Planning and Development Reports - City of Nedlands Planning and... · Planning and Development...

Planning and Development Reports

Committee Consideration – 10 February 2015 Council Resolution – 24 February 2015

Table of Contents

Item No. Page No.

PD01.15 (Lot 21) No. 44 Goldsmith Road Dalkeith Proposed Two-Storey

Single House & Pool ............................................................................. 2

PD02.15 (Lot 469) No. 42 Viking Road Dalkeith –Proposed Extensions

(Kitchen and Carport) To Single House........................................... 17

PD03.15 (Lot 47) No. 14 Walba Way Swanbourne –Proposed Two-Storey

Single House & Pool - Reconsideration of Decision under s31 of

the State Administrative tribunal (SAT) Act 2004........................... 27

PD04.15 (Lot 1) No. 88 Watkins Road Dalkeith – Proposed Additions (Two

Storeys) To Single House .................................................................. 36

PD05.15 (Lot 6) No. 6/29 Strickland Street Mt Claremont – Proposed

Extended Trading Hours to Deli Chicchi.......................................... 47

PD06.15 Shenton Park Hospital Redevelopment - Submission .................. 58

PD07.15 Development Assessment Panels – City of Nedlands Nomination

of Members .......................................................................................... 62

PD08.15 Watkins Road Foreshore Erosion Control Funding ....................... 65

2

PD01.15 (Lot 21) No. 44 Goldsmith Road Dalkeith Proposed Two-Storey Single House &

Pool

Committee 10 February 2015

Council 24 February 2015 Applicant Boughton Architecture Landowner M A Lisle Officer Mr T L Geddes – Planning Officer Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development Director Signature

File Reference DA2014/477 – GO2/44

1.0 Executive Summary

This proposal is for a two-storey single house & pool in Dalkeith, with several variations

to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

The application has been referred to Council for determination, as officers do not have

the delegation to determine an application under instrument of delegation 6A, where objections to variations have been received.

The proposal is considered to satisfy all of the relevant deemed-to-comply or design

principles, and other planning requirements. As a result, the application is recommended for approval with conditions.

1.1 Recommendation to Committee

Council approves the application for a Two-Storey Single House & Pool at (Lot 21) No. 44 Goldsmith Road Dalkeith, in accordance with the application received

on 09 September 2014 and amended plans received on 29 January 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans.

2. The store room (as marked in red on the approved plans) shall remain with

an open roof, permeable to water.

3. The bollards (as marked in red) are to be installed and remain in place permanently.

4. All street trees in the nature-strip / verge are to be retained and shall not be removed without written approval from the Manager Parks Services.

5. All crossovers to the streets shall be constructed to the Council’s Crossover Specifications and the applicant / landowner to obtain levels for crossovers

from the Council’s Infrastructure Services under supervision onsite, prior to commencement of works.

3

6. The existing crossovers shall be removed and the nature-strip / verge reinstated with grass or landscaping in accordance with Council’s Nature-

Strip / Verge Development Policy.

7. Any construction in the nature-strip / verge (including footpaths) will require a Nature-Strip Development Application (NSDA) to be lodged with, and approved by, the City’s Engineering section, prior to construction.

8. All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable and non-permeable areas, shall be contained onsite by draining to soak-wells of

adequate capacity to contain runoff from a 20 year recurrent storm event. Soak-wells shall be a minimum capacity of 1.0m3 for every 80m2 of calculated surface area of the development.

9. All footings and structures to retaining walls, fences and parapet walls, shall be constructed wholly inside the site boundaries of the Certificate of Title.

10. The parapet wall shall be finished to a professional standard, to the

satisfaction of the City.

Advice Notes specific to this approval:

1. The applicant is advised to review the levels around the Porte Cochere and grade towards Goldsmith Road where possible in order to avoid the

possibility of water entry through the dwelling.

2. The applicant is advised to grade all hard stand areas toward the road where

possible.

3. The applicant is advised that a further planning application will be required

for any primary or secondary street fencing.

4. All internal water closets and ensuites without fixed or permanent window

access to outside air or which open onto a hall, passage, hobby or staircase, shall be serviced by a mechanical ventilation exhaust system which is

ducted to outside air, with a minimum rate of air change equal to or greater than 25 litres / second.

5. All swimming pool waste water shall be disposed of into an adequately sized, dedicated soak-well located on the same lot. Soak-wells shall not be situated

closer than 1.8m to any boundary of a lot, building, septic tank or other soak-well.

6. All downpipes from guttering shall be connected so as to discharge into drains, which shall empty into a soak-well; and each soak-well shall be

located at least 1.8m from any building, and at least 1.8m from the boundary of the block.

7. The applicant is advised to consult the City’s Visual and Acoustic Privacy Advisory Information in relation to locating any mechanical equipment (e.g. air-conditioner, swimming pool or spa) such that noise, vibration and visual

impacts on neighbours are mitigated. The City does not recommend

4

installing any equipment near a property boundary where it is likely that noise will intrude upon neighbours.

Prior to selecting a location for an air-conditioner, the applicant is advised to

consult the online fairair noise calculator at www.fairair.com.au and use this as a guide to prevent noise affecting neighbouring properties.

Prior to installing mechanical equipment, the applicant is advised to consult neighbours, and if necessary, take measures to suppress noise.

8. The City does not recommend any air-conditioner, swimming pool or spa mechanical equipment is installed near a property boundary where it is likely

noise from such mechanical equipment in these locations will intrude on neighbouring properties. Prior to selecting a location to install an aircondtioner, applicant is advised to consult the online fairair noise

calculator at www.fairair.com.au and use this as a guide on air-conditioner placement so as to prevent noise affecting neighbouring properties. Prior to

installing an air-conditioner or swimming pool or spa mechanical equipment, applicant is advised to consult residents of neighbouring properties and if necessary take measures to prevent noise affecting neighbouring

properties.

9. All swimming pools, whether retained, partially constructed or finished, shall be kept dry during the construction period. Alternatively, the water shall be maintained to a quality which prevents mosquitoes from breeding.

10. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not

substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

1.2 Strategic Plan

KFA: Natural and Built Environment

2.0 Background

Property address (Lot 21) No. 44 Goldsmith Road Dalkeith (the site)

Lot area 2023m2 Zoning /

Reserve / Density Code

MRS Urban

TPS2 Residential R10

The subject site is a double block (2023m2) and has frontage to Goldsmith Road to

the north, Sherwood Road to the East and Raven Lane to the South as depicted on the attached locality plan (refer attachment 1)

The site previously featured a single house and pool on the eastern half of the lot, with the majority of the remainder of the lot being taken up by a tennis court and garden. In 2014, the City received an application for planning approval for a new dwelling on

site.

http://www.fairair.com.au/


5

On 7 January 2015, the City received an amended proposal plan which removed the Porte Cochere from the front setback area and increased the setback to the dwelling

from Raven Lane among other minor amendments. These amendments were made in order to bring the proposal closer into compliance with the City’s planning

requirements and in response to concerns raised by surrounding neighbours.

2.2 Legislation / Policy

City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2 or Scheme).

Residential Design Codes of WA 2013 (R-Codes).

Council Policy – Neighbour Consultation.

3.0 Consultation Process

3.1 What consultation process was undertaken?

Required by legislation (Scheme / R-Codes): Yes No

Required by City of Nedlands policy (Neighbour Consultation): Yes No

3.2 How and when was the community consulted?

Two-storey notification sign: 8 October 2014 – 22 October 2014

Community consultation period: 5 November 2014 – 19 November 2014

Response: The City received four (4) letters which objected to various aspects of the proposal (detailed in section

6.3 below)

4.0 Budget / Financial Implications

The proposal is for works to be constructed on a private lot, and therefore has no

budget or financial implications for the City.

5.0 Risk Management

Not applicable.

6.0 Discussion

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing development and the construction

of a two-storey single house & pool on the site, as depicted in the submitted plans (attachment 1). In addition, the Applicant’s report describes the proposal in more detail (attachment 3). The applicant has also provided a response to the concerns

raised by surrounding landowners (attachment 4)

The proposal involves the construction of a two storey single house with a 7 Car

garage and pool. The primary living areas for the dwelling are to be located on the

6

ground floor of the dwelling, with a garage to be accessed off Raven Lane. The original proposal for the dwelling involved garage access off Sherwood Road, with the

proposed garage built close to the Raven Lane boundary (600mm), with an upper floor boundary wall above. In response to concerns from neighbours, this aspect of the

proposal was amended to comply with the rear setback requirements of the R-Codes (notwithstanding the proposed boundary wall to the bike store/laundry discussed below).

The proposed variations to the planning requirements are as follows:

a) Open space – 57% (1152m2) in lieu of 60% (1213.8m2), a shortfall of 3%

(61.8m2). b) Proposed retaining walls are to be located on the property boundary (to the

east onto Sherwood Road) in lieu of being set back 1.5m;

c) The proposal involves greater than 0.5m of fill within 1m of a side property boundary and 3m of the front boundary;

d) The proposed boundary wall onto Raven Lane is not permitted as of right on a R10 site;

e) The proposal involves a secondary street (onto Sherwood Road) setback of

800mm in lieu of 3m; f) The dwelling involves an eave overhang of 2.2m in lieu of 0.75m into the 3m

secondary street setback.

In addition, consultation with the community resulted in several objections being received to the proposal which are discussed in section 6.3 below).

The following assessment of the variations is based upon the design principles of the Residential Design Codes and the requirements of the City’s policies and Town

Planning Scheme.

6.1 Specific Planning Considerations

6.1.1 Variation clauses

a. Open space

Under the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, sites in an R10 area are required to provide a minimum of 60% of a subject site as open space. The proposed

dwelling will result in the provision of ~57% open space, including the proposed upper floor terrace in accordance with the R-Codes. The ground floor outdoor living area is excluded from the calculations as it is raised more than 0.5m from natural ground level,

however when considered from an outcomes-based perspective, this area will act as a primary open space and outdoor living area for the site. Accordingly, it is considered

that the proposal meets the intent of the R-Codes requirements, as discussed below. Design principle P4 (Open Space) of the R-Codes requires the following (emphasis

added):

“Development incorporates suitable open space for its context to:

reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or as outlined under

the local planning framework;

7

provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling;

reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the expectations of the

applicable density code and/or as outlined in the local planning framework;

provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and

streetscape;

provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for

outdoor pursuits and access within/around the site; and

provide space for external fixtures and essential facilities.”

The following is considered in response to these design principles, with regard to the current proposal plan.

Design Principle Administration Response

Reflects the existing or desired streetscape

It is considered that the proposed dwelling will fit in with the expected streetscape onto both Goldsmith and Sherwood Roads, and the dwelling will not appear to be out of

character with the locality. The provision of a 9m front setback, and the significant open area surrounding the pool

in the north-east corner of the lot will aid in the impression of open space for the lot.

Access to natural sunlight for the dwelling

Sunlight access for the dwelling will be maintained due to the large open area to the north of the dwelling and the large areas of glazing along the northern face of the dwelling.

Reduces building

bulk and is consistent with the expectations of the

applicable density code

The dwelling is primarily single storey in nature and is well

within the building height requirements of the R-Codes. It is considered that while the proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, it is within

the expectations of the R10 coding with regard to open space provision. If the proposed outdoor living area is

included in the calculations, then the proposal complies, with 60% open space provided. Despite the outdoor living area being raised, with regard to the final outcome, sufficient

open space and outdoor living areas are provided. Provides an attractive setting for buildings,

landscape, vegetation and

streetscape

The proposal involves a great deal of landscaping to the provided areas of open space, and it is considered that the final outcome will be of a high standard and consistent with

the expectations of the locality.

Opportunities for

residents to undertake outdoor pursuits on site

The proposed dwelling will provide ample opportunities for

residents to undertake outdoor pursuits on site, with formal and informal outdoor living areas provided, directly accessible from the dwelling.

Provides space for

external fixtures and essential facilities

Space for these fixtures is also allowed for on-site, with all

typical fixtures such as pool pumps, air conditioners, bins, clothes drying areas and storage supported on site (primarily off Raven Lane). The inclusion of these facilities

is not considered to significantly reduce the available area on site for undertaking outdoor pursuits.

8

In this instance, it is considered that the proposal meets the intent of the relevant design principles in relation to the provision of open space, and therefore is supported

by the City.

b. Boundary walls (rear onto Raven Lane)

The proposal involves a boundary wall onto Raven Lane for the proposed bike store and laundry. Under the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, boundary walls are not permitted as of right in an R10 coded area. As a result the proposed

boundary wall is to be assessed against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Design principle P3.2 (Lot Boundary Setback) of the R-Codes requires the following:

“Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or

outdoor living areas;

does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1 (wall

setbacks, see below);

does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.”

Further to this, design principle P3.1 (wall setbacks) requires the following:

“Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces

on the site and adjoining properties; and

minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.”

The following is considered in response to these design principles, with regard to the

current proposal plan. Design Principle Administration Response

Effective use of space

The proposed structure is considered to represent an effective use of space. An outbuilding could be approved in

the same location of similar dimensions, although it would need to be disconnected from the main dwelling.

Impact of building bulk

The proposed structure is not considered to be overly bulky, and the overall height of the structure is consistent with an outbuilding, which could be approved in the proposed

location. The structure is single storey in nature and contains non-habitable rooms (storage and laundry).

Access to direct sunlight and

ventilation

Adequate sun and ventilation will be provided to adjacent properties as Raven Lane will allow for a ventilation corridor.

At midwinter, when the shadow cast by the proposed boundary wall is greatest, the majority of the shade cast will

also fall over Raven Lane, limiting the impact upon adjacent properties. The adjacent property to the south of the

9

boundary wall exhibits a garage onto the laneway, a non-

habitable space. Overlooking and

privacy loss There will be no overlooking or privacy loss from the

proposed structure for adjacent properties. The proposed structure is single storey in nature and contains non-

habitable rooms. No windows open onto the lane.

Amenity impact It is not considered that this structure will significantly impact the amenity of Raven Lane. There are several

examples of boundary walls onto the laneway in the immediate locality.

Access to direct sun to major

openings & outdoor living areas

As noted above, direct sunlight access to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas will not be limited by this structure

due to its size. The adjacent properties exhibit non-sensitive land uses (garaging) close to the proposed structure.

Contribution to prevailing

development context and

streetscape

There are several examples of outbuildings and other structures being built up to the boundary of Raven Lane (No.

23, 25 and 27 Watkins Road and No. 20 Sherwood Road are all located in the immediate locality), and other

properties also exhibit structures within the rear setback. Accordingly, it can be considered that the proposed boundary wall is within the expected development context

for the area. The approval of this boundary wall is not considered to have a significant detrimental effect upon the

amenity of Raven Lane. The boundary wall structure will also be set back far enough

from Sherwood Road that it will not be readily visible when driving along the road.

In this instance, it is considered that the proposed boundary wall meets the intent of

the relevant design principles in relation to boundary walls, and therefore is supported by the City. It is considered that this aspect of the proposal will not have a significant

detrimental effect upon the adjacent residences and the proposed boundary wall presents an effective use of space.

c. Solid front fences

The proposal involves solid fencing around the unroofed store room in the front setback. As the remainder of the front setback to the dwelling is to be unfenced and

surrounded with a hedge, it is considered that this minor variation meets the intent of the R-Codes fencing requirements and can be supported, as the majority of the primary street setback will be open. The recommended conditions require that this

store is to remain unroofed.

d. Retaining walls & Landfill

Along the Sherwood Road Boundary (east), the proposal involves approximately 800mm of fill and retaining in order to support the finished level of the dwelling. Under

10

the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes with regard to this aspect of the development, any fill within 1m of a property boundary should be limited to 0.5m, and

any retaining wall over 0.5m in height should be set back in accordance with Tables 2a and b of the R-Codes (in this case 1.5m). Accordingly, this aspect of the proposal

is to be assessed in accordance with the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Design principle of the P8 R-Codes requires the following (emphasis added):

“Retaining walls that result in land which can be effectively used for the benefit of residents and do not detrimentally affect adjoining properties and are designed,

engineered and landscaped having due regard to clauses 5.3.7 (site works, see below) and 5.4.1 (visual privacy).”

Further to this, the design principles for site works (landfill) is below:

“Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill.

Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and the adjoining properties and as

viewed from the street.”

The following is considered in response to these design principles, with regard to the


Effective use of land

It is considered that this aspect of the proposal represents an effective use of space as the usability of the site is

maximised. The proposed configuration allows residents to access outdoor living areas directly from the dwelling as

they are on the same level. If the retaining wall were to be set back from the boundary 1.5m, this corridor would be unusable dead space on site, in comparison to the

proposed configuration. Affect upon

adjoining properties

As the area in question is not adjacent to another property,

the proposed variation is considered not to have a significant affect upon adjacent residences. Once the hedging (as

shown on the proposal plans) is established along the Sherwood Road frontage, it will be difficult to discern that the levels in this area have been raised.

Site Works It is considered that the proposed level of fill is minimal and

establishes a more effective use of space. When viewed from the street, the raised area will be screened by hedging or vegetation, and the proposed retaining wall may be

viewed as a low side fence. Visual Privacy The raised area will only overlook Sherwood Road and

Goldsmith Road, permitting passive surveillance of these public areas. If hedging is established in accordance with the

proposal plans, then residents will not be readily visible from the street.

11

It is considered that the proposed level of fill is acceptable as this variation will have a limited impact upon the streetscape as per the above assessment.

a. Wall setback & eave overhang – Secondary Street (Sherwood Road)

The deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes require a setback of 3m from

secondary streets for R10 dwellings and permit eave overhangs of 750mm into any required setback. The proposal involves an 800mm setback onto Sherwood Road and an eave overhang projecting 2.2m into this setback. The relevant design principles are

listed below:

Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:

Contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape;

Provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings;

Accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and

utilities; and

Allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.

Buildings mass and form that:

Uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building;

Uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the

streetscape;

Minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building

services, vehicle entries and parking supply, blank walls, servicing infrastructure access and meters and the like; and

Positively contributors to the prevailing development context and streetscape. The following is considered in response to these design principles, with regard to the


Streetscape It is considered that the proposed setback to the dwelling is consistent with the Sherwood Road streetscape, which

exhibits several examples of dwellings and structures closer than the 3m allowed for under the deemed-to-

comply requirements of the R-Codes. These examples are listed below:

No. 25 Watkins Road exhibits a nil setback;

No. 23 Watkins Road exhibits a 1.5m setback;

No. 20 Sherwood Road exhibits a 1.5m setback;

No. 47 Goldsmith Road exhibits a 0.8m setback;



No. 57 Goldsmith road exhibits a nil setback;

No. 50 Melvista Avenue exhibits a 1m setback; and

No. 52 Melvista Avenue exhibits a 1.5m setback.

12

In addition, the existing dwelling at no. 44 Goldsmith Road

exhibits a 1.5m setback to Sherwood Road. It is considered that a reduced setback onto Sherwood Road is

a part of the expected development context in the locality. Privacy and open

space The proposal complies with the visual privacy requirements

of the R-Codes, and is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes with regard to open space, as discussed above.

Accommodation of

parking, landscaping and utilities

There is adequate provision of landscaping, and parking

facilities and utilities have been accommodated off the Laneway.

Safety clearances

for easements These clearances are provided.

Design features The proposed roof-scape has been broken up, and a rock

feature wall has been proposed in order to add further visual interest to the development. Areas of blank wall have been minimised, and the upper floor terrace will provide an active

frontage onto Sherwood Road. Minor projections As above, the proposed feature wall will provide visual

interest, contribute positively to the streetscape and ameliorate the impact of the proposed variation.

Portion of building façade at ground

floor taken up by vehicle entries,

parking, etc.

This was originally a concern, as the access to the seven car garage was to be off Sherwood Road, however this has

been amended so that access is taken from Raven Lane. In addition, service infrastructure has been accommodated off

Raven Lane, and is not readily visible from Sherwood Road. Contribution to

development context and

streetscape

It is considered that this aspect of the proposal is consistent

with the Sherwood Road streetscape, and for the above reasons will positively integrate with this streetscape.

This aspect of the proposal complies with the relevant design principles of the R-Codes and is consistent with the prevailing streetscape and development context.

Accordingly, this aspect of the proposal is supported by the City.

6.2 General Planning Considerations

6.2.3 Preservation of amenity

Scheme clause 5.5.1 (preservation of amenity) states (emphasis added):

“…Council may refuse to approve any development if in its opinion the development would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area having

regard to the likely effect on the locality in terms of the external appearance of the development, traffic congestion and hazard, noise or any other factor inconsistent with the use for which the lot is zoned.”

In response, it is considered that the proposed development does not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area and is consistent with the overall development

13

context of the locality. The proposed dwelling has been designed to a high standard and is considered to be relatively unobtrusive in nature. The external appearance of

the development is contemporary; and traffic congestion and noise will be typical for a residential use.

Accordingly, this section of the proposal is supported by the City, subject to the recommended conditions.

6.2.4 Orderly and proper planning

Scheme clause 6.5.1 (determination by council) states (emphasis added):

“The Council may determine an application by granting approval, refusing approval

or granting approval subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, having regard to the orderly and proper planning of the area.”

In response, the proposal complies with Scheme provisions, with some discretionary

variations to the requirements of the R-Codes which are justified (in the sections above). Accordingly, the proposal is considered to represent orderly and proper

planning, and is supported by the City, subject to the recommended conditions.

6.3 Submissions

Below is a summary of comments received from the neighbour consultation, which

have been taken into account in the Discussion section of the report.

Summary of comments received

Issue:

The proposed garage was objected to on the basis that a garage of this size would generate considerable additional traffic and this would be “disruptive and an intrusion on the peace and quiet that we can reasonably expect in a residential

area”. The submitter also preferred that garage access be from Raven Lane. Administration Comment:

Following the receipt of this objection the proposal has been amended to change the garage to be accessed from Raven Lane. With regard to the traffic generated

by the development, it is considered that the number of vehicles able to be housed in the proposed garage is reasonable for a residential dwelling. The City’s Town

Planning Scheme allows for seven (7) uncovered vehicles on a residential lot, while these vehicles will be housed in the garage.

Issue:

The proposed variations to the setbacks onto Raven Lane were objected to.

Administration Comment:

The proposal has been amended to increase the setbacks for the proposed dwelling from Raven Lane. The upper floor of the dwelling complies with the required setback and so does the proposed garage. It is considered that the

proposed Bike Store and Laundry which are to be built up to the rear property

14

boundary are within the prevailing development context, and meet the listed design principles of the R-Codes with regard to boundary walls (as discussed above).

Issue:

The removal of established street trees was objected to by two submitters, as these trees provide a “softening” character to the street.


Due to the reorientation of the garage, no trees are now proposed to be removed from the Sherwood Road verge. A new street tree is also proposed to be installed along Goldsmith Road. Issue:

The proposed terrace will be located closer to adjacent residential properties than would otherwise be allowed. Sound from social activities would carry over the

neighbourhood and will intrude on privacy from a noise perspective and the terrace will be “dominating the skyline”. Administration Comment:

The proposed upper floor terrace has subsequently been amended to be set back

from the southern boundary in accordance with the R-Codes requirements. In addition, the southern face of the terrace has been screened to protect the privacy of adjacent properties and limit the impact of noise onto adjacent properties. With

regard to the visual appearance of the dwelling, a two storey house is consistent with what is expected in this locality. Issue:

Concerns were raised with regard to the noise generated by any proposed pool pump. Administration Comment:

The pool pump will be located within the unroofed store at the front of the dwelling

and is not located close to other residences. Any noise concerns are not related to planning requirements and would be handled under Environmental Health requirements. Issue:

The proposed setback variations and the use of the roof terrace as open space shows “flagrant disregard” to the Council requirements which are instituted to

protect ratepayers. Administration Comment:

The proposal has been amended to be consistent with the setback requirements of the R-Codes, notwithstanding the proposed bike store/laundry which is

considered to be consistent with the expected development context of the locality. The use of the upper floor terrace in open space calculations is consistent with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

Issue:

The proposed windows along the western side boundary should be obscured to protect the privacy of adjacent residence.


15

All of the windows along the western side boundary are not raised more than 0.5m above natural ground level and are therefore screened by the existing dividing fence. In addition, the adjacent property is raised above the ground levels along

the western boundary. It is not considered that any visual privacy issues are present which would necessitate these windows being obscure. Issue:

The western side fence should not be raised. Administration Comment:

The proposal originally involved over-height fence to the western boundary. As an agreement has not been reached with the adjacent landowner, this part of the

application has been removed. Issue:

The proposed variations to the building guidelines will reduce the enjoyment of

other families and devalue adjacent properties.


It is considered that the proposed dwelling has been designed to a high standard

and will not appear to be out of place in the locality. The proposal has been amended to make the development outcome more consistent with the locality by increasing the rear setback to the dwelling and setting back the proposed port

cochere. Unfortunately under the R-Codes and the City’s Town Planning Scheme, the maintenance of property values is not a valid planning concern and cannot be

taken into account when determining an application. Note: A full copy of all relevant consultation feedback received by the City has been given to the Councillors prior to the Council meeting.

The applicant for the proposed development has also provided several comments on the objections which have been raised (refer to attachment 4).

7.0 Conclusion

The proposal is for a two storey single house and pool at the No. 44 Goldsmith Road, Dalkeith. The proposal involves several variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, however it is considered that the proposal meets the

listed design principles of the Codes and is consistent with the prevailing development context of the locality.

The proposed variation to the open space requirements of the R-Codes is justified as the proposal involves adequate outdoor living space, but the definitions provided in the R-Codes do not permit their inclusion in calculations. With regard to the setback

onto Sherwood Road, this setback is consistent with the locality and expected development context. The fill and retaining proposed to the eastern property boundary

will be unobtrusive and is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscape. With regard to the proposed boundary wall, this is likewise considered to be unobtrusive and within the development context.

Accordingly, the application is recommended to the Council with recommendation for approval with conditions.

16

8.0 Attachments

1. Locality Plan 2. Plans 3. Applicant’s submission 4. Applicant’s response to objections

17

PD02.15 (Lot 469) No. 42 Viking Road Dalkeith –

Proposed Extensions (Kitchen and

Carport) To Single House


Council 24 February 2015

Applicant Blane Brackenridge Architects

Landowner Ms S A Healy

Officer Julian Berzins – Planning Officer

Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development

Director Signature

File Reference DA2014/498 – VI3/42


This proposal is for a carport and kitchen extension to a single house in Dalkeith with

variations to the planning requirements.


the delegation to determine an application under instrument of delegation 6A, where

specific objections have been received.

The kitchen extension does not satisfy all of the relevant deemed-to-comply, design

principles and other planning requirements. As a result, the application is

recommended for refusal.

The carport extension satisfies the relevant provisions of the City’s planning

requirements for carports forward of the primary street setback and is recommended

for approval.


Council:

1. Refuses the application for kitchen extensions at (Lot 469) No. 42 Viking

Road Dalkeith, in accordance with the application received on 22

September 2014 and amended plans received on 31 October 2014, for the

following reasons:

a. The proposal does not satisfy all the design principles relating to

provision 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks as per the Residential

Design Codes (2013), as the impact of building bulk will be

increased.

18

b. The proposal does not comply with the amenity considerations of

cl. 5.5.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 2 as it is considered to

adversely impact upon the appearance of the neighbouring

properties.

c. The proposal does not represent orderly and proper planning, in

accordance with cl. 6.5.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 2.

2. Approves the proposed carport extension at (Lot 469) No. 42 Viking Road

Dalkeith, in accordance with the application received on 22 September

2014 and amended plans received on 31 October 2014, subject to the

following conditions:

a. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans.

b. All crossovers to the street(s) shall be constructed to the Council’s

Crossover Specifications and the applicant / landowner to obtain

levels for crossovers from the Council’s Infrastructure Services

under supervision onsite, prior to commencement of works.

c. The existing crossover(s) shall be removed and the nature-strip /

verge reinstated with grass or landscaping in accordance with

Council’s Nature-Strip / Verge Development Policy.

d. All footings and structures of the fencing shall be constructed

wholly inside the site boundaries of the Certificate of Title.

e. All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable

and non-permeable areas, shall be contained onsite by draining to

soak-wells of adequate capacity to contain runoff from a 20 year

recurrent storm event. Soak-wells shall be a minimum capacity of

1.0m3 for every 80m2 of calculated surface area of the development.

Advice Notes specific to this proposal:

1. All downpipes from guttering shall be connected so as to discharge into

drains, which shall empty into a soak-well; and each soak-well shall be

located at least 1.8m from any building, and at least 1.8m from the

boundary of the block.

2. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period

of two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not

substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall

lapse and be of no further effect.

1.2 Strategic Plan

19


2.0 Background

Property address No. 42 Viking Road Dalkeith (the site)

Lot area 1012m2

Zoning /

Reserve /

Density Code

MRS Urban

TPS2 Residential at R10 density

The subject site has frontage to Viking Road to the north as seen in the location plan

below.

Figure 1 – Location Plan

Development Site

20

Figure 2 – Detailed Location Plan

The site features a single house, set into the rear of the lot as depicted in Figure 2.

The property was originally built in 1938, with additions approved in 1981 to the rear

(new laundry and kitchen) 1m from the boundary. In 2014 an application was received

by the City of Nedlands for further additions to the rear of the property and a carport

located at the front of the property.


City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2).


Local Planning Policy 6.23 – Carports and Minor Structures Forward of the Primary

Street Setback (Carport Policy).




Development Site

21



Community consultation period: 29/10/2014 – 12/11/2014

Response:

One supporting/no objection, two objections, with the results found in Attachment 4 / below in Section 6.3

Submissions.


The proposal is for works to be constructed on a private lot, and therefore has no

budget or financial implications for the City.

5.0 Risk Management

Not applicable.

6.0 Discussion

The proposal involves the construction of additions (carport and rear kitchen additions)

to the site, as depicted in the submitted plans (Attachment 1). In addition, the

Applicant’s report and site photographs describes the proposal in greater detail

(Attachment 2 and Attachment 3).

The proposal involves the following:

a) An extension of a single carport into a double carport.

b) An extension of the kitchen (1.6m x 2.7m) located to the rear of the property.

Variations to the planning requirements are as follows:

g) Council Policy 6.23 ‘ Carports and Minor Structures Forward of the Primary

Street Setback’ - 3m in lieu of 3.5m

h) R-Code 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback (rear) - 0.9m in lieu of 6m

In addition, consultation with the community resulted in two (2) objections being

received (Attachment 4/Section 6.3 Submissions).

The following assessment of the variations is based upon the relevant areas, being

the front and rear setbacks.


6.1.1 Variation clause

22

e. Carport in the front setback area

Clause ‘Carports’ (b) (ii) of the Carport Policy requires the following (emphasis added):

“…Carports may be constructed forward of the required primary street setback,

but the side facing the street must be left open. Council will however consider

wrought iron or tube steel gates/fencing along the side facing the street for

security purposes.

The following setbacks shall be deemed as standard and measured to the

columns of the carport. All setbacks are measured at right angles to the wall and

not the boundary.

Primary Street Setback - 3.5 metres

Side Boundary - 1.0 metres

f. Wall Setbacks

Design principle P3.1 of the R-Codes requires the following (emphasis added):





minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining

properties.”

6.1.2 Response to variation clause

b. Carport in the front setback area

The following is considered in response to the abovementioned clause in the Carport

Policy:

With regard to the setback of the carport from the front boundary, it is considered that

this aspect of the proposal can be supported as there is not enough space for a double

carport setback at 3.5m due to the location of the existing carport, garage and

crossover (approved 1962). It is considered that the proposed 0.5m setback will not

be detrimental to the streetscape of Viking Road as there are several examples of

carports located at a similar setback from the front boundary. Accordingly, it is

considered that this section of the proposal complies with the policy, and therefore is

supported by the City.

c. Wall setback – rear boundary (south)

23

The proposal is for an addition of 4m2 to be located off the existing laundry. The kitchen

and laundry facilities will be flipped to allow a larger kitchen area and more natural

light into the rear of the property. The extension has a wall height with skillion roof of

5m sloping up away from the rear boundary.

The following is considered in response to the abovementioned design principle:

The impact of building bulk will be increased on the neighbouring properties

due to the height of the wall and location of the existing setback.

The proposal provides adequate direct sunlight and ventilation to the adjoining

properties in accordance with Cl 5.4.2 Solar access for adjoining sites (R-

Codes, 2013). The proposal will overshadow the neighbouring grassed

backyard and existing garden shed as opposed to designated outdoor living

areas.

The extension does not propose any non-compliant windows and will not

increase overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjoining properties that is not

already screened by dividing fences.

Adequate sun and ventilation will be available to the site and neighbouring

property.

Objections from the neighbours regarding the above clause not being

supported due to above points (see section 6.3 + Attachment 4)

As the proposal does not reduce impact of bulk, it is considered that this section of the

proposal does not comply fully with the design principles, and therefore is not

supported by the City.




“…Council may refuse to approve any development if in its opinion the

development would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area having

regard to the likely effect on the locality in terms of the external appearance of the

development, traffic congestion and hazard, noise or any other factor inconsistent

with the use for which the lot is zoned.”

In response, it is considered that the rear extension will adversely affect the amenity

of the surrounding neighbours and as such is not supported by the City.



24


or granting approval subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, having regard to the

orderly and proper planning of the area.”

In response, the proposal does not comply with Scheme provisions, with discretionary

variations which are not acceptable (for the aforementioned reasons).

Accordingly, it is considered that this section of the proposal (rear additions) does not

represent orderly and proper planning, and is not supported by the City.

6.3 Submissions

Summary of comments received Officer’s technical comment

Issue: 1

The 0.9m rear setback of the existing

additions exacerbates its bulk as viewed from the objector’s property and, when combined with the fact

that it is 4.2m high, constitutes a visually obtrusive building that is

inconsistent with the established and expected built form in the area.

The bulk is increasing and as such impacts further on the neighbours as it

is only 0.9m from the boundary of the site.

Issue: 2

The proposed addition does not

reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property.

Any addition in this location would likely increase the impacts of building bulk.

Issue: 3

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties amenity.

There will be an increased impact on

the adjoining properties due to the increased bulk of the building 0.9m from the boundary.

Issue: 4

The proposed extension will abut the

subject sites southern boundary and will therefore overshadow the objector’s property.

The proposal complies with overshadowing requirements of the R-

Codes.

Issue: 5

The existing dwelling does not allow adequate access to direct sun for the

open space at the rear of the objector’s property.

The proposal complies with overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes.

Issue: 6 Agree refer to issue 1.

25

Whilst it is acknowledged the addition will not result in overlooking the increase in habitable floor space

and will further reduce the privacy of their backyard as compared to the

existing situation.

Issue: 7

The highlight windows are clear-

glazed and devoid of any window treatments, this will result in light from the existing kitchen being

dispersed directly into the backyard.

The existing dwelling has prior approval and is not subject to this particular

application.

Issue: 8

The existing dwelling is situated

0.9m from the rear boundary and approximately 29m from the front boundary. This is inconsistent with

the established front and rear setbacks of the other dwellings in the

locality.

The existing dwelling has prior approval and is not subject to this particular

application.

Issue: 9

The external appearance of the proposed addition will be obtrusive

and highly visible from the rear the objector’s property.

Agree, refer to issue 1.

Issue: 10

1. The proposed development wil l appear as an obvious addition that does not integrate with the existing

dwelling. The skillion roof does not match the roof form of the main

dwelling or the predominant pitched roof form.

The roof pitch has been designed to

reduce impacts of bulk onto neighbouring properties.

Issue: 11

Bulk and height of the extension + close proximity to the back boundary. The proposed eastern

glass wall which is 4.8m high is visually obtrusive.

Refer to section 6.1.2 Response to

variation clauses.

Note: A full copy of all relevant consultation feedback received by the City has been given to the Councillors prior to the Council meeting.

7.0 Conclusion

26

The proposal for additions (carport and kitchen) to a single house on Viking Road in

Dalkeith has two variations to the planning requirements.

The carport is proposed to be extended from a single carport to a double carport and

is to be setback in line with the existing single carport 3m from the primary street

boundary in lieu of the required 3.5m. As discussed in section 6.0, due to the current

location of the carport, garage and existing streetscape, the carport can be supported

by Council.

The 4m2 extension to the existing laundry setback 0.9m in lieu of a compliant 6m does

not satisfy the design principles of the Residential Design Codes cl 5.1.3 Lot boundary

setbacks, and will negatively impact the amenity of neighbouring properties as per the

specific objections received.

Accordingly, the part of the application for the carport is recommended to the Council

for approval and the part of the application for the rear kitchen additions is

recommended for refusal.

8.0 Attachments

1. Plans (site plan, floor plan, elevations) 2. Site photographs 3. Applicant’s submission

27

PD03.15 (Lot 47) No. 14 Walba Way Swanbourne –Proposed Two-Storey Single House &

Pool - Reconsideration of Decision under s31 of the State Administrative tribunal

(SAT) Act 2004.

Committee 10 February 2015 Council 24 February 2015 Applicant Building Corporation WA Pty Ltd Landowner K T & C A Hogan Officer Mr T L Geddes – Planning Officer Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development Director Signature

File Reference DA2014/153 – WA1/14 Previous Item PD31.14 – Two Storey Single House & Pool


This report relates to the reconsideration of a decision of Council. At the 23 September 2014 Council meeting, Council refused an application for a two storey single house and pool at No. 14 Walba Way, Swanbourne (the site) in September 2014 (refer to

attachment 3 PD31.14).

The applicant appealed this decision to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Following this appeal, mediation sessions have been held and discussions regarding the proposed dwelling and its impact have been undertaken with one of the adjoining land owners. This has resulted in the relocation of the dwelling away from the northern

property boundary by 460mm, and the redesign of the façade of the proposed dwelling in order to ameliorate the impact of the dwelling upon the Walba Way streetscape.

The purpose of this report is for Council to reconsider the decision to refuse the application for the two storey single house and pool following the receipt of the amended proposal plans and further justification (refer to attachments 2 & 3).

Administration initially recommended refusal for the proposal on the basis that the proposed dwelling was located too close to the rear (northern) boundary of the lot, and was not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the R-Codes in relation

to this setback. In addition, it was considered that the proposed dwelling would have an overly bulky impact upon the Walba Way streetscape. Following mediation and the

receipt and assessment of the amended proposal plans, it is considered that the amended proposal has satisfied these original concerns and is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the listed conditions.


Pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA):

28

Council approves an application for a two storey single house at No. 14 (Lot 47)

Walba Way, Swanbourne, in accordance with the application dated 1 May 2014 and amended plans received on 22 December 2014, with the following

conditions:


2. All street trees in the nature-strip / verge are to be retained and shall not

be removed without written approval from the Manager Parks Services.

3. All crossovers to the street(s) shall be constructed to the Council’s

Crossover Specifications and the applicant / landowner to obtain levels for crossovers from the Council’s Infrastructure Services under supervision onsite, prior to commencement of works.

4. Any construction in the nature-strip / verge (including footpaths) will

require a Nature-Strip Development Application (NSDA) to be lodged with, and approved by, the City’s Engineering section, prior to construction.

5. All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable and non-

permeable areas, shall be contained onsite by draining to soak-wells of adequate capacity to contain runoff from a 20 year recurrent storm event.

Soak-wells shall be a minimum capacity of 1.0m3 for every 80m2 of calculated surface area of the development.

6. All footings and structures to retaining walls, fences and parapet walls, shall be constructed wholly inside the site boundaries of the Certificate of Title.


1. Any fencing in the primary street setback area requires further development approval from the City.

2. All internal water closets and ensuites without fixed or permanent window access to outside air or which open onto a hall, passage, hobby or

staircase, shall be serviced by a mechanical ventilation exhaust system which is ducted to outside air, with a minimum rate of air change equal to or greater than 25 litres / second.

3. All swimming pool waste water shall be disposed of into an adequately sized, dedicated soak-well located on the same lot. Soak-wells shall not

be situated closer than 1.8m to any boundary of a lot, building, septic tank or other soak-well.

4. All downpipes from guttering shall be connected so as to discharge into drains, which shall empty into a soak-well; and each soak-well shall be

located at least 1.8m from any building, and at least 1.8m from the boundary of the block.

5. The applicant is advised to consult the City’s Visual and Acoustic Privacy Advisory Information in relation to locating any mechanical equipment

29

(e.g. air-conditioner, swimming pool or spa) such that noise, vibration and visual impacts on neighbours are mitigated. The City does not

recommend installing any equipment near a property boundary where it is likely that noise will intrude upon neighbours.

6. Prior to selecting a location for an air-conditioner, the applicant is advised to consult the online fairair noise calculator at www.fairair.com.au and

use this as a guide to prevent noise affecting neighbouring properties.

7. Prior to installing mechanical equipment, the applicant is advised to

consult neighbours, and if necessary, take measures to suppress noise.

8. The landowner is advised to limit construction noise and hours as per the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

9. All swimming pools, whether retained, partially constructed or finished, shall be kept dry during the construction period. Alternatively, the water

shall be maintained to a quality which prevents mosquitoes from breeding.

10. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall


1.2 Strategic Plan


2.0 Background

Property address (Lot 47) No. 14 Walba Way Swanbourne (the site)

Lot area 764m2 Zoning /

Reserve

MRS Urban TPS2 Residential R12.5/20

The site has frontages to Walba Way to the west and Clement Street to the south. The subject site adjoins residential sites to the north and east, as depicted in the attached locality plan (attachment 1). The front setback to the dwelling is taken from Clement

Street and has been reduced in accordance with clause 5.3.3 of TPS 2.

The proposed dwelling has been amended to be located 460mm further south and will be set back an average 7.5m from Clement Street, a minimum of 2m from Walba Way and is to be set back from the eastern site boundary in accordance with the R-Codes

deemed-to-comply requirements. The setback to the northern (rear) boundary has been increased by 460mm and several other aspects of the design of the dwelling

have been amended in order to ameliorate the bulk of the dwelling (refer to attachment 3 for a comprehensive list of these amendments). The upper floor of the

dwelling is to be located directly above the ground floor within the rear setback.

2.1 Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions


30

The application was refused by Council at the 23 September 2014 Council meeting

(item PD31.14). The primary reasons for refusal were that the dwelling would have an excessive bulk impact upon the adjacent properties and the streetscape.


Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Planning Act).

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).



Local Planning Policy 6.18 – Reduction of Front Setbacks (Front Setbacks Policy).







Two-storey notification sign: 28 May – 11 June 2014

Community consultation period: 16 July – 30 July 2014

Response:

Two (2) Objections (these submissions were discussed and considered as a part of the original

report to Council (Attachment 3 PD31.14 –

September 2014)


The proposal is for works to be constructed on a private lot, and therefore has no budget or financial implications for the City.

5.0 Risk Management

Not applicable.

6.0 Discussion

The proposal involves the construction of a two storey dwelling and pool on the site, as depicted in the submitted plans (attachment 2). In addition, the Applicant’s report

describes the proposal in more detail, specifically listing the amendments which have been made in response to the City’s original decision (attachment 3).

31

Further to the City’s refusal of the original application, the following amendments have been made to the proposal:

1) Shifting the dwelling 460mm to the south;

2) Lowering the planter walls to the west and south elevations;

3) The repositioning of the letterbox, front steps and planters;

4) The reduction of the eave overhang to the upper floor (east)

5) The removal of the post to the north-east of the dwelling, above the activity

room;

6) Amendments to the roof of the dwelling by removing a portion of the roof over

the north-east balcony;

7) The increase in height to the ground floor window onto the kitchen/larder/bar;

8) The addition of horizontal windows to the bar (northern façade);

9) The addition of a window to the rear of the pizza oven;

10) Reducing the height of the balustrade around the north and west façades of

the building;

11) The deletion of the privacy screen to the north-west balcony;

12) The reduction of the stairs to the alfresco by two steps;

13) The reduction of the privacy wall near the northern steps; and

14) The deletion of the brick wall up to the north boundary.

It is considered that these amendments, specifically the addition of further glazed area to the north and west façades of the dwelling reduce the overall bulk impact of the dwelling upon Walba Way, and the reduction of the proposed planter boxes also

helps to ameliorate the impact of the dwelling.

The following assessment relates to the issues which were raised as reasons for refusal in the previous report for Council and addresses the ways in which the proposal has been amended in response to these issues.

6.1 Rear Setback The first reason for the recommended refusal of the proposal in September 2014 related to non-compliance with the design principles of the R-Codes in relation to lot

boundary setbacks. It was considered that the proposed dwelling would be located too close to the rear site boundary and would negatively impact the adjacent property in

relation to its building bulk.

32

Following on-site mediation, amendments to the design of the dwelling and the provision of detailed 3D imagery of the proposed dwelling (refer to attachment 3), it

is considered that the proposal meets the listed design principles in relation to privacy, building bulk and access to direct sun and ventilation as outlined below.

6.1.1 Building Bulk

Administration Comment

It is considered that the portion of the dwelling located within the 6m rear setback has been offset by the provision of an open outdoor living area, resulting in an average 6m rear setback. The screen wall surrounding the proposed pool and outdoor living area

was originally considered to have an additional impact upon the adjacent property, however following a site visit and the provision of additional information from the

applicant, it is clear that this structure will be located primarily behind the existing dividing fencing and will not be readily visible.

In addition, the two storey portion of the dwelling located in the rear setback is located adjacent to the carport at the adjacent property. It is considered that the proposed

dwelling has been set back from the most sensitive areas on both adjacent lots and the majority of the buildings bulk abuts non-sensitive areas such as car parking structures.

6.1.2 Visual Privacy


The proposal has been designed to respect the privacy of adjacent residences, with the provision of screening around the raised pool and outdoor living area. The

proposed balcony to the upper floor does overlook the adjacent property behind the primary street setback, however it does not overlook any portion of the property not readily visible from the public realm. This balcony was to be screened, however the

removal of this screening further ameliorated the bulk of the proposed dwelling by opening the north western corner of the dwelling.

6.1.3 Sunlight and Ventilation


As the subject site is located to the south of adjacent residences, it will not negatively impact adjacent residences in relation to winter and morning sunlight access. With regard to ventilation access, the proposed rear setback will permit adequate venti lation

along this boundary.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling satisfies the relevant design principles of the R-Codes and upon reconsideration, it is recommended that the proposal be approved. In addition, as the subject site is located on a corner block, the rear

(northern) boundary is effectively the side boundary of the adjacent residence at No. 12 Walba Way. With regard to the expected development context for this site, it may

be argued that the provision of a ‘rear setback’ across the north-eastern corner of the

33

site may result in a more consistent outcome, with the rear outdoor living area lining up with those on adjacent properties.

6.2 Preservation of amenity

The second reason for refusal related to the impact of the external appearance


“…Council may refuse to approve any development if in its opinion the

development would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area having regard to the likely effect on the locality in terms of the external appearance of the

development, traffic congestion and hazard, noise or any other factor inconsistent with the use for which the lot is zoned.”

In response, it is considered that the amendments made to the proposed design have

softened the impact of the external appearance of the proposed dwelling and thereby lessened the impact upon the streetscape of Walba Way. The addition of windows and

alteration of the roof-scape of the dwelling have ameliorated the impact of the dwelling through reducing its overall scale and the increased glazed area results in a more open aspect to the dwelling.

Accordingly, the proposal is supported by the City, subject to the recommended conditions.




or granting approval subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, having regard to the orderly and proper planning of the area.”

In response, the proposal complies with Scheme provisions, with some discretionary variations which are justified (for the aforementioned reasons). Accordingly, this amended proposal represents orderly and proper planning, and is supported by the

City, subject to the recommended conditions.

6.3 Submissions

The responses received by the City in relation to the proposed development application have been discussed previously as per PD31.14 (refer attachment 4).

With regard to the concerns which have been raised, the following is considered in response with regard to the amendments which have been made to the proposed design:

Comments Received Officer’s technical comment

Issue: The portion of the dwelling located in the

rear setback will block

The proposed amendments have increased the setback to the dwelling, thereby increasing the

retention of any ocean views present from the

34

ocean views from adjacent properties.

adjacent property to the east. As previously noted, the planning controls do not specifically protect access to views.

Issue: The bulk of the dwelling in the rear setback will negatively

impact the adjacent properties.

It is considered that the proposed amendments to the proposed dwelling have sufficiently reduced the bulk impact of the proposed dwelling. In addition, it is

considered that the bulk of the dwelling is located close to less sensitive areas on adjacent lots,

specifically areas for car parking, thereby limiting the impact upon outdoor living areas and habitable rooms.

Issue: The proposed north-eastern balcony

will negatively impact adjacent privacy.

This balcony only overlooks areas of the adjacent property which are readily visible from the primary

street. Due to the location of the site, the primary reason for the use of the balcony will be Ocean Views, which will encourage the users of this space

to face west, rather than north.

There is also potential for passive surveillance of the approach to the adjacent dwelling. The removal of the balcony opens the northern face of the dwelling

further, thereby reducing the bulk impact upon the adjacent property.

Issue: The bulk of the proposed dwelling and the setback from Walba

Way will compromise the integrity of the

streetscape and is inconsistent with the streetscape of Walba

Way.

It is considered that the proposed amendments to the façade of the dwelling have reduced the bulky impact of the dwelling onto Walba Way, as previously

discussed. With respect to the street setback from Walba Way, the proposal complies with the relevant

R-Codes requirements. The front boundary to the dwelling is to be taken from Clement street and as a result, a reduced setback is permitted to the Walba

Way boundary.

Issue: The second

storey wall (note: onto bedroom 4) does not take into account

neighbouring privacy.

This bedroom has been set back 9.2m from the

northern property boundary, under the R-Codes visual privacy requirements for bedrooms a setback of 4.5m is permitted. It is noted that this window will

be capable of viewing the rear garden of the adjacent property, however it does comply with the deemed-

to-comply Visual Privacy requirements of the R-Codes (clause 5.4.1).

35

7.0 Conclusion

Following the refusal of the application for retrospective approval for the proposed dwelling, several mediation sessions with the State Administrative Tribunal have taken place.

It is considered that the proposed amendments to the original design have ameliorated

the impact of the proposed dwelling upon adjacent residences and the streetscapes of Walba Way and Clement Street, Swanbourne. In addition, following on-site mediation, it is considered that the intent of the R-Codes design principles in relation

to building bulk have been satisfied as discussed above.

It is considered that the Administration’s original concerns with regard to this proposal have been satisfied and the proposal represents orderly and proper planning.

For these reasons, it is recommended the Council approve the proposed dwelling, subject to the listed conditions.

8.0 Attachments

1. Locality plan

2. Amended Proposal Plans 3. Applicant’s submission & Perspective Drawings

36

PD04.15 (Lot 1) No. 88 Watkins Road Dalkeith – Proposed Additions (Two Storeys) To

Single House


Council 24 February 2015 Applicant Addstyle Constructions Pty Ltd Landowner Y Qui & Ms Y Yun Officer Mr T L Geddes – Planning Officer Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development Director Signature

File Reference DA2014/588 – WA6/88


This proposal is for two storey additions to the rear of an existing two storey house on

Watkins Road, Dalkeith.


the delegation to determine an application under instrument of delegation 6A, where objections have been received.

It is considered that the proposal meets the majority of the deemed-to-comply

requirements of the R-Codes and the intent of the City’s Town Planning Scheme requirements. With regard to the impact of the proposed development upon the visual

privacy of adjacent residences, it is considered that some amendments to the proposal should be made in accordance with the recommended conditions, in order to better maintain the visual privacy of neighbours.


Council approves the application for Additions (Two Storeys) To Single House at (Lot 1) No. 88 Watkins Road Dalkeith, in accordance with the application

received on 13 November 2014 and amended plans received on 8 January 2015, subject to the following conditions:


2. The Sun Room window of the southern façade shall be constructed with obscure material to a minimum height of 1.6m and is to be fixed below 1.6m from the finished floor level.

3. The southern side of the proposed raised outdoor living area (as marked in

red) is to be screened to a height of 1.6m from the finished floor level.

4. The sill level of the upper floor sitting room window (as marked in red) is to be raised to a height of 1.6m above finished floor level.

37

5. All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable and non-permeable areas, shall be contained onsite by draining to soak-wells of

adequate capacity to contain runoff from a 20 year recurrent storm event. Soak-wells shall be a minimum capacity of 1.0m3 for every 80m2 of calculated

surface area of the development.

6. All existing and proposed fencing, visual privacy screens and obscure glass

panels to Major Openings and/or Active Habitable Spaces, shown on the approved drawings and/or required as per planning condition(s), shall

prevent overlooking in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-Codes). The structure(s) shall be installed and remain in place permanently, unless otherwise approved by the

City.


1. All internal water closets and ensuites without fixed or permanent window

access to outside air or which open onto a hall, passage, hobby or staircase, shall be serviced by a mechanical ventilation exhaust system which is

ducted to outside air, with a minimum rate of air change equal to or greater than 25 litres / second.

2. All downpipes from guttering shall be connected so as to discharge into drains, which shall empty into a soak-well; and each soak-well shall be located at least 1.8m from any building, and at least 1.8m from the boundary

of the block.

3. The applicant is advised to consult the City’s Visual and Acoustic Privacy Advisory Information in relation to locating any mechanical equipment (e.g. air-conditioner, swimming pool or spa) such that noise, vibration and visual

impacts on neighbours are mitigated. The City does not recommend installing any equipment near a property boundary where it is likely that

noise will intrude upon neighbours.

Prior to selecting a location for an air-conditioner, the applicant is advised to

consult the online fairair noise calculator at www.fairair.com.au and use this as a guide to prevent noise affecting neighbouring properties.

Prior to installing mechanical equipment, the applicant is advised to consult neighbours, and if necessary, take measures to suppress noise.

4. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of

two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall lapse

and be of no further effect.

1.2 Strategic Plan


2.0 Background


38

Property address (Lot 1) No. 88 Watkins Road Dalkeith (the site)

Lot area 1127m2 Zoning / Reserve /

Density Code

MRS Urban

TPS2 Residential R12.5

The subject site has frontage to Watkins Road to the north, and is located in the City’s Scheme Controlled Development Area (CDA). The scheme has delineated the western boundary as the ‘rear’ in accordance with the Scheme, as opposed to the rear

setback being taken the boundary opposite the front.

The site currently features a two storey dwelling and ancillary accommodation unit.

The proposed additions are to be constructed to the south west corner of the dwelling in a currently vacant area. In 2010, the City approved ground floor additions in the same location which were not constructed.


Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Planning Act).









Two-storey notification sign: 26 November – 10 December 2014

Community consultation period: 20 November 2014 – 11 December 2014

Response: The City received four (4) letters which objected to

proposed variations and raised other issues.


The proposal is for works to be constructed on a private lot, and therefore has no budget or financial implications for the City.

5.0 Risk Management

Not applicable.

39

6.0 Discussion

The proposal involves the construction of additions (two storeys) to single house on the site, as depicted in the submitted plans (attachment 2). In addition, the Applicant’s report describes the proposal in more detail (attachment 3).

The proposal involves the addition of a bedroom, walk-in-robe, ensuites and decking to the ground floor, and the addition of a sun room and sitting room to the upper floor.

Proposed variations to the planning requirements are as follows:

i) The proposal involves greater than 0.5m of fill (the proposed raised outdoor living area adjacent to the ground floor additions);

j) The raised outdoor living area adjacent to the southern boundary is to be set back 1m from this boundary in lieu of 2m; and

k) The proposed bedroom, deck, raised outdoor living area, sun room and sitting room have not been set back or screened in accordance with the R-

Code visual privacy requirements.

In addition, consultation with the community resulted in four responses being received, which objected to aspects of the proposed development. The following design principle

assessment of the proposed variations has taken into account the comments received.


6.1.1 Variation clauses

a. Development within the CDA

The subject site is located within the Scheme ‘Controlled Development Area’, and is therefore subject to requirements in relation to the amenity of the surrounding area.

Clauses 5.10.2 – 5.10.3 of the Scheme require the following (emphasis added):

“…(a) the Council shall consider the effect of the development on the amenity of the surrounding area, the visual effect of the development as perceived

from the Swan River and the effect on the amenity of the parks and recreation reserves in that area…;

(b) …the applicant shall furnish such further information, as deemed

necessary…; (c) …the amenity of the area may be detrimentally affected by the proposal.

Within a Controlled Development Area the following provisions shall apply:-

(a) the Council shall not permit the ground level of any portion of any lot to be raised by an amount greater than 0.5m above natural ground level whether

by means of a retaining wall or not, unless it is satisfied that such changes in level will not unduly affect the amenity of the area including amenity of neighbouring properties.

40

(b) …rear setback applicable to boundaries of lots so delineated shall be 7.5m. Where the 7.5m setback is a front boundary the provisions of clause 5.3.3

(a) shall apply and the setback shall be 9.0m unless varied by Council.”

The following is considered in response to the abovementioned Scheme provisions:

The proposed development will be consistent with the expected land use and

built form for the locality when viewed from the river, and is not readily visible from parks and recreation reserves.

With regard to the amenity of the surrounding area, the development is not considered to be inconsistent with the expected built form of the locality.

The proposal complies with the 7.5m ‘rear’ setback to the west, as delineated in the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 2. The proposal originally involves stairs to access the proposed decking within the 7.5m setback, however the

proposal was amended to comply.

Although the proposal involves greater than 0.5m of fill (~1.6m proposed), it is

considered that this fill will not have a significant adverse affect upon the amenity of the area & neighbouring properties for the following reasons:

o The raised area will be screened by the existing vegetation along the

southern boundary; o In order to further maintain the privacy of adjacent residences, the

southern side of this structure is to be screened as per the recommended conditions; and

o In 2010, the City previously approved a similar deck as the structure was

to be screened by the existing vegetation along the southern boundary.

In this instance, it is considered that this aspect of the proposal complies with the listed Scheme provisions, and is therefore supported by the City.

b. Visual Privacy

The proposal involves several variations to the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes, as the proposed additions are going to be raised above the natural ground

level of the site and have not been set back or screened in accordance with the relevant R-Codes requirements.

Design principles P1.1 – 1.2 of the R-Codes require the following (emphasis added):

“Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through:

building layout and location;

design of major openings;

landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or

location of screening devices.

Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as:

offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is

oblique rather than direct;

building to the boundary where appropriate;

setting back the first floor from the side boundary;

41

providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or

screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber

screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters).”

Due to the high number of visual privacy variations proposed, they are individually discussed below:

Proposed Variation Administration Response

Deck (Ground

Floor) Although this deck has been set back from the western

boundary in accordance with the R-Codes requirements (7.5m), there is oblique overlooking to the south. In

addition, the recommended conditions involve the screening of the southern side of the raised outdoor living area, which will also serve to limit direct overlooking to the

south from the proposed deck. It is considered that the proposed decking meets the relevant design principles,

subject to the recommended conditions. Vegetation to the southern boundary of the lot will also

serve to limit overlooking. Bedroom (Ground

Floor) This bedroom window has not been screened or set back

from the southern boundary 4.5m as per the R-Codes deemed-to-comply requirements. As above, the

recommended screening and existing vegetation will serve to limit overlooking. Accordingly it is considered that this structure meets the listed design principles.

Raised Outdoor

Living Area (Ground Floor)

This structure has been raised a maximum of 1.6m above

natural ground level and is not proposed to be screened or set back from the southern property boundary. As above, the recommended screening and existing vegetation will serve

to limit overlooking. Accordingly it is considered that this structure meets the listed design principles.

Sun Room (Upper Floor)

The applicant has noted that the existing vegetation to the southern boundary will prevent overlooking into the adjacent

residence to the south, however it is considered that this vegetation will not be sufficient to limit overlooking from the

upper floor of the additions into the rear outdoor living area of the rear property, which is located adjacent to No. 88 Watkins Road.

Accordingly, it is recommended that this window be obscured and screened to limit overlooking. In addition, the

City received a response objecting to this proposed variation.

The remaining overlooking variation from the west-facing window to the south is oblique, and is therefore considered

to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Sitting Room (Upper Floor)

The proposed window has a finished sill height 0.6m below the level required to be considered a non-major opening

42

under the R-Codes. Accordingly, it is recommended that

this window be raised or otherwise screened in order to comply.

It is considered that the development, as proposed, does not meet the relevant design

principles of the R-Codes in relation to the protection of the visual privacy of adjacent properties. Accordingly, it is suggested that the proposal be amended via the recommended conditions in order to further safeguard the visual privacy and

residential amenity of surrounding residences. Although the trees to the southern boundary will aid in limiting overlooking, their continued existence cannot be

guaranteed. It is recommended that the relevant windows and screens be adequately screened to protect the privacy of adjacent residences.

c. Wall Setbacks – Retaining Walls

The proposal involves a retaining wall (supporting the raised outdoor living area) which has not been set back in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the

R-Codes. A setback of 2m would be required, while the structure is proposed to be located 1m from the boundary. Accordingly the proposal is to be assessed against the relevant design principles. Design principle of the P8 R-Codes requires the following

(emphasis added):

“Retaining walls that result in land which can be effectively used for the benefit of residents and do not detrimentally affect adjoining properties and are designed, engineered and landscaped having due regard to clauses 5.3.7 (site works, see

below) and 5.4.1 (visual privacy).”

The following is considered in response to the abovementioned design principle:

The retaining walls will allow for the effective use of space as if this land were

to be lowered, it would not be readily accessible from the dwelling and less likely to be used for outdoor pursuits.

It is recommended that the raised area be screened in order to limit overlooking to the south, and the existing vegetation to the southern boundary will also aid

in screening this structure.

With regard to the proposed site works (fill), this aspect of the proposal complies with the relevant R-Codes requirement.

Given the above, the amenity of adjoining neighbours and the surrounding area is not considered to be significantly adversely affected by this aspect of the

development.

In this instance, it is considered that this section of the proposal complies with the design principles, subject to the recommended conditions and therefore is supported by the City.

d. Wall Setbacks – South (Upper Floor)

The proposed upper floor to the dwelling is to be set back 3.45m from the southern boundary, however a setback of 5.4m is required by the R-Codes lot boundary setback

43

provisions. Accordingly, the proposal is to be assessed against the design principles of the R-Codes which are as follows:





minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.”

It is considered that the proposed structures bulk and impact upon sunlight and

ventilation are typical, however the impact upon visual privacy will be adverse to the residential amenity of adjacent properties. Accordingly it is recommended that the upper floor windows along the southern façade of the extension be obscured or

screened to prevent overlooking. If this recommendation is adopted, it will have the additional effect of turning ‘major openings’ into ‘non-major openings’ onto habitable

rooms, and will result in a reduced setback requirement of 2.2m. Accordingly it is considered that, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal

complies with the intent of the R-Codes design principles and can be supported.


6.2.1 Consideration of applications – CDA

Scheme clause 6.4.2 (consideration of applications) states the following (emphasis added):

“In respect of an application for planning approval made under Clause 6.3 (includes sites within the CDA) the applicant shall satisfy….

(a) the nature and intensity of the proposed use or development will not

detrimentally affect the locality in terms of its environmental impact by way of its hours of operation, illumination, emission of any kind and the effect on any use or development within the locality;

(b) the plot ratio, site coverage, setbacks, height, landscaping and parking provisions are in keeping with the general character of the locality;

(c) the form, layout, appearance and material of any building is in keeping with the existing character of the locality;

(d) the vehicular and pedestrian access, including on-site circulation and

provision for deliveries will not create any danger; (e) the vehicle flows to and from the subject land will not be disruptive to existing

traffic movements or circulation patterns; (f) that any traffic generated must be capable of being accommodated within

existing streets;

(g) that the development or use will not place excessive loads on existing or projected essential services;

(h) the proposed development or use is necessary to service the needs of the

district's residential population and is otherwise generally in keeping with the Council's Town Planning intentions for the locality;

44

(i) the desirability or preserving (or replacing) existing trees and other vegetation contributing to the amenity or significant of the locality; and

(j) any other matter considered relevant by Council.”

The following is considered in response:

The nature and intensity of the proposal (hours of operation, illumination,

emission and the effect the locality) will be typical for the locality and residential development generally.

The proposal complies with the relevant requirements with regard to plot ratio, site cover, lot boundary setbacks, building height, landscaping and

parking provision.

The form of the development will be consistent with the appearance of the existing dwelling and not out of character with the locality.

There are no proposed changes to site access involved with this development.

Loads on essential services will be typical.

The proposal is typical, and will service the needs of the district's residential

population and meet the intentions for the locality.

The proposal involves maintaining existing vegetation.

No other relevant issues have been identified.

Accordingly, this section of the proposal is supported by the City, subject to the recommended conditions.



“…Council may refuse to approve any development if in its opinion the development would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area having regard to the likely effect on the locality in terms of the external appearance of the

development, traffic congestion and hazard, noise or any other factor inconsistent with the use for which the lot is zoned.”

In response, it is considered that the proposed development does not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area, subject to the recommended conditions which will maintain the visual privacy of adjacent properties. The external appearance of the

development is contemporary; and traffic congestion and noise will be typical.

Accordingly, this section of the proposal is supported by the City, subject to the

recommended conditions.



“The Council may determine an application by granting approval, refusing approval or granting approval subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, having regard to the

orderly and proper planning of the area.”

45

In response, the proposal complies with Scheme provisions, with some discretionary variations which are justified (for the aforementioned reasons). Accordingly, this

section of the proposal represents orderly and proper planning, and is supported by the City, subject to the recommended conditions.

6.3 Submissions

Below is a summary of comments received from the neighbour consultation, which have been taken into account in the Discussion section of the report.

Summary of comments received

Issue: The proposed fill greater than 0.5m from NGL will negatively impact the

views of the river from adjacent properties & devalue these properties. Administration Comment:

The extension is to be built at the same level as the existing dwelling, and the proposed area of fill will be on the ground floor. With regard to the preservation of

views, unfortunately they are not specifically preserved within the requirements of the R-Codes. The additions will be located behind the existing house when viewed

from the east, and will line up with the existing house when viewed from the south. Issue: The proposed extension will block views of the river. Administration Comment:

The applicant has noted that the adjacent dwellings to the east are at a higher elevation and any impact upon their views will be minimised by this difference in levels. As noted above, unfortunately the City cannot directly protect views of

significance through the provisions of the R-Codes.

Issue: The proposed extension will overlook the main living areas and outdoor

living areas of adjacent residences Administration Comment:

It is agreed that those raised windows on the southern face of the extension present a concern with regard to their impact on visual privacy. Accordingly it is

recommended that conditions be applied to the approval of the extension to limit this impact. With regard to overlooking towards the west, as the proposal involves

a ~7.5m setback from this boundary, these additions comply with the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. Issue: The proposed overshadow from the proposed extension will overshadow

outdoor living areas on the adjacent property. Administration Comment:

The proposal complies with the relevant deemed-to-comply requirement of the R-

Codes with regard to overshadowing adjacent lots, with a maximum of 19% overshadow. The majority of shade at midwinter will fall over the roof of the adjacent property. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

The applicant has provided further responses to the concerns which have been raised by the submitters (refer to attachment 3). In addition, the property landowner has also

provided a response to these concerns (refer to attachment 4).

The City received a request for further information in relation to the year-round impact

of overshadow on adjacent properties. The applicant provided the following response:

46

“With regards to the year-round impact of overshadowing, the calculation at midday on 21 June is widely used as a worst-case scenario in terms of impact

on adjoining lots. The resulting shadow extends an average of 7m into the southern lot at this time of year and would shift from west to east over the course

of the day. At the other end of the spectrum, a shadow cast at midday on 21 Dec falls entirely within the subject lot.”

7.0 Conclusion

The proposal is for two storey additions and decking to an existing two storey house

on Watkins Road Dalkeith. The proposal involves several variations to the planning requirements which are either justified against the relevant design principles of the R-

Codes, or considered to comply if suitably modified by the recommended conditions.

Accordingly, the application is recommended to the Council for approval with conditions.

8.0 Attachments

1. Locality Plan 2. Proposal Plans 3. Applicant’s Submission

4. Owner’s Submission

47

PD05.15 (Lot 6) No. 6/29 Strickland Street Mt

Claremont – Proposed Extended Trading

Hours to Deli Chicchi



Applicant Deli Chicchi

Landowner T J & S V Church

Officer Andrew Gizariotis– Planning Consultant

Director Peter Mickleson – Planning & Development

Director

Signature File Reference DA2014/448 – ST8/6

Previous Item E9.04 - OCM 24 February 2004 - Proposed change of use

from hardware store to a café (restaurant) - Approved


The application seeks approval to extend the trading hours of the existing café (Deli

Chicchi) operating from 6/29 Strickland Street, Mount Claremont.

The existing approval allows Deli Chicchi to trade every day between 7am and 7pm.

The application seeks approval to extend the closing time from 7pm to 8pm (i.e. an

extra hour).

The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours and four objections were

received. The objections primarily related to parking, noise and the restaurant licence

trading conditions.

In accordance with delegation 6A, the Council’s determination is required as neighbour

objections have been received and have not been resolved.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to a number of conditions.


Council approves the application for extended trading hours to Deli Chicchi at

(Lot 6) No. 6/29 Strickland Street Mt Claremont, in accordance with the

application received on 11 November 2014, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the approval.

2. No additional seating is permitted as part of this approval.

48

3. The trading hours are limited to every day between 7am and 8pm.

4. No patrons are to be on the premises outside of the approved trading hours.

5. Prior to commencement of the extended trading hours:

a. The applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the

acoustic report, dated 23 January 2015 and confirm this in writing to the

City’s Health Section, once completed;(refer to advice note 2)

b. The applicant shall not operate within the additional hour of trade,

unless condition 5(a) has been fulfilled and the applicant engages the

services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of

the City, who produces an acoustic report which demonstrates

compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations

1997; and

c. Should the City or an acoustic consultant engaged by the City find that

noise emitted by Deli Chicchi does not comply with the Environmental

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the City may rescind approval of

the additional hour of trade, aside from any action it is authorised to

take under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Advice Notes specific to this proposal:

1. The applicant/owner is reminded of the obligations of the existing restaurant

licence issued by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, which

restricts the sale of liquor beyond 7pm.

2. The acoustic engineers recommendations referenced in condition 5a may

require a Building Permit. Please contact the City’s Building Department on

9273 3500 for further information.

3. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of

two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not

substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall


1.2 Strategic Plan


2.0 Background

Property address (Lot 6) No. 6/29 Strickland Street Mt Claremont (the

site)

Lot area Total lot area = 2023m2, Deli Chicchi area = 132m2

49

Zoning /

Density Code

MRS Urban

TPS2 Retail Shopping with an Additional Use of ‘Residential

R20’

The subject site is located on the corner of Strickland Street and Asquith Street, as

seen in the location plans below.

Figure 1 – Location Plan

Subject Site

50

Figure 2 – Detailed Location Plan


The original change of use and alfresco dining was approved by Council on

24 February 2004. Whilst the approval did not specifically impose conditions limiting

trading hours, the application specified that trading would be limited to every day

between 7am and 7pm.







3.2 How and when was the community consulted? The application was advertised to affected neighbours and the City received four (4) objections, three (3) letters of support and a petition was received on 5 November

2014 signed by approximately 460 members of the community in support of the extended trading hours.

Subject Site

Deli Chicchi

51

The letters of support are summarised for the purpose of this report, but a full copy of

the submissions form part of the separate attachments provided to elected members:

1. People have to travel a distance to find a good restaurant. The approval would provide a local restaurant to service the community.

2. The restaurant is a neighbourhood hub and is a vibrant use that offers something for everyone.

3. We have never had any noise or social issues as a result of the restaurant and we do not expect that to change with the extended trading hours.

4. The existing closing time is impractical, as it is difficult for working patrons to arrive at the restaurant on time to enjoy a meal.

The objections are summarised for the purpose of this report, but a full copy of the objections form part of the separate attachments provided to elected members:

1. The extended trading hours are inconsistent with the restaurant licence trading

hours granted by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (‘the

Department’). 2. The extended trading hours will impact on the privacy of the neighbourhood.

3. The extended trading hours will impact on the quiet of the neighbourhood. 4. The extended trading hours will increase traffic in the neighbourhood. 5. The extended trading hours will create parking issues.

6. The extended trading hours are contrary to the original intent of the approval from the Department.

7. The existing alfresco area contains more than five tables and 20 chairs, as approved by the Department.

The applicant provided the following response regarding the neighbours’ objections. Note that the applicant’s response is summarised for the purpose of this report, but a

full copy of the response forms part of the separate attachments provided to elected members:

1. The Department advised that under the Liquor Control Act of 1988 that section 112, subsection (a) (ii) allows 30 minutes for alcohol to be consumed after the

licensed hours. The extended trading hours are proposed so that Deli Chicchi can serve food and liquor until 7pm, and then allow reasonable time for the purchase to be consumed.

2. A study of the local demographics finds that Deli Chicchi is located within an affluent area predominantly occupied by professional and management

workers. The demographics clearly show that local people are not the type to adversely affect the amenity of the locality because they have been allowed to attend a restaurant, possibly until 8pm.

3. In the two and a half years in business there has only ever been one noise complaint, due to a musician playing on a Sunday afternoon. All efforts have

been made to ensure noise is kept to a minimum, and there is only ever quiet background music ever played inside the premises.

52

4. All other businesses nearby are closed between 7pm and 8pm, so there will be minimal traffic resulting from the proposal. Many of the customers walk to the

café and this will not change. 5. All other businesses nearby are closed between 7pm and 8pm, so there will be

ample parking available for the patrons. 6. Hours are in line with the Department, as service will stop at 7pm and liquor be

finished by 7:30pm in accordance with the Liquor Control Act 1988

7. The existing area approved by the department of liquor is the area marked by the City and designated as the alfresco area. This only has a maximum of 5

tables and 20 chairs. This area is not to be confused with small tables and chairs underneath the balcony, which are non-alcohol areas and are not part of the public licensed alfresco area.

The key matters are discussed in section 6.0 of this report.


The proposal relates to private property, and therefore has no budget or financial

implications for the City.

5.0 Risk Management

Not applicable.

6.0 Discussion

The application seeks approval to extend the trading hours of the existing café (Deli

Chicchi) operating from 6/29 Strickland Street, Mount Claremont.

Whilst the original approval did not specifically impose conditions limiting trading

hours, the application specified that trading hours would be limited to every day

between 7am and 7pm. The original approval was issued on this basis.

The applicant has indicated that the current trading hours restrict dinner service, as

patrons are required to be seated for a meal by 6pm in order to vacate the premises

by 7pm. The 6pm seating is not always achievable by patrons due to work

commitments.

The purpose of the extended trading hours is to allow dinner service to commence at

7pm, to allow working patrons to arrive, be seated and enjoy a leisurely meal before

vacating the restaurant at 8pm.

6.1 Consultation

The consultation period resulted in four (4) objections to the application. The objections related to:

53

1. Inconsistency with the restaurant licence 2. Privacy

3. Noise 4. Traffic/Parking

5. Alfresco seating In response to the neighbours’ submissions, administration considers the following:

Inconsistency with the restaurant licence

The applicant is required to comply with the terms of the restaurant licence and the planning approval, regardless of whether the terms of these documents align. The

restaurant licence controls the sale and consumption of liquor, whereas the planning approval controls the use and operation of the restaurant.

The existing restaurant licence allows Deli Chicchi to sell liquor until 7pm and for the liquor to be consumed on the premises by 7:30pm.

The approval of the subject planning application would allow Deli Chicchi to trade unti l

8pm. Whilst this would not align with the hours of the restaurant licence, the applicant will still not be able to sell liquor beyond 7:00pm.

Should the application be approved, it is recommended that an advice note be applied to the approval to remind the applicant of their obligations under the restaurant licence

and Liquor Control Act. Privacy

The neighbours and applicants comments are noted. Whilst it is noted that the

approval of the extended trading hours would result in more people in the area, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the privacy of the neighbouring residents would be adversely affected by the extended trading hour.

Noise

The applicant engaged an acoustic engineer to undertake a noise assessment for the

proposed additional hour of trade. An acoustic report was provided to the City,

comparing those noise measurements with the governing Environmental Protection

(Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations). The Regulations require that noise

complies with certain levels when received at surrounding premises. In this case, the

surrounding premises of concern are residential properties which are considered

‘noise sensitive premises’. Where the acoustic report has identified non-compliant

noise, it provides recommendations by way of noise reduction measures, to achieve

compliance.

The acoustic report identifies that noise (for a worst case scenario) generated by Deli

Chicchi (café), can comply with the Regulation levels during the additional hour of

54

trade sought, if certain measures are undertaken. These measures are summarised

as follows:

1. A rubber/vinyl mat (at least 3mm thick) be placed on the metal bench where the

coffee machine is located to dampen vibrations of the group head hitting the

table. Also it is recommended that that a rubber/vinyl material be moulded on

the ‘lip’ of the metal coffee bin to dampen the impact of the group head when it

is struck;

2. During the washing of cutlery it is recommended to pour cutlery onto the

washing tray from the closest possible distance while spreading it across the

tray. This is to reduce the cutlery ‘clanging’ together.

3. A plastic strip curtain is to be installed at the entrance of the café, to further

absorb and attenuate sound energy from the café.

In order to ensure that the development implements these measures, conditions should be applied to the approval requiring the acoustic engineers recommendations to be undertaken prior to commencement of the extended trading hours, and for a

second acoustic report to be submitted once the recommendations have been undertaken to certify that the café meets the noise regulations.

Traffic/Parking

There are no anticipated traffic/parking issues resulting from the extended trading hours, as the parking requirement doesn’t alter based on trading hours. Rather, the parking requirement is calculated based on the number of seats or floor area of the

restaurant - both of which have not changed as part of the application.

It is further noted that the adjacent businesses are typical shops which close at 5pm. Given that the extended trading hours are in the evening (i.e. 7pm - 8pm), patrons of the restaurant would be able to utilise other vacant parking bays.

Accordingly, the extended trading hours are not considered to adversely impact on existing traffic/parking.

Alfresco seating

A site visit on 2 October 2014 confirmed that the alfresco seating is consistent with the City’s original approval (i.e. a maximum of five tables and 20 seats). It is noted that

there is some seating provided adjacent to the building façade which is located on private property and is not considered as part of the alfresco seating area.

6.2 Assessment

The proposed extended trading hours relates to a restaurant land use, which is

designated an ‘AA’ symbol on ‘Table 1 – Use Class Table’ of Town Planning Scheme

No. 2.

55

The ‘AA’ symbol means that the use in not permitted unless approval is granted by the

Council, after following the special procedures specified in cl. 6.3 of TPS2, and after

taking into account the considerations specified in cl. 6.4 of TPS2.

In response to the requirements of TPS2, administration considers the following:

Requirement

“6.4.2 (a) the nature and intensity of the proposed use or development will not detrimentally

affect the locality in terms of its environmental impact by way of its hours of operation,

illumination, emission of any kind and the effect on any use or development within the

locality”.

Comment

The extended trading hours do not significantly intensify the trading conditions of the existing restaurant, as they are sought in order to provide patrons with additional time

to finish their meal. If the extended trading hours were sought to provide a second round of dinner service,

this would result in greater traffic movements and require further consideration due to the potential for greater amenity impacts.

Given that the extended trading hours do not significantly alter the nature of the existing restaurant, the hours of operation, illumination and emissions are not

considered to detrimentally affect the locality.

Accordingly, the extended trading hours are considered to satisfy sub-cl. 6.4.2 (a) of TPS2.

Requirement “6.4.2 (e) the vehicle flows to and from the subject land will not be disruptive to existing

traffic movements or circulation patterns; and

6.4.2 (f) that any traffic generated must be capable of being accommodated within existing

streets”.

Comment

Strickland Street is designated an ‘Access Road’ on the City’s road hierarchy. In accordance with Main Roads WA road type criteria, access roads are not

recommended to cater for more than 3,000 vehicle trips per day. According to the City’s most recent traffic count data for Strickland Street (in 2007),

Strickland Street experiences an average weekday traffic (‘AWDT’) count of 773 vehicle trips.

56

The extended trading hours will not increase the AWDT to over 3,000 trips, nor will they generate such traffic to adversely impact on traffic movements within the existing

local road network.

Accordingly, the extended trading hours are considered to satisfy sub-cls. 6.4.2 (e) and (f) of TPS2.

Requirement “5.5.1 Without limiting the generality of Clause 6.5 the Council may refuse to approve any development if in its opinion the development would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area having regard to the likely effect on the locality in terms of the external appearance of the development, traffic congestion and hazard, noise or any factor inconsistent with the use for which the lot is zoned.”

Comment

As detailed above and in section ‘6.1 - Consultation’, the proposed extended trading

hours are not considered to adversely affect the locality in regard to traffic or noise. Further, the external appearance and land use of the restaurant are not altering as

part of the application. Accordingly, the extended trading hours are considered to satisfy sub-cl. 5.5.1 of

TPS2.

Requirement

“6.5.1 The Council may determine an application by granting approval, refusing approval or granting approval subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, having regard to the orderly and proper planning of the area.”

Comment The property is located within a Retail Shopping zone and forms part of an existing

shopping complex.

The extended trading hours are considered to represent orderly and proper planning as the use and extended trading hours provide a service to local residents, which is consistent with the intent of TPS2.

The extended trading hours (until 8pm) are not considered unreasonable and provide

the added benefit of improving passive and active surveillance of the neighbouring residential properties.

Accordingly, the extended trading hours are considered to satisfy sub-cl. 6.5.1 of TPS2.

57

7.0 Conclusion

The proposed extended trading hours to Deli Chicchi at 6/29 Strickland Street, Mt

Claremont are considered to satisfy the relevant amenity provisions of TPS2 and, with

the modifications recommended by the Acoustic Engineer, will ensure that the

proposal does not adversely impact on the adjoining properties in regard to noise.

Accordingly, the application is recommended to the Council for approval with

conditions.

8.0 Attachments

1. Site Plan

58

PD06.15 Shenton Park Hospital Redevelopment - Submission



Applicant City of Nedlands

Owner Royal Perth Hospital Shenton Campus

Officer Peter Mickleson – Planning & Development

Director Peter Mickleson – Planning & Development

Director Signature

File Reference PLAN-SP-00003

Previous Item N/A

1.0 Executive Summary The public and stakeholders are being asked to comment on the options put forward by Landcorp for the re-development of the former Shenton Park hospital.

Two options have been put forward and the Council has the opportunity to make a

submission as to which of these options it prefers.

1.1 Recommendation to Committee Council

1. Supports Option A of the draft Masterplan for the re-development of Shenton

Park Hospital; or

2. Supports Option B of the draft Masterplan for the re-development of Shenton Park Hospital.

1.2 Strategic Community Plan


Land use planning is an important component of the natural and built environment. Council has the opportunity to influence land use outcomes by participating in and making comments on proposals as they are developed.

KFA: Governance and Civic Leadership

Part of the Council’s leadership role is to comment on and influence the final outcomes of developments occurring within the City.

59

2.0 Background

Property address Lot 3240 Selby Street, Shenton Park

Lot area 16 hectares

Zoning: Not zoned

Metropolitan Region Scheme Public Purpose - Hospital

Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Public Purpose - Hospital

Figure 1 – Site Area


N/A


City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2

Metropolitan Regional Scheme



Landcorp are seeking comment from the community. Council now has the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal. While feedback is sought by the end of January

Lemnos Street

Be

db

roo

k P

lace

Selb

y S

tre

et

60

2015 Landcorp have agreed to receiving comments from the Council after its February 2015 Council meeting.

Required by legislation: Yes No X

Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No X


Within current approved budget: Yes X No

Requires further budget consideration: Yes No X

5.0 Risk management No risk to Council if it does or does not make a submission.

6.0 Discussion Plans for a new community at the former hospital are well underway with LandCorp

already working closely with local residents and stakeholders to identify what they value about the site and how they can shape the future redevelopment.

To date, LandCorp has engaged with a wide range of the community, which has included:

Interviewing key stakeholder groups

A 600 person survey A community forum

Establishing a Community Reference Group

Many people have shared a desire for a master plan which considers the site’s heritage, public space, mature trees, gardens, bushland, traffic management,

integration with surrounding areas including public transport and access to amenities. As well as considerations for a range of housing types to ensure generational and affordable living is achieved through a variety of density options.

Developing a master plan for this site is a complex balancing act that has to take into

account community feedback, State and Local Government policies and build on existing assets in order to create a new urban future for this former hospital site.

Options A & B (see Attachment 1) of the draft master plan have been prepared along

with a series of precinct plans, which outline the different characteristics of the site and demonstrate the proposed land uses; density options; pedestrian and cycling connections; heritage interpretation and the provision for open space including the

retention of exisiting habitat - mature trees; gardens and bushland.

The main difference between the two options is the treatment of the bush land on the Western boundary of the site.

http://www.haveyoursay.landcorp.com.au/shenton-park-redevelopment/photos/14835

http://www.haveyoursay.landcorp.com.au/shenton-park-redevelopment/photos

61

Option A provides for a bush land “corridor” adjacent to the entire Western boundary which may be more suitable for wildlife. It could also result in a wider corridor when

combined with the rear setbacks of properties to the West. An existing carpark adjacent to the Western boundary would need to be removed and vegetated. This

option sees a number of significant trees lost to buildings on sites 13, 14 and 15. Option B creates a “dog-leg” in the vegetated corridor with building adjacent to most

of the Western boundary. Any benefits of rear setbacks on properties to the West adding to the vegetated corridor are not realised with this option. This option does see

a number of existing significant trees being retained. Council are also reminded that this site, and other land in the vicinity, is proposed to

be transferred to the new City of Subiaco on 1 July 2015.

7.0 Conclusion

Council has the opportunity to indicate to Landcorp which of the two options it prefers for the re-development of the Shenton Park Hospital site.

8.0 Attachments

1. Draft Master Plan Options

62

PD07.15 Development Assessment Panels – City of Nedlands Nomination of Members




Officer Phoebe Huigens, Policy & Projects Officer

Director Peter Mickleson, Director Planning & Development

Director Signature

File Reference PLAN-007666

Previous Item Item 13.5, 26 February 2013, Development Assessment

Panels – City of Nedlands Nomination of Members


Council is required to nominate two local members and two alternate local members

to sit on the Development Assessment Panel for the next two year term, expiring on 26 April 2017. Council’s recommendation must be forwarded to the Department of Planning by no later than Friday 27 February 2015.

1.1 Recommendation to Committee Council

1. Approves the nomination of two (2) members (_______ & _______); and 2. Submits its Recommendation to the Department of Planning by 27

February 2015.

1.2 Strategic Plan


Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) intend to enhance planning expertise in the decision making involved in development applications for complex developments.

2.0 Background Development Assessment Panels were introduced by the Department of Planning

during 2011 to assist with decision making involved with complex development applications.

Each DAP consists of three specialist members, one of which is the presiding member, and two local government members. This mix of local representatives and

63

independent experts aims to balance the technical aspects of development with local concerns and interests.

Appointment of the City’s current DAP members, (His Worship the Mayor Max Hipkins

and Councillor Nigel Shaw as local members, and Councillor Hassell as alternate member), expire on 26 April 2015.

The City is required to nominate two local members and two alternate local members to sit on the DAP for the next two year term, expiring on 26 April 2017. Current members are eligible for re-consideration.

2.1 Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Item 13.5, 26 February 2013, Development Assessment Panels – City of Nedlands

Nomination of Members.


Regulation 26 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels)

Regulations 2011 requires the City to nominate four elected members of the Council to sit on the local Development Assessment Panel.

3.0 Consultation

Required by legislation: Yes No Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

4.0 Budget/Financial Implications

Within current approved budget: Yes No Requires further budget consideration: Yes No

5.0 Risk Management

Should the Council fail to nominate four elected members and advise the Department of Planning of these nomination by 27 February 2015, the City would be in

contravention of the Planning & Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations.

Should the Council fail to nominate members and forward its recommendation to Department, the Minister has the power to appoint two non-Councillors from the

community to represent the local community on that DAP.

6.0 Discussion

Appointment of the City’s current DAP members, (His Worship the Mayor Max Hipkins and Councillor Nigel Shaw as local members, and Councillor Hassell as alternate member), expire on 26 April 2015.

64

The City is required to nominate two local members and two alternate local members to sit on the DAP for the next two year term, expiring on 26 April 2017. Current members are eligible for re-consideration.

The City is required submit its recommendation for nominations to the Department of Planning by Friday 27 February 2015.

After receiving the City’s recommendation, the Minister for Planning will consider and appoint all nominees.

Appointees will be required to undergo mandatory training prior to sit on a DAP.

7.0 Conclusion

Council is required to nominate two local members and two alternate local members to sit on the DAP for the next two year term, expiring on 26 April 2017. Council’s

recommendation must be forwarded to the Department of Planning by no later than Friday 27 February 2015.

8.0 Attachments

NIL

65

PD08.15 Watkins Road Foreshore Erosion

Control Funding

Committee February 10 2015

Council February 24 2015


Officer Vicki Shannon

Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development

Director Signature

File Reference N/A-GRA-00007

Previous Item N/A


The City was successful in obtaining matching funding through the Swan River Trust’s

Riverbank Grants Program. This agreement aims to address increasing erosion of the Swan River Foreshore adjacent to Watkins Road. In 2012 the same project was

applied for unsuccessfully. The Watkins Road foreshore erosion control project will utilise the same successful

treatment methods that were used to address foreshore erosion at Waratah Place and Point Resolution Reserve. These projects were also funded through the Swan River

Trusts Riverbank Grants program. As the project involves foreshore stabilisation the majority of the work needs to be

undertaken in summer when tides are low. Whilst no funds were allocated for the project in the 2014/15 budget there is opportunity to reallocate $44,000 (ex GST) from

savings realised in the Parks Services capital budget. There is unspent Tawarri Jetty funds (excluding money held in reserve) available to reallocate to this project. It is therefore recommended to approve the reallocation of this funding prior to the midyear

budget being finalised in order to progress this project within appropriate time frames.

1.1 Recommendation to Committee Council:

1. Approves the reallocation of $44,000 (ex GST) to undertake the Watkins Road

Foreshore Erosion Control project in the 2014/15 budget.

1.2 Strategic Plan

66

KFA Natural and Built Environment

This report addresses the Key Focus Area of Natural and Built Environment as it

contributes directly to enhanced environmental protection. KFA Governance and Civic Leadership

This report addresses the Key Focus Area of Governance and Civic Leadership as it contributes to the sustainable management of City assets and finances.

2.0 Background The Swan River Foreshore adjacent to Watkins Road is suffering from erosion especially following storm events. The majority of foreshore vegetation that provides

natural protection of the foreshore has been lost and the embankment and foreshore is increasingly being eroded by tides, wave action and storm events. If mitigation

measures are not undertaken in the near future ongoing shoreline regression will occur. This will threaten and ultimately damage adjacent infrastructure and will likely require more costly erosion control measures.

The Swan River Trust has provided $28,120 (ex GST) for the Watkins Road foreshore

erosion control project through the 2014/15 Riverbank Grants Program. In 2012 the same project was applied for through the Riverbank Grants program unsuccessfully.


N/A


Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006

City of Nedlands Greenways Policy

3.0 Community Consultation The community engagement plan developed for this project determined that the level

of community engagement required for this project was an inform approach. The installation of onsite signage and letter box drops to adjacent residents has been

undertaken and information through advertising will be undertaken once the project commences. These are the same consultation methods that were used for the Waratah Place and Point Resolution erosion control projects.

There was only feedback from one resident who has been requesting the City to

remove the large fig tree in front of their property.

3.1 Consultation

Required by legislation: Yes No

Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

67

4.0 Budget/Financial Implications

Within current approved budget: Yes No Requires further budget consideration: Yes No

It is proposed the City include $44,000 (ex GST) including overheads in the 2014/15 budget for contribution towards the Watkins Road erosion control project. The funds

are proposed to be reallocated from existing unspent Tawarri Jetty funds (excluding money held in reserve).

5.0 Risk Management

Should the current Swan River Trust funding not be accessed at this time, there is a risk that the foreshore at the end of Watkins Road will continue to erode causing

damage to adjacent infrastructure and potential safety issues to foreshore users. If the City decides that these works should be undertaken at a future date then the funding of $28,120 (ex GST) may not be able to be accessed from the Swan River

Trust and it may require more costly erosion control measures to stabilise the area.

In the Riverbank Grants funding application for Watkins Road foreshore it was required that the City detail risks and their management along with providing a detailed technical proposal for the proposed erosion treatments. One of the risks was identified

as unsuitable tides and weather to undertake the works. It was identified that this risk would be managed by undertaking the work in the summer months when tides, wave

action and storms are less intense. This is the primary reason funding approval is being sought prior to the adoption of the midyear budget.

6.0 Discussion

The City of Nedlands and the Swan River Trust are responsible for managing Riverpark areas within the City of Nedlands under the Swan and Canning Rivers

Management Act 2006. The funding received for Watkins Road will be used to undertake similar foreshore erosion control projects that were successfully completed through the Riverbank Grants Program at Waratah Place and Point Resolution (refer

to below photos).

68

Waratah Place 2010

Waratah Place 2015

69

Point Resolution 2008

70

Point Resolution 2015

The foreshore at Watkins Road is increasingly eroding (refer to below photos). This is the second year that funding was applied for through the SRT’s Riverbank Grants

Program with the first application being unsuccessful. As the foreshore requires stabilisation treatments to protect riverfront infrastructure from exposure to intense storm events and natural erosion processes it is recommended that this project

proceed.

Erosion control treatments at Watkins Road will involve removal of weeds, installation of brush walling, jute matting, rock toe protection and palisades followed by dryland and wetland revegetation with low growing native species.

Once installed these treatments will allow for sediment and rock accumulation along

the base of the foreshore and the vegetation once established will reduce the impact from wave action, tides and storm events. Low growing plants and shrubs are proposed for the site so that existing views of the Swan River are not obscured and

the placement of foreshore treatments will be installed considering the need to maintain access to the beach foreshore area.

71

Watkins Road Foreshore Erosion Approx. 2010/11

Watkins Road Foreshore Erosion 2015

72

Watkins Road Foreshore Erosion 2015

There is funding available to reallocate through savings realised in the Parks Services capital budget.

7.0 Conclusion

The City was successful in obtaining $28,120 (ex GST) through the Swan River Trusts Riverbank Grants Program to protect the foreshore adjacent to Watkins Road from

erosion. In order to utilise this funding it is recommended that the City reallocate $44,000 (ex GST) from the Parks Services capital budget to this project prior to the

midyear budget review.

8.0 Attachments Nil

Planning and Development Reports - City of Nedlands Planning and... · Planning and Development...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Development Reports - City of Nedlands Planning and... · Planning and Development...