
The proposed solar and daylight access is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.1 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments for the following reasons:
· The orientation and internal layout of the dwellings maximises the amount of natural light into habitable rooms and private outdoor living areas;
· The depth of balconies and courtyards along the northern boundary provides shading to minimise heat gain and glare internal to the dwelling during summer months.
The proposal satisfies the objectives of Element 4.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments as the development has been designed to provide universal access for visitors. The planning framework does not prescribe a requirement for disabled car parking but the Building Code of Australia requires disabled car parking. The applicant would need to demonstrate through the building permit application process that this requirement can be achieved prior to a Building Permit being issued. The internal layout of the apartments may be refined during the detailed design stage, to improve accessibility of people with disabilities and ageing in place.
The applicant submitted an ESD report with the original proposal, but has not provided an updated one with the current application. The report, included in Attachment 12, demonstrates that the development achieves an average 6.7 star NATHERS rating over the entire development. The proposal satisfies the objectives relating to Elements 4.15 and 4.16 of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and Clause 1.8 of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· Water from small scale rain events is capable of being managed and contained onsite, which is also a requirement under the Building Code of Australia and would be required to be satisfied at the building permit application stage;
· All apartments are dual aspect, which ensure natural ventilation of apartments and the regulation of temperature and reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy. The development achieves an average NATHERS rating of 6.7 stars with a minimum rating of 5.0 stars and proposes instant electric hot water systems which are considered as a ‘significant energy efficient initiative’. The applicant has confirmed that the recommendations of the ESD report will be incorporated as part of the Building Permit. Administration recommends the imposition of a condition requiring this; and
· The design of landscaping onsite assists in the management of stormwater and drainage onsite, and reduces the amount of potable water required to water landscape areas.
A new condition of approval is recommended to require implementation of the ESD report to ensure the development achieves the identified NATHERS rating.
The subject site is located on the City’s MHI and has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties. The proposal satisfies the performance criteria of this Policy for the following reasons:
· The sole existing character home is proposed to be retained and used for residential purposes;
· The materials and colours proposed are compatible with the fabric of the existing dwelling, and do not obscure or alter the characteristics that contribute to the significance of the place; and
· A condition of approval has been implemented for the applicant to submit a Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of works, which would detail measures to ensure the existing dwelling is not detrimentally impacted by construction works.
3. Extent applicant has implemented/pursued the development application
The City’s Policy No. 7.5.4 – Substantial Commencement of Development aims to provide a clear description of what constitutes as substantially commenced. This policy considers that the demolition of a major structure such as a whole house or building are not considered to be substantial commencement of works. The applicant has demolished and cleared the site with the exception of one Heritage Listed dwelling which is being retained and has not lodged a building permit for any forward works.
The applicant is seeking a time extension of one year to substantially commence development. As set out in Attachment 3, the applicant has provided details relating to how the application has been progressed apart from the commencement of physical works, which include:
· Engaging a full consultant team to progress the design through to a full construction documentation set of drawings;
· Modifying the development through the DAP Form 2 application that was approved on 3 March 2017, to reflect the detailed design process and better respond to market demand;
· Demolishing redundant structures on site to make way for the proposed new development;
· Undertaking an extensive marketing campaign to assist in obtaining necessary pre-sales; and
· Re-subdividing the site in December 2018 to reflect the intended staging of the development and provide the necessary access easements to facilitate the use of the shared crossover.
5.2 No. 536 (Lot: 216; D/P: 2672) Charles Street, North Perth - Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising of Two Commercial Tenancies and Two Multiple Dwellings
2. Original Development Plans dated 15 March 2019 ⇩
3. Development Plans dated 3 September 2019 ⇩
4. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩
5. Design Review Panel Minutes ⇩
· 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday.
The lot is in close proximity to commercial and non-residential activities and may be affected by noise, traffic, car parking and other impacts associated with these uses.
To consider an application for development approval for a mixed use development comprising of two commercial tenancies and two multiple dwellings and associated car parking at No. 536 Charles Street, North Perth (subject site).
The application proposes the development of a two storey mixed use development on the subject site. The proposal consists of:
· Two commercial tenancies to be used as Office on the ground floor fronting Charles Street, being 40 square metres and 38 square metres in area respectively. The applicant has not indicated the operating hours or number of staff for these tenancies;
· Two two-bedroom apartments on the first floor. Each apartment is 79 square metres in area, and the entrance is provided from Hilda Street; and
· Vehicle access provided from Lawler Street using the existing crossover and a total of five car parking bays. Of these five car parking bays, two bays are allocated to the commercial tenancies (one bay each), two bays are allocated to the residents (one bay each), and one bay is allocated to the visitors of the apartments.
Thi Loan Tran Nguyen
LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R60-100
Office: ‘A’
Dwelling (Multiple): ‘P’
The subject site is located at No. 536 Charles Street, North Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. It currently accommodates a single-storey dwelling. The subject site is bound to the north by Hilda Street, the east by Lawler Street and the west by Charles Street. The southern adjoining properties are coded R60 and consist of two grouped dwellings, one single-storey and one two‑storey. The surrounding area generally consists of single dwellings and is within 100 metres of the Charles Street Hotel.
Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R60-100 and is subject to Clause 26(3) of LPS2. The criteria set out in Clause 26(3) of LPS2 states that development would only be permitted to the R100 standards where the site exceeds 2,000 square metres. As the site area is 407 square metres, the proposal has been assessed against the R60 standard.
Charles Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The subject site is affected by future road widening at the corner of Charles Street and Hilda Street. Following this road widening, which is 63 square metres, the total site area would be 344 square metres. The assessment has been undertaken based on the future lot size and boundaries.
The application was lodged with the City on 20 August 2018. Administration undertook an assessment of the application which identified a number of departures to the then State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes and City’s Policy 7.1.1 Built Form which were unlikely to be supported as proposed. Administration requested additional plans be provided to address these departures, before progressing with the application. Following discussions and a meeting with the applicant, the applicant submitted written justification on 26 October 2018 in response to the City’s concerns.
Administration and the applicant had a further meeting, and amended plans were provided on 13 December 2018. Due to the Christmas period, the application was advertised between 25 January 2019 and 19 February 2019. In response to comments received during the advertising period and from the City’s Design Review Panel, the applicant submitted amended plans on 15 March 2019 (included in Attachment 2). The proposal was also referred to Main Roads on the advice of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). Main Roads provided its advice on 10 April 2019.
The application was scheduled to be presented to Council at the Briefing Session held 23 April 2019, and the subsequent Ordinary Meeting of Council held 30 April 2019 with administration drafting a recommendation for refusal. The applicant requested the item be withdrawn to provide additional opportunity to refine the design to address the concerns from Administration. Amended plans were provided on 16 July 2019, subsequently, Administration met with the applicant and Main Roads to discuss potential impacts of future road widening on the subject site. During this time the application was again presented to DRP. The final set of plans were received on 3 September 2019, and Main Roads provided updated comments in relation to the updated plans on 10 October 2019.
The development plans that are the subject of this application are included as Attachment 3.
The proposal was assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Built Form Policy and Part 6 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes) which related to mixed use developments. Following the assessment of the application against the relevant deemed-to-comply standards, the Minster for Transport and Planning announced that State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2) would be gazetted on 24 May 2019 and supersede Part 6 of the R Codes. The proposal has been reassessed against the requirements of the R Codes Volume 2.
The R Codes Volume 2 is a performance based policy that includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes for each design element. Proposals are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the Element Objectives for each design element. While addressing the Acceptable Outcomes is likely to achieve the relevant Element Objectives, they are not a deemed-to-comply pathway and the proposal is still to be assessed in the context of the design solution to ensure that the Element Objectives are met. Where Acceptable Outcomes are not met, proposals may still satisfy the Element Objective via alternative means or solutions.
‘P’ permitted use
Office is an ‘A’ use which requires advertising prior to exercising discretion
Element 2.4 Side and Rear Setbacks R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
C4.3.1 Primary Street Setback: 2.0 metres
Secondary Street Setback: 2.0 metres
Primary Street (Charles Street): Nil to 2.0 metres following road widening
Secondary Street (Hilda Street): 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres
Secondary Street (Lawler Street): 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres
A 2.4.1 First Floor: 3.0 metres
Apartment 1: 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres
Apartment 2: 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres
Element 2.6 Building Depth R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A 2.6.3 Room depths and/or ceiling heights optimise daylight and solar access and natural ventilation
Bedroom 2 in both apartments south facing
Element 3.4 Communal Open Space R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
No communal open space proposed.
A 3.4.1 Informal seating associated with deep soil or other landscaped areas
No informal seating areas
Element 3.5 Visual Privacy R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A3.5.1 Balcony setback 6.0 metres
Apartment 2 balcony setback 5.4 metres
Element 3.7 Pedestrian Access and Entrances R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
O 3.7.7 Entries and pathways are universally accessible, easy to identify and safe for residents and visitors.
Pathways to the first floor is in the form of a stairwell, which is not universally accessible.
Element 4.4 Private Open Space and Balconies R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
O 4.4.2 Private open space is sited, oriented and designed to enhance liveability for residents
Reduced amenity for balcony of Apartment 2 which overlooks the vehicle access and bin store area.
Policy 7.7.1 Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements
One long term bicycle bay
No long term bicycle bays
Element 4.3 Size and Layout of Dwellings R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A 4.3.1 Minimum internal floor area for two bedroom and two bathroom dwellings: 75 square metres
Apartment 1: 70.6 square metres
Apartment 2: 70.9 square metres
Element 4.5 Circulation and Common Spaces R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A 4.5.2 Circulation and common spaces are designed for universal access.
Circulation and common spaces are the form of a stairwell, which is not universally accessible.
Element 4.9 Universal Design R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A 4.9.1 (a) 20 percent of all dwellings, across a range of dwelling sizes, meet Silver Level requirements as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia) OR
(b) 5 percent of dwellings are designed to Platinum Level as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia).
Neither dwelling has been designed to achieve a Silver Level or Platinum Level as defined in Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia).
Element 4.17 Waste Management R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
A 4.17.2 A Level 1 Waste Management Plan (Design Phase) is provided in accordance with the WALGA Multiple Dwelling Waste Management Plan Guidelines – Appendix 4A (or equivalent local government requirements where applicable).
No waste management plan provided.
The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified acceptable outcomes and/or element objectives and are discussed in the Comments section below.
The application was advertised for a period of 21 days between 25 January 2019 and 19 February 2019, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.5.1 – Community Consultation. Advertising was undertaken by means of a sign located on the subject site, an advertisement in a locally distributed newspaper, 118 letters being distributed to landowners and occupiers within a 100 metre radius and the proposal being published on the City’s webpage. The City received 13 submissions; nine objecting to the proposal, two expressing concern over the proposal and two supporting the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions related to the following:
· The impact of additional parking and traffic on the locality;
· The lack of landscaping;
· The impact of building bulk and scale;
· Lack of consideration for environmentally sustainable design;
· Lack of architectural design; and
· Overall height of the proposal facing Lawler Street, which has a two-storey height limit.
A summary of submissions and Administration’s response is included in Attachment 4. The applicant has responded to the above concerns through amended plans.
When advertised, the proposal included three multiple dwellings and had a height of three storeys. These plans are contained in Attachment 2. Following community consultation, the applicant submitted amended plans responding to the comments raised. These amended plans have been included in Attachment 3 and reflect the following modifications:
· Reduction in the number of storeys from three to two;
· Reduction in the number of multiple dwellings from three to two;
· Increase of the street setbacks from a nil setback to all primary and secondary streets to:
o Nil to 2.0 metres (following road widening) on Charles Street (primary street);
o 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres on Hilda Street (secondary street); and
o 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres on Lawler Street (secondary street);
· Lot boundary setbacks to the southern adjoining lot, including:
o Removal of the lot boundary wall;
o Increase of ground floor lot boundary setback from nil to 3.1 metres, to 1.5 metres to 3.0 metres; and
o Reduction of first floor lot boundary setback from 2.2 metres to 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres to 2.2 metres; and
· Increase in the amount of deep soil area from 7.5 percent to 17.0 percent.
In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) delegations under the MRS, the application was referred to DPLH because the subject site is partly reserved as an ORR under the MRS. The DPLH advised the City to refer the application to Main Roads (MRWA) for comment as this land is affected by Planning Control Area 125 (PCA125): Charles Street (between Carr Street and Green Street).
A Planning Control Area is a statutory mechanism used to protect strategic land from development in the interim while the potential use and development of this land is further investigated and planned.
The application was referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA have reviewed the proposed plans contained in Attachment 3 and did not object to the proposal, subject to standard conditions being imposed. These include:
· No earthworks encroaching into the road reserve;
· No stormwater encroaching being discharged into the road reserve; and
· The landowner/applicant making good any damage to the existing verge.
These conditions form part of Administration’s recommendation.
It is noted that the development does not propose any permanent works within the road reserve area, with this proposed to be landscaped in the interim. This has been included as part of the recommended advice notes in Attachment 6.
The proposal was presented to DRP on 20 February 2019 when the proposal presented as a three storey development and again on 24 July 2019 subsequent to the amended plans being submitted to the City. The minutes from these DRP meetings are included as Attachment 5. The applicant has responded to the comments made which is also included in Attachment 5.
Following the 24 July 2019 DRP meeting, further changes were made to the plans. These amended plans received 3 September 2019 were presented to the DRP Chair for comment. The following comments were provided in respect to the amended plans:
· The applicant should consider detailed design elements, including colours, materials and finishes, that reflect the existing streetscape character of Charles Street, Lawley Street and Hilda Street, and the wider North Perth locality;
· The applicant should consider refining the proposed landscaping plan;
· Keeping a constant relationship with the awning and the fall of the pavement; and
· Consider the interaction between the development and the adjoining southern properties, particularly the impact of overshadowing onto the habitable spaces and solar collectors of the adjoining site.
The first three points can be adequately addressed through conditions of approval prior to commencement of development. The impact of overshadowing is discussed in the building height heading within the Comment section below. The transition between the subject site and the adjoining residential property is discussed in more detail in the comments section below.
· State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise;
· State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;
· Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Policy.
At the 23 July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, the proposed Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy was approved for the purposes of advertising. The development has not been assessed against the proposed amendments to the Built Form Policy as the amendments are in draft form and are not considered to be ‘seriously entertained’. This is because they have not received approval from Council following community consultation, which concludes on 22 November 2019. Furthermore they are not certain or imminent in coming into effect in their current advertised form.
The submissions from community consultation for the amended Built Form Policy are expected to be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2020 to consider its acceptability following community consultation.
State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments
The proposed development was originally assessed against the relevant provisions of Part 6 of superseded State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments became operational following publication in the Government Gazette on 24 May 2019. The amended plans dated 3 September 2019, included in Attachment 3, have been assessed against the relevant provision of R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.
This matter is being referred to Council as the development received more than five objections during community consultation.
Office is an ‘A’ use in the Residential zone under LPS2. This means that the use is not permitted unless the Local Government has formally advertised the proposal and discretion has been exercised in granting development approval.
Administration received objections relating to the impact of parking as a result of visitors and employees travelling to and from the subject site.
The proposed Office satisfies the objectives of the Residential zone for the following reasons:
· The subject site fronts onto Charles Street which is identified as a Primary Distributor in the Main Roads WA road hierarchy and is reserved as an Other Regional Road in the MRS. Developments along Charles Street consists of single and grouped dwellings and commercial land uses, including a medical centre, the Charles Street Hotel and shops;
· The land use is compatible given standard business operating hours are during the day, where it is expected there would be less impact on surrounding sensitive land uses; and
· The Office land use is of a low scale and intensity and would likely not result in an unacceptable amount of noise that would have a detrimental impact on the adjoining residential properties. The proposed Office land use is compatible with the surrounding development context. The applicant has not provided indicative operating hours. To ensure the compatibility of the Office use with the surrounding residential development, Administration recommends a condition restricting the operating hours to Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm. The applicant has agreed to this condition.
The application proposes a two storey development with a maximum wall height of 6.9 metres and a maximum wall height of 7.8 metres. The City received objections in relation to the building height not reflecting the existing Charles Street character and having a detrimental impact on the adjoining residential properties.
The proposed building height is consistent with objectives of Element 2.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The subject site is located within the Transit Corridor under the Built Form Policy, which permits a three storey building height with a wall height of 10.2 metres and a top of roof height of 13.2 metres. The proposed building height is less than these requirements and is not inconsistent with the desired scale. The surrounding locality includes a mix of single and two-storey developments, and the proposal is consistent with this built form;
· The building height typically follows the topography of the subject site, which slopes down from Charles Street to Lawler Street by approximately 1.5 metres;
· The development includes a clerestory featuring openings within the roof form to provide articulation; and
· The layout of the lots contribute towards unavoidable overshadowing to the adjoining properties. This is due to the east-west orientation of the subject site and adjoining properties to the south at No. 532 Charles Street and No. 81 Lawler Street. An assessment of the impact of the overshadowing on these properties is as follows:
o No. 532 Charles Street consists of a single storey dwelling with one major opening on the northern side. This opening is currently overshadowed by the existing dividing fence and dwelling on the subject site, and the impact of the overshadowing as a result of the proposal would not be any greater. The outdoor living area is located on the northern boundary, but is covered with a patio structure, and would not experience any greater overshadowing as a result of the development. The proposal would result in the overshadowing of the existing solar panels on the roof; and
o No. 81 Lawler Street consists of a two storey dwelling with no major opening on the ground floor, and a number of minor and major openings on the upper floor. The overshadowing from the proposal falls predominantly onto the vehicle access leg, although it would impact on the ground floor opening as well. The upper floor openings would not be affected by the shadow, and the outdoor living area is located on the southern side of the property and includes a patio and shade sail structures, which would remain unaffected.
While there is some overshadowing experienced on the adjoining properties, the proposal has been designed to reduce the extent of this where possible. The development has been reduced from three storeys in height when it was advertised for public consultation, and is less than the deemed-to-comply three storey building height permitted in the Built Form Policy for the subject site and surrounding properties which would have greater overshadowing impacts. In this instance, Administration is of the view that the overshadowing impacts have been mitigated as much as possible acknowledging the constraints of the lots as well as the development potential of the subject site.
The applicant proposes a street setback between nil and 2.0 metres along Charles Street, 1.0 metre to 2.0 metres along Hilda Street, and 0.4 metres to 7.4 metres along Lawler Street. The City received objections to a nil street setback, as it would result in a built form that was considered an overdevelopment of the subject site.
The proposal fronts Charles Street (the primary street), Hilda Street and Lawler Street (the secondary streets). The proposed street setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Element 2.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The development reflects the existing street setback of the commercial land uses adjacent to the subject site and along the broader streetscape, including:
o No. 540 Charles Street – nil setback;
o No. 528 Charles Street – 0.5 metres;
o No. 502 – 506 Charles Street – nil setback; and
o No. 496 Charles Street – 2.0 metres setback.
The portion of the development with the nil setback is proposed at the corner truncation of Charles Street and Hilda Street and increases to 2.0 metres. This is positioned away from adjoining residential properties and does not result in a detrimental impact on the continuity and rhythm of the existing street setbacks. The 2.0 metre setback is consistent with the setback of the existing adjoining property and No. 534 Charles Street, which is also 2.0 metres;
· The development provides a clear transition between public and private spaces, with the clearly defined residential and commercial pedestrian entrances;
· The commercial land uses are capable of providing passive interaction with the primary and secondary street and provides appropriate openings to utilise space external to the tenancies;
· The setback of the dwellings from the proposed balconies provide adequate amount of visual privacy into the dwellings when viewed from the street, while also providing opportunities for passive surveillance from balconies and major openings to each street frontage;
· The openings from habitable rooms and balconies provide passive surveillance opportunities onto the street; and
· The existing streetscape consists of pitched roofed dwellings, both single and two storeys as well as grouped dwellings and some commercial land uses. Existing dwellings have a variety of materials including facebrick and render, and tile pitch roofs. The height of the surrounding development is between one and two storeys. The prominent colours in the locality are earthy tones, including red, brown, cream, charcoal and white. The inclusion of the proposed facebrick, awnings and feature archways reflect existing character elements from the Charles Street streetscape, but it is noted that no information in respect to colours has been provided. To ensure that the colours and materials of the local area are appropriately incorporated into the development, Administration recommends that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the submission of a schedule of colours and materials to demonstrate that these complement the surrounding area.
The applicant proposes a southern lot boundary setback that varies between 1.5 metres and 2.0 metres. The City received objections relating to the previously proposed lot boundary wall and southern lot boundary setbacks due to the density of the development having a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbours. The applicant removed all proposed lot boundary walls as part of amended plans in Attachment 3.
The proposed southern lot boundary setbacks are consistent with the objectives of Element 2.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The proposal incorporates an articulated design, open faced car parking area on the ground floor and is setback appropriately to mitigate the impact of building bulk when viewed from the southern adjoining site;
· As noted in the building height section, overshadowing on the adjoining properties is unavoidable as a result of the orientation of the lots, and does occur to a major opening on each of the adjoining properties. The extent of overshadowing has been reduced where possible through the reduction of the building height which is less than that permitted under the Built Form Policy, and these areas would remain overshadowed if the upper floor were setback 3.0 metres as per the acceptable outcome. The proposed setback does not cause greater overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties;
· The southern lot boundary setbacks allow for additional landscaping opportunities along the blank wall, to mitigate the impact of building bulk on the adjoining lot; and
· The development provides appropriate transition between the subject site and the adjoining residential land uses by proposing a setback of 1.5 metres to the southern adjoining property to allow for landscaping opportunities and to minimise the amount of overshadowing onto the adjoining lot. In addition, the absence of any lot boundary walls on the southern lot boundary minimises the impact of building bulk and scale on the adjoining lot.
Tree Canopy, Deep Soil Areas and Landscape Design
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan, included within Attachment 3, which depicts 61.5 square metres of deep soil area of the lot area, accounting for the future road widening. This equates to 17 percent of the site area. Landscaping is also proposed in the road widening area which contributes an additional 63 square metres. A total of 11 proposed small trees and the retention of one medium tree located to the rear of the site, being a frangipani tree. Small trees are defined as:
· Providing at least four to six metres of canopy diameter at maturity;
· Growing to at least four to eight metres in height; and
· Requiring at least nine square metres of deep soil area for each tree to reach maturity.
Based on the above, the deep soil areas associated with each tree are not considered to facilitate growth to maturity of the species chosen as the deep soil areas for each tree vary between 5.3 metres and 6.2 metres, as a result of the angled lot boundaries and the PCA125 area. The landscaping as proposed would achieve 16.1 percent canopy cover across the subject site.
The City received submissions relating to the lack of vegetation and the impact it has on the perception of building bulk and scale, and on the heat island effect in the immediate locality. The applicant has provided additional deep soil areas and capability of growing more vegetation to contribute to canopy cover.
The Built Form Policy prescribes 30 percent canopy to be provided across the site. The development incorporates 16 percent canopy cover across the site, concentrated within the street setback areas and along the southern lot boundary.
The proposed landscape plan is consistent with the objectives of Elements 3.3 and 4.12 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The landscaping proposes the retention of an existing mature frangipani tree in the north-east corner of the subject site, which has a canopy of approximately 28 square metres;
· Aside from the existing frangipani tree to be retained, there is minimal vegetation on the subject site currently the development proposes trees and associated shrubs along the three street frontages and the southern boundary. The installation of this landscaping improves the tree canopy across the site, contributing towards the City’s green canopy and reducing the urban heat island effect. In addition, the development proposes the temporary landscaping of the area within the PCA125 boundary along Charles Street which would improve the amenity in the event this land is developed in the future;
· The landscaping is located around the street frontages and along the boundary of the southern lot to reduce the impact of the development. It is noted that along the southern boundary, shrubs are proposed, which would have limited effect in reducing mitigating the view from the adjoining property. Administration recommends a condition requiring a revised landscaping plan be provided which includes appropriate tree species to assist in screening the development; and
· In reviewing the landscaping plan, the City’s Parks Team have advised that given the constraints of the subject site, the selection of appropriate tree species would assist in providing greater canopy cover, improving the amenity for occupants and contributing towards the streetscape. Administration recommends a condition of approval requiring a revised landscaping plan that includes appropriate tree species selection to maximise canopy coverage for the development.
The proposed development does not include any communal open space for residents and does not satisfy the objectives of Element 3.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.
Although the development does not provide for any communal open space within the building, it is consistent with the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· Each dwelling has adequate outdoor living areas for residents, which are capable of being used for passive recreation;
· These balconies are capable of being used in conjunction with internal habitable spaces and would provide space for recreational activities and social interaction;
· There are three public parks within 250 metres of the subject site, which would provide additional opportunities to recreate and for social interaction; and
· Given the size and scale of the development in providing for two apartments, it is not necessary for there to be further open space provided in addition to the outdoor living areas of each dwelling.
The proposed balcony of Apartment 2 is setback 5.4 metres from the southern adjoining residential lot. The acceptable outcome relating to setback of balconies identifies a setback of 6.0 metres to be appropriate. The City did not receive any submissions objecting to overlooking of the southern adjoining site.
The balcony is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments given the extent of overlooking falls onto a common property area of the adjoining property that serves the purpose of vehicle access, and avoids any outdoor living areas or major openings to habitable rooms.
The proposed balcony of Apartment 2 is oriented to the west and overlooks the vehicle access and bin store located on the ground floor below, which provides a level of reduced amenity for the occupants.
The balcony is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:
· The balcony exceeds the minimum area and dimension identified in the R Codes Volume 2, and provides a functional space. The balcony is also capable of being used in conjunction with the living room which provides flexibility for the occupants;
· The balcony is sited to the rear of the development to provide privacy from Apartment 1, and is oriented to the north to maximise solar access. To the south the balcony overlooks the vehicle access and bin store area on the subject site. This would result in a reduced visual amenity for the occupants of the balcony, but landscaping including a tree is indicated to be provided on the ground floor, which would assist in mitigating the impact as this matures. Overall the access to the northern sun and functionally afforded by the balcony siting outweighs the potential outlook to the south; and
· The balcony has been designed in integrate with the overall built form.
The subject site provides two short term bicycles bays and nil long term bicycle bays for the commercial tenancies. The City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy) prescribes a minimum of one long term bicycle bay. The development satisfies the overall objectives of this policy for the following reasons:
· The public short term bicycle bays are located within the car parking area, accessible only by employees or visitors to the site, while the residents bicycle facilities are securely located within each of the storerooms, ensuring their accessibility;
· The location of the subject site is along a major public transport route, with other alternative transport options available for visitors and employees to the site; and
· There is only one car parking bay available for each commercial tenancy, which encourages the use of sustainable and active modes of transport. To continue to encourage this, Administration recommends that a long term bicycle bay be provided in accordance with the Parking Policy requirements, which would be capable of use by staff for the commercial tenancies. This could be located under the stairwell adjacent to the short term bicycle bays so that they are conveniently accessible. A condition to this effect has been recommended.
Size and Layout of Dwellings and Building Depth
The proposed size and layout of the dwellings satisfy the objectives of Element 2.6 and Element 4.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:
· The size of the living areas are reflective of the anticipated demographic and number of occupants within each dwelling, given they are two bedroom dwellings;
· Habitable rooms have at least two openings and adequate ceiling height to facilitate access to natural sunlight and ventilation throughout the dwelling; and
· The bedrooms are consistent with the minimum floor areas and dimensions outlined in the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, with each provided with two openings to ensure access to natural ventilation. Access to sunlight is available from the south, and although this is not ideal, the ceiling heights are 2.7 metres to maximise access. The living rooms of each dwelling are consistent with the minimum floor areas and dimensions outlined in the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and are capable of being used in conjunction with both the kitchen/dining areas and the balconies. The open plan living areas and the ability to use the internal with external living areas, and the provision of adequately sized bedrooms provides the residents with a functional dwelling with the flexibility to accommodate different furniture layouts and facilitate the use of the space.
Charles Street is identified as an Other Significant Freight/Traffic Route under Schedule 3 of the State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise (SPP 5.4 Road and Rail Noise). This means that the development is required to be assessed in accordance with this policy.
SPP 5.4 identifies that applications are to generally be accompanied by a noise assessment and any necessary mitigation measures should be conditioned as part of the development approval. The applicant has not provided a noise assessment with the application. In the referral responses, neither the DPLH nor Main Roads raised a concern with this not being provided upfront. A condition of approval is recommended to require an acoustic report be provided as part of the building permit application, to identify noise impacts from Charles Street and mitigation measures the impact of noise to the dwellings. This would ensure that the development is consistent with the provisions of SPP 5.4 Road and Rail Noise and the objectives of Element 4.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments by ensuring that the treatments identified in the acoustic report would be implemented to reduce the amount of noise experienced from habitable rooms and balconies.
Universal Design, Pedestrian Entrances and Access and Circulation and Common Spaces
The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of Element 3.7 or Element 4.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The proposed circulation and common areas are not designed for universal access, as prescribed as an acceptable outcome under Element 4.5 Circulation and Common Spaces.
The proposed development satisfies the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments given the development considers social and economic opportunities by introducing alternative housing options for different demographics than what is located within close proximity to the site. The development has been designed so that it is flexible and can be adapted to accommodate different demographics, and provides safe and convenient access for residents and visitors. The commercial tenancies on the ground floor are provided with an unobstructed path of travel from both the street and the rear parking area.
The applicant submitted an ESD report as part of this development application. This report demonstrates that the development as initially proposed, being a three storey mixed use development with three multiple dwellings and two office tenancies, was capable of achieving five star Green Star rating in accordance with the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system. The amended plans have not been assessed against the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system. Given the size and scale of the development has been reduced a condition of approval has been recommended for an amended ESD Report is provided for the development plans prior to the building permit which demonstrates a five star Green Star rating. The applicant has agreed to this condition.
The proposal satisfies the objectives of Elements 4.15 and 4.16 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and Clause 1.8 of the City’s Built Form Policy for the following reasons:
· The development incorporates solar collectors to the building, to reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy sources;
· The dwellings have been designed to maximise the northern sun in winter, and provide shading from direct sun in summer;
· All habitable rooms have access to natural ventilation, with at least two operable windows or doors to each habitable space; and
· The above points would assist in reducing reliance on non-renewable sources of energy within the development.
No waste management plan has been submitted with the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.17 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:
· Based on the City’s standard waste generation and collection frequency, the development would require a total of six bins, consisting of:
o Residential component – two 240 litre bins for food-organic garden-organic waste, one 240 litre bins for general waste, and one 240 litre bin for recycling; and
o Non-residential component – one 140 litre bin for recycling and one 240 litre bin for general waste;
The area required for the bin store to accommodate these bins is 2.7 square metres. The development proposes a bin store with six bins which is 5.3 square metres, and is sufficient to accommodate the needs of the development; and
· The location of the bin store is to the rear of the car parking area, and abuts the vehicle access of the adjoining site, eliminating adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining habitable spaces and outdoor living areas and proposed dwellings. The bin store is conveniently located and provides opportunities for the separation and recycling of waste.
5.3 Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (No. 20 (Lot: 100) Brentham Street, Leederville) - Outcomes of Advertising
Attachments: 1. Land Exchange Map ⇩
2. Scheme Amendment No. 4 ⇩
For Council to consider supporting Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) without modification relating to No. 20 (Lot: 100) Brentham Street and Brentham Street Reserve, Leederville.
Council resolved to exchange a portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville, and the whole of Lot 37 Brentham Street, Leederville for an equal portion of the City’s Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve) at the Council Meeting on 28 May 2019 (Item 11.3). The purpose of the land swap was to align land ownership with current land use. A map showing the land exchange that Council approved is included as Attachment 1. As part of this resolution, Council also resolved to prepare Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to reclassify a portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville from ‘Public Purpose – Primary School’ to ‘Public Open Space’ and a portion of Brentham Street Reserve from ‘Public Open Space – Restricted’ to ‘Public Purpose – Primary School’ to enable this land exchange to occur.
The intent of Amendment No. 4 is to reclassify the zoning of the subject lots to match the zoning of the lots to the current and future use of the land. The land proposed to be reserved for Public Purpose – Primary School is currently being used by Aranmore Primary School during school hours. The land proposed to be reserved for Public Open Space is currently being used by the City as an extension of Brentham Street Reserve.
Amendment No. 4 is considered to be in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Strategy as it proposes dedicated zoning provisions for primary and secondary school facilities to ensure their long term use for education purposes and looks to retain and encourage the preservation of public open space in the City. The reclassification of Lot 75 to Public Purpose – Primary School would allow the existing primary school to operate over the full extent of its grounds, subject to future development application/s. The reclassification of the portion of Lot 100 to be transferred to the City to Public Open Space aligns with the City’s intention to provide public recreation areas over reserved land.
Current LPS2 Classification
Proposed LPS2 Classification
Following approval from the Environmental Protection Authority, Amendment No. 4 was advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) and the City’s Policy 4.1.5 Community Consultation from 10 August 2019 to 9 October 2019 by way of:
· An advertisement in the local newspaper;
· Notice of the proposal at the Administration Centre;
No submissions were received during the consultation period and it is recommended that Council support Amendment No. 4 without modification as at Attachment 2.
If Amendment 4 is endorsed by the Minister the City will publish a notice in a local newspaper and online advising that the Amendment has been approved and the location where it can be viewed, in accordance with Regulation 64 of the Regulations.
It is low risk to support Amendment No. 4 for the purpose of submitting the amendment to the WAPC.
Pursuant to Part 5 of the Regulations, if Council determined to support Amendment No. 4, the City would provide the details of the amendment and other required documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) within 21 days of the Council decision.
The WAPC must make any recommendations to the Minister for Planning in respect of the amendment that is considered appropriate, and submit the recommendation and associated documents to the Minister in accordance with section 87(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005.
5.4 LATE REPORT: Design WA Stage 2 - Precinct Design
REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING MEETING 5 NOVEMBER 2019.
6.1 LATE REPORT: Management of Services at Weld Square for People Experiencing Homelessness
7.1 Investment Report as at 30 September 2019
Attachments: 1. Investment Report as at 30 September 2019 ⇩
To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 30 September 2019 and the interest earned year to date.
As at 30 September 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $44,876,698, compared to $44,209,274 for the period ending 30 September 2018.
The total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 September 2019 is $41,017,535 compared to last year’s amount of $40,651,147.
Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 September 2019 is:
*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2019/20 Budget as actual interest earned is held in trust that is restricted.
The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 1.93% for current investments including the operating account and 1.96% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for September 2019 is 0.98%.
As at 30 September 2019, $7,915,867 (17.64%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.
* The maximum allowable position with an A-2 accredited institution (Bank of Queensland) has exceeded the threshold. This is because the total investment closing balance at the end of the September has decreased compared to when the investments were undertaken resulting in an increase in the portfolio percentage for Bank of Queensland.
7.2 Financial Statements as at 30 September 2019
Attachments: 1. Financial statements as at 30 September 2019 ⇩
To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 September 2019.
The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 30 September 2019:
Revenue by Program is tracking slightly lower than the year to date budgeted revenue by $157,374 (2.5%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -
· An unfavourable variance of $62,823 due to lower than anticipated revenue collected from development application fees (Community Amenities) and
· An unfavourable variance of $62,265 due to lower than anticipated revenue collected from parking infringement and fines (Transport).
Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking slight lower than the budgeted revenue by $81,610 (0.4%). This was1 mainly contributed by revenue being slightly lower than anticipated.
Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $816,026 (6.8%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -
· A favourable variance of $518,547 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to waste collection and tipping costs (Community Amenities); and
· A favourable variance of $187,974 mainly contributed by a budget phasing variance relating to the recovery of employee related on-costs (Other Property and services); and
Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $799,797 (6.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -
· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $1,067,298. This variance is largely contributed by a timing variance in works within multiple service areas;
· Utility charges reflects an under-spend of $139,163 due to a timing variance of utility related invoices; and
· Employee costs reflects an over spend of $577,340 largely contributed by a timing variance. There were three pay periods in September; however, the budget was based on two pay periods. This timing variance is rectified in October 2019.
Opening Surplus Brought Forward – 2019/20
4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 52)
5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 53 - 58)
6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 59)
The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserves portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 30 September 2019 is $13,075,463.
7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 60 – 61)
The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 30 September 2019 is $15,046,627 including deferred rates ($113,018) but excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.
8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 62)
Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 30 September 2019 are $2,507,911, of which $2,096,563 relates to outstanding debtors. 86% of the outstanding debtors balance is over 90 days.
· $1,680,232 (92.7%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.
Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, a provision amount for doubtful debts was calculated last financial year and an amount of $1,066,403 has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion).
Administration has updated the provision based on the probability of recovering long outstanding monies owed to the City. The provision amount will be updated once the audited financials are approved.
· $170,485 (9.4%) relates to cash in lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay over a fixed term of five years.
9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 63)
As at 30 September 2019, the operating surplus for the centre is $42,392 compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $124,954.
10. Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 52)
In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 30 September 2019 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.
7.3 Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 24 September 2019 to 21 October 2019
Attachments: 1. Payments by EFT, BPAY and Payroll October 2019 ⇩
2. Payments by Cheque October 2019 ⇩
3. Payments by Direct Debit October 2019 ⇩
To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 24 September 2019 to 21 October 2019.
The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 24 September 2019 to 21 October 2019, covers the following:
$3,361,960.14
$1,255,664.12
82543 - 82547
$48,511.56
$150,005.89
$54,486.44
$6,103.06
7.4 LATE REPORT: Floreat Athena Football Club Inc. - Lease - Final Report
8.1 Cities Power Partnership
Attachments: 1. Cities Power Partnership 2019 Information for Councils ⇩
That Council ENDORSES joining the Climate Council’s national Cities Power Partnership.
To consider a invitation from the Climate Council to participate in the national Cities Power Partnership program.
The Cities Power Partnership program (CPP) was launched in July 2017 by the non-profit and independent Climate Council with 35 select councils around Australia invited to participate in round 1. Round 2 in January 2018 resulted in the number of participant councils increasing to 70.
Currently, Perth participating councils are Fremantle, Canning, Bassendean and Swan with a large proportion of Councils being from the eastern states. A new round of Councils including the City of Vincent have been selected by the Climate Council to be invited to participate in the current round of program participation, which closes at the end of November (see Attachment 1).
The Climate Council is Australia’s leading climate communications organisation. To date the Climate Council has produced 112 reports on climate impacts and solutions and was the number one organisation communicating on climate change nationally in 2018.
The benefits to joining the CPP include the opportunity for participants to be profiled in national and local media and to the organisation’s 200,000 members and supporters. Councils receive access to a national knowledge hub to assist with the implementation of emission reduction projects and are buddied with other participant councils to knowledge share. Access is provided to domestic and international experts, community energy groups and events with other local leaders. In addition, Councils gain access to a free data analytics online platform that will measure the financial savings of specific projects.
Participating organisations that join the partnership have 6 months to choose five pledge actions for implementation, within the areas of renewable energy, efficiency, transport and advocacy. The City already has a minimum of five actions identified in the Implementation Plan of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 that correspond with pledge actions of the program as per the table below:
Participating Council’s reporting requirements on project progress is every six months via the Climate Council’s online survey and evidence of work towards the pledge items is required. This work is completed by the participating Council’s designated representative for the program and in this case would be the City’s Sustainability Officers. A formal letter from the Mayor to the Climate Council’s CEO is all that is required to confirm program participation.
LOW There are no risks if the City does not join the Cities Power Partnership, however there are significant benefits associated with participating.
Program participation is consistent with the Implementation Plan of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.
There are no joining or subscription fees, so no additional financial implications for the City associated with joining the Cities Power Partnership.
8.2 LATE REPORT: Lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville to Minister for Works - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries
8.3 Council Workshop, Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2020
2. Eleven (11) Council Briefings, commencing on Tuesday 11 February 2020; and
3. Eleven (11) Ordinary Meetings of Council, commencing on Tuesday 18 February 2020.
To approve the Council Workshop, Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2020.
The Local Government Act 1995 (Act) requires that Council meet at least once every three months. In accordance with section 5.3 of the Act and the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, (Regulation 12), Council must determine its Ordinary Council Meeting dates and times for the next twelve months and these dates must be published at least once a year.
The City’s current briefing and meeting cycle is a four weekly cycle which includes a Council workshop, a briefing and a meeting. This cycle resulted in 12 briefings and meetings each year. Administration has reviewed the meeting cycles of other local governments and considered the advantages and disadvantages of a four weekly, monthly and six weekly cycle. Administration recommends that the monthly cycle is adopted for 2020 as it results in a consistent sequencing of meetings and ensures that the financial statements for each month can be finalised prior to the publishing of the Council Briefing agenda each month.
The proposed 2020 Council Workshop, Council Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council Schedule is below. The first Council Workshop is scheduled for Tuesday 28 January 2020 (the same evening as the Annual General Meeting of Electors), followed by the first Council Briefing on Tuesday 11 February 2020 and the first Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 18 February 2020.
28 January (and AGM)
All meetings are held at the City of Vincent Council Chambers. All meetings are scheduled to commence at 6pm with the exception of the Council Workshop scheduled for Tuesday 28 January 2020, which is proposed to commence at 6.30pm, following the proposed Annual General Meeting of Electors at 6pm on the same day.
In accordance with section 5.27 of the Local Government Act 1995 the Annual General Meeting of Electors must be held within 56 days of Council’s acceptance of the annual report. The annual report will be presented to Council at the 10 December 2019 meeting, which means the Annual General Meeting of Electors must be held by 4 February 2020.
It is noted that the following will fall within the school holidays in 2020:
28 January 2020 Council Workshop and Annual General Meeting of Electors
14 April 2020 Council Briefing
14 July 2020 Council Briefing
21 April 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council
The proposed dates do not conflict with any WA public holidays in 2020.
In accordance with Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, Council Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates will be published in both local newspapers and on the City’s website.
Section 5.3 of the Act states:
“Ordinary and Special Council meetings:
(1) A Council is to hold ordinary meetings and may hold special meetings;
(2) Ordinary meetings are to be held not more than three months apart; and
(3) If a Council fails to meet as required by subsection (2) the CEO is to notify the Minister of that failure.”
Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 states:
“12 (1) At least once a year a local government is to give local public notice of the dates on which and the time and place at which –
(b) The Committee meetings that are required under the Act to be open to members of the public or that are proposed to be open to members of the public;
are to be held in the next 12 months;
(2) A local government is to give local public notice of any change to the date, time or place of a meeting referred to in sub regulation (1);”
Policy No. 4.2.3: Council Briefings, Meetings & Forums – Format, Procedures and Maximum Duration sets out additional guiding principles for the management of Council Briefings and Meetings.
Low: The proposed monthly cycle will provide consistency in the sequencing of workshops, briefings and meetings, and will increase transparency by ensuring financial statements are included in the Council Briefing agenda.
8.4 Annual Corporate Business Plan Quarterly Update
Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - CBP Progress Update as at 30 October 2019 ⇩
To consider a progress update on the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 2019/20 Update (see Attachment 1).
Council adopted the Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 (CBP) on 26 June 2018 and subsequently adopted the Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028 on 16 October 2018, which embedded the previously endorsed six priorities, being Enhanced Environment, Accessible City, Connected Community, Thriving Places, Sensitive Design and Innovative & Accountable.
On the 20 August 2019, Council considered a review of the CBP and adopted an update to the City of Vincent Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22. The updated CBP is the outcome of extensive corporate planning work. It provides a simple breakdown of the functions, KPIs, operational expenditure and deliverables for each team/service over the life of the CBP. This improves transparency around the City’s expenditure, operations and services.
In consultation with all relevant service areas, the status of each CBP item as at 30 October 2019 is included in the Progress Update Table as Attachment 1. The Table in Attachment 1 is formatted consistently with the tabulated Appendix to the CBP, except for inclusion of the following two columns:
· An Overall Health column with a colour coded symbol applied to each line item, to enable the reader to identify “at a glance” the project status or health, as follows – a green symbol denotes the project has been completed or is on track; an orange symbol denotes ‘caution’ as the item has been delayed/extended or there is a cost/quality risk; and a red symbol would denote the project is at risk of not being completed (at this stage there are no red symbols); and
· A “Progress Update” column provides commentary on the progress of each CBP item.
Where no action was required or planned in the CBP for a particular project in 2019/20, the “Progress Update” column states “No action required in 2019/20” and a dash (-) is shown in the right-hand at a glance ‘health” column.
Requirements relating to the review of the CBP are set out in Regulation 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, with the following sub-regulations relevant:
The annual review of the CBP will occur separately to this progress report and prior to or concurrent with Council’s adoption of the 2020/21 Budget.
Low: This Progress Update does not propose any additional initiatives or change to the City’s Corporate Business Plan.
The Corporate Business Plan priorities are reflected in the Annual Budget for 2019/20 and Long Term Financial Plan for future financial years.
The CBP reflects a significant amount of work to be undertaken by the City over the course of four years. Of the 58 projects listed in the CBP, 50 are listed for commencement or completion in 2019/20 and therefore have a resourcing implication on the organisation. Based on the health tracker, 30 of the items are on track and 20 are reflecting caution mainly due to a likely delay in finalising the item, with several still awaiting clarity on the funding requirement for future years.
8.5 Appointment of community members and Elected Members to the City of Vincent Audit Committee and amendment of Terms of Reference
Attachments: 1. Audit Committee Terms of Reference (with proposed changes in mark up) ⇩
To appoint new members to the City’s Audit Committee and vary the Terms of Reference to increase the membership to seven members, with a maximum of three external, independent members.
The primary functions of the City’s Audit Committee is to review the City’s annual external audit and to liaise with the City’s internal and external auditors to ensure that the City is appropriately managing its affairs. The objectives and powers of the Audit Committee are set out in its Terms of Reference, at Attachment 1.
The Audit Committee members for the period 24 October 2017 to 19 October 2019 were:
· Cr Dan Loden (Chair)
· Ms Elizabeth Hunt (Deputy Chair) (independent external member)
· Mayor Emma Cole
· Cr Susan Gontaszewski
· Cr Joshua Topelberg
· Mr Conley Manifis (independent external member)
In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the term of membership of the City's current Audit Committee members expired on the day of the ordinary local government election, 19 October 2019.
The Audit Committee currently comprises of 6 members, with up to two external independent members.
Administration invited expressions of interest for suitably qualified persons to nominate for the external independent member positions from 3 September 2019. Advertisements were placed in the City’s local papers, on the City’s website and on the City’s social media.
Nominees were requested to provide a current resume and a covering letter to demonstrate their knowledge and experience of:
· business or financial management/reporting;
· risk management systems and procedures;
· internal business controls; and
· legislative compliance programs.
A total of three submissions were received. The resumes of the nominees are at Confidential Attachments 1, 2 and 3. Administration has undertaken an assessment of the nominations in accordance with the selection criteria above. The calibre of all three nominees is strong, which each nominee having relevant but different expertise. Administration believes that together the three nominees will contribute positively to the effectiveness of the City's Audit Committee. It is therefore proposed that the Terms of Reference are varied to increase membership by one, to seven persons, with up to three external independent members.
The amended Terms of Reference, with the proposed amendments in mark up, are at Attachment 1.
The meetings are held approximately every two months, or more regularly as required. In 2019 there were 5 meetings. All nominees are available to attend meetings at 1pm on Tuesdays, either in person or by phone. The proposed meeting dates for 2020 will be presented to the Audit Committee meeting on 19 November 2019 for approval.
Division 7.1A of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the requirement for Local Governments to establish an Audit Committee and sets out a range of requirements applicable to Audit Committees. Importantly, an Audit Committee must have at least 3 members, and the majority of members are to be Elected Members.
The Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 further prescribe the functions of an Audit Committee.
The Audit Committee Terms of Reference sets out in detail how the City’s Audit Committee will function.
Low: The Audit Committee plays a key role in addressing the City’s corporate risks and ensuring legislative compliance. Therefore the selection of appropriately skilled and qualified members of the Audit Committee is important in addressing organisational risk and ensuring good corporate governance.
8.6 Appointment of an alternate member for the Mindarie Regional Council meeting - 12 December 2019
That Council APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the appointment of Councillor _____________ as its Alternate Member (Deputy) for the Mindarie Regional Council meeting to be held on 12 December 2019, due to the inability of Council’s appointed Member, Mayor Emma Cole to attend on this occasion.
For the Council to appoint an Alternate Member (Deputy) to the Mindarie Regional Council Meeting on 12 December 2019.
It is a requirement of the Mindarie Regional Council Establishment Agreement that Council carries a specific resolution to nominate an Alternate Member for each occasion that the approved Member is unable to act.
At the Special Meeting of Council on 22 October 2019, Council appointed Mayor Emma Cole as its nominated representative to the Mindarie Regional Council for the period 22 October 2019 to 16 October 2021. The Mayor is unable to attend the meeting scheduled for 12 December 2019 and therefore an Alternate Member (Deputy) will need to be appointed to attend on that occasion.
Mindarie Regional Council Establishment Agreement.
Medium: Appointing an alternative member for the Mindarie Regional Council meeting on 12 December 2019 means the City is represented at this meeting.
Nil. No fees are payable to alternate members.
8.7 Appointment of Elected Members to CEO Performance Review Panel
Attachments: 1. Policy 4.2.16 - CEO Annual Performance Review ⇩
To appoint Elected Members to the CEO Performance Review Panel.
The City’s Policy 4.2.16 – CEO Annual Performance Review at Attachment 1, sets out the annual performance and remuneration review process for the City’s Chief Executive Officer. In accordance with this policy Council shall establish a CEO Performance Review Panel (Panel) which comprises of the Mayor, as the Chairperson, and up to three other Elected Members. The membership term is two years, expiring at the next ordinary local government election.
The City’s current Panel members were appointed by Council at the 30 January 2019 meeting for a term expiring at the 19 October 2019 local government ordinary election. The current members are Mayor Emma Cole (Chairperson), Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Topelberg and Cr Loden.
Clause 1 of Policy No: 4.2.16 – CEO Annual Performance Review states that:
“1.1 The Council shall establish a CEO Performance Review Panel (the Panel) to have carriage and oversight of the Annual Review Process.
Low: Appointment of Elected Members to the Panel will ensure the CEO’s annual review process is conducted in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.16.
8.8 Appointment of Elected Members to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel
Attachments: 1. Development Assessment Panel request for nominations ⇩
That Council APPOINTS the following Elected Members to represent the City of Vincent on the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (DAP) for the period 27 January 2020 – 26 January 2022:
To appoint Elected Members to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel for the period 27 January 2020 – 26 January 2022.
Local governments may appoint up to four Elected Members to represent their local government on the relevant Development Assessment Panel. The City is part of the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (DAP).
The City received a letter from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (at Attachment 1) requesting that Council nominate new DAP members for the period 27 January 2020 to 26 January 2022.
The City may appoint 2 members and 2 alternative members to the DAP. The key details of the DAP are as follows:
When suitable, usually commencing at 9.30am with a duration of 30 minutes to 2 hours
City of Vincent Administration and Civic Centre; or
No. of Meetings in 2019:
15 meetings to date (18 meetings in 2018)
Executive Director Strategy & Place
Purpose of DAP:
Determining development applications where the likely cost of the development exceeds a specified dollar value.
For the City of Vincent, any proposal over $7 million in value would be determined by the DAP.
Fees for DAP Members:
1. Fee for presiding member per meeting to determine development applications
2. Fee for any other member per meeting to determine development applications
3. Fee per meeting for presiding member to determine applications to amend or cancel determination
4. Fee per meeting for any other member to determine applications to amend or cancel determination
5. Fee for presiding member attending proceeding in State Administrative Tribunal
6. Fee for any other member attending proceeding in State Administrative Tribunal
7. Fee for Training
· Please note that eligibility for payment of DAPs sitting fees is guided by the Premier’s Circular 2010-02
· Three (3) members with specialist knowledge in the areas of town planning, architecture, or other related disciplines.
· Director Planning Services
· Manager Planning and Building Services
· Other City Officers (as required)
1. Cr Dan Loden
2. Cr Joshua Topelberg*
1. Cr Susan Gontaszewski
2. Mayor Emma Cole
More detailed information about Development Assessment Panels and the Metro West JDAP can be found on the website of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.
Part 11A of the Planning and Development Act 2005
Regulation 24 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011
Low The timely appointment of the City of Vincent representatives to the DAP will enable the representatives to participate in decision-making that may impact the City.
There are no budget implications for the City in appointing members to the DAP, as the fees are paid by DAP.
8.9 Information Bulletin
Attachments: 1. Minutes of the Children and Young People Advisory Group Meeting held on 2 September 2019 ⇩
2. Confirmed Minutes of the Design Review Panel Meeting held on 4 September 2019 ⇩
3. Confirmed Minutes of the Design Review Panel Meeting held on 18 September 2019 ⇩
4. Minutes of Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting held on 17 October 2019 ⇩
6. Statistics for Development Applications as at October 2019 - Attachment to be issued prior to Council Briefing Meeting 5 November 2019 ⇩
8. Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals – Progress Report as at 24 October 2019 ⇩
11. Register of Petitions - Progress Report - November 2019 ⇩
12. Register of Notices of Motion - Progress Report - November 2019 ⇩
13. Register of Reports to be Actioned - Progress Report - November 2019 ⇩
Placeholder for Attachment f
Statistics for Development Applications as at October 2019 - Attachment to be issued prior to Council Briefing Meeting 5 November 2019
11.1 LATE REPORT: Management of Loftus Community Centre