planning and development reports › sites › default › files... · 2017 pd reports – pd01.17...

Planning and Development Reports

Committee Consideration – 14 February 2017 Council Resolution – 28 February 2017

Table of Contents

Item No. Page No.

PD01.17 (Lot 1) No. 1/1 Hampden Road, Nedlands – Proposed

(Retrospective) Change of Use (From Office - Professional

to Consulting Rooms) and Non-Illuminated Hoarding Sign 2

PD02.17 (Lot 12) No. 7 Nidjalla Loop, Swanbourne – Privacy Screen 9

PD03.17 (Lot 1) No. 14 Wattle Avenue, Dalkeith – Additions to

Dwelling 15

PD04.17 (Lot 75) No. 35 Shann Street, Floreat – Retrospective

Privacy Screen 23

PD05.17 (Lot 13) No. 45 Melvista Avenue, Nedlands – Retrospective

Outbuilding 29

PD06.17 (Lot 2) No. 115 North Street, Swanbourne – Proposed

Ancillary Accommodation and Carport 38

PD07.17 Development Assessment Panels – City of Nedlands

Nomination of Members 47

PD08.17 Public Health Act 2016 – Authorised Officers 50

Council: 28 February 2017

2017 PD Reports – PD01.17 – PD08.17 – 28 February

2

PD01.17 (Lot 1) No. 1/1 Hampden Road, Nedlands – Proposed (Retrospective) Change of Use (From Office - Professional to Consulting Rooms) and Non-Illuminated Hoarding Sign

Committee 14 February 2017

Council 28 February 2017

Applicant Blessing Health Pty Ltd

Landowner The Estate of J P Wright

Director Peter Mickleson – Director Planning & Development Services

Reference DA2016/369

Previous Item Nil

Delegation In accordance with Clause 6.7.1a) of the City’s Instrument of Delegation, Council is required to determine the application due to an objection being received.

Attachments

1. Photograph of subject property from Monash Avenue

2. Photograph of subject property from Hampden Road

1.0 Executive Summary Retrospective development approval is being sought for consulting rooms (acupuncture and remedial massage) to continue operating from the subject property and for a hoarding sign to remain, the existence of which the City became aware of due to concerns being received. The proposal will result in a shortfall of car bays for the premises and was therefore advertised to nearby landowners for comment. During the advertising period 3 objections were received. The application is recommended for approval despite not complying with the car parking requirements, as it is considered the nature of the proposed use means that an adequate amount of car parking bays will be available for the use.


3

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council approves the retrospective development application for the proposed change of use (from Office – Professional to Consulting Rooms) and the installation of 1 non-illuminated hoarding sign at (Lot 1) No. 1/1 Hampden Road, Nedlands, in accordance with the application received on 22 November 2016, subject to the following conditions and advice: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans. 2. The car-parking bays and the hoarding sign being maintained by the

landowner to the City’s satisfaction. 3. A maximum of 2 practitioners on the premises at any one time. 4. Patients visiting the property by prior appointment only. 5. All existing signage not part of this approval being removed within 28

days from the date of this decision. 6. The consulting rooms only being permitted to operate between Monday

and Saturday 9.00am to 5.00pm. Advice Notes specific to this proposal: 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. An application to register the business is required to be lodged with, and

be approved by, the City’s Environmental Health section. This is to demonstrate how the business will comply with the requirements of the Health (Skin Penetration Procedures) Regulations 1998.

3. A separate application is required to be lodged and approved prior to the

erection/installation of any signage on the lot not part of this development approval.

4. Adequate staff and public sanitary conveniences shall be provided in

accordance with the Building Code of Australia.


4

3.0 Site Details

Lot area 526m2

Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning Urban

Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Office

Land Use Permissibility P

Detailed Area Plan/Outline Development Plan No

Controlled Development Area No

State Heritage Listed No

Listed in Municipal Heritage Inventory No

The subject site has frontages to Hampden Road and Monash Avenue as shown on the locality plan below. The existing building on the property contains 2 different tenancies previously approved to be used as offices. Nearby properties contain dwellings and commercial activities such as retail, restaurants and offices. Those properties on the eastern side of Hampden Road fall within the City of Perth.

Proposed

Consulting Rooms QEII Medical Centre

City of Perth


5

4.0 Background At the December 2016 Committee meeting a development application for the adjoining Unit 2 on the subject property to be used as consulting rooms was considered, but was subsequently withdrawn upon the request of the applicant prior to a decision being made at the Ordinary Council Meeting. The Committee had recommended that the application be approved despite a shortfall in the required amount of car bays.

5.0 Specific Application Details This application seeks retrospective approval to change the use of Unit 1 from Office – Professional to Consulting Rooms and for 1 non-illuminated hoarding sign to remain, details of which are as follows:

At any one time there will be 2 practitioners on the premises, being 1 acupuncturist and 1 masseur.

The use is proposed to operate between Monday and Saturday 9.00am to 5.00pm.

Patients will be by prior appointment only.

One non-illuminated hoarding sign adjacent to the property’s secondary street (Monash Avenue) boundary, being 1.8m in overall height and 2.1m wide.

With regard to the number of staff on the premises at any one time, the applicant has advised the following:

“The administration of answering phone and email bookings will be done by one of these 2 people (the practitioners). If both are giving treatments the call will go to answering machine. The clinic is an acupuncture clinic, but does offer massage as this is complementary to Acupuncture. The masseuse position is combined with administration.”

6.0 Consultation The proposal was advertised to nearby landowners for comment in December 2016 due to variations proposed to the amount of onsite car bays required. During the advertising period 3 objections were received. The following is a summary of the concerns received:

The shortfall in car bays potentially resulting in car parking difficulties within the local area.

Those visiting Unit 1 allegedly parking their vehicles in the car bays allocated for Unit 2 on the same property.

Existing signage potentially obstructing pedestrians.

An existing banner sign on the building potentially distracting road users.

Whether adequate toilet and changing room acilities are available for those on the premises.

The hours of operation differing to those being proposed.


6

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 Assessment of Statutory Provisions 7.1 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations

2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections. 7.2 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 7.2.1 Car Parking Two (2) car bays exist for Unit 1 adjacent to the property’s eastern boundary, access to which is obtained from Hampden Road. Currently a total of 5 car bays are required for the office use at Unit 1. The car bays for Unit 2 on the subject property are in a separate area adjacent to the property’s western boundary, access to which is obtained from Monash Avenue. The following on street car parking restrictions exist within the local area:

Monash Avenue – No parking at all times

Hampden Road (west side) – 30 minutes between Monday and Friday 8.00am to 5.00pm, and Saturday 8.00am to 1.00pm

Hampden Road (east side) – 1 hour between Monday and Friday 8.00am to 5.00pm, and Saturday 8.00am to 1.00pm

TPS 2 does not contain a prescribed minimum number of car bays for Consulting Rooms, therefore the number of car bays required is at the City’s discretion. Administration Comments The nature of the proposed use and that two practitioners will be on site at any one time, means that only a few vehicles will be parked on the premises at the same time. If any patients arrive early for their appointment, a maximum of 4 vehicles will need to park off site. Therefore the use will result in a shortfall of 4 car bays. Compared with the office use approved at the premises previously, the proposal will result in an additional shortfall of 1 car bay which is considered to be neglible. Therefore the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the local amenity.


7

7.3 Local Planning Policy - Advertisement Signs on Zoned and Reserved Land (Except Road Reserves)

Policy Requirement Proposed

Complies?

Does not exceed a maximum of 1 sign per site, which may be double sided.

1 sign Yes

Does not exceed a maximum height of 6m above natural ground level;

1.8m in height above natural ground level.

Yes

Is not setback less than 2m from adjacent sites.

Is setback 8m from the nearest adjacent site, being to the south.

Yes

Is to be aligned at a right angle to street.

Is parallel to the truncated portion of the property boundary.

No

Is to have a minimum clearance of 2.75m above natural ground level.

1m to the underside of the sign when measured from the natural ground level.

No

Policy Objectives

Ensure the display of advertisements on sites does not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding land;

Ensure that advertisement signs do not detract from the level of safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians by obstructing sight lines and distracting road users; and

Ensure that commercial advertising signs are generally located in non-residential areas.

Administration Comments The proposed hoarding sign complies with the Policy except for: a) Not being aligned at a right angle to the street; and b) Having clearance of 1m in lieu of 2.75m above natural ground level. If the sign was at a right angle to the street it would result in the loss of a car bay due to the restricted amount of space available on site. If it was at a right angle to the street it would be fully visible from both Monash Avenue and Hampden Road. However, its current location and alignment means that its appearance is having less of an impact on the streetscape as it is only fully visible from Monash Avenue. As the hoarding sign does not encroach over any pedestrian footpaths the height of its underside does not create any safety issues for pedestrians despite being less than 2.75m above natural ground level. As the proposed variations do not have a detrimental impact on the local amenity and/or pedestrian safety they satisfy the Policy objectives and are therefore considered to be acceptable. During the advertising period for the application concerns were raised with regard to other existing signage potentially obstructing pedestrians and distracting road users. If the application is approved by Council all other signage not part of the application will be required to be removed.


8

8.0 Other Issues Raised During the advertising period concerns were also received with regard to:

Whether adequate toilet and changing room facilities are available for those on the premises. In response it is advised that matters relating to toilets are dealt with under the Building Regulations and the Building Code of Australia. If the application is approved by Council adequate staff and public sanitary conveniences will be required to be provided in accordance with this legislation. Requirements relating to changing rooms being provided are not stipulated under any legislation which the City administers.

The hours of operation differing to those being proposed.

In response it is advised that if the application is approved and it is later brought to the City’s attention that the business is operating at times which differ to those approved, the City has the ability to take enforcement action.

9.0 Budget / Financial Implications Should Council refuse the application, there may be costs incurred through an appeal of Council’s decision.

10.0 Risk Management There are no known risks for the City.

11.0 Conclusion Considering the nature and scale of the proposed use the shortfall in car bays is unlikely to have a significant impact on the local amenity. The sign’s location means that it will not create any safety issues for pedestrians despite the height of its underside above natural ground level. Its size and location also means that it will not have a significant impact on the streetscape. Accordingly it is recommended that Council approves the application.

PD01.17 - Attachment 1Photograph of subject property from Monash Avenue

PD01.17 - Attachment 2Photograph of subject property from Hampden Road


9

PD02.17 (Lot 12) No. 7 Nidjalla Loop, Swanbourne – Privacy Screen



Applicant Rodrigues Bodycoat Architects

Landowner H and P Bitdorf



Previous Item Nil.


Attachments 1. Photograph of the privacy screen’s proposed location when

viewed towards the northern boundary of 7 Nidjalla Loop

2. Photograph of the privacy screen’s proposed location when viewed from Nidjalla Loop to the west

1.0 Executive Summary Development approval is being sought to install a privacy screen adjacent to the property’s northern (rear) lot boundary. The privacy screen does not comply with Council’s Fill and Fencing Local Planning Policy (Fencing LPP) nor the Swanbourne Design Guidelines due to being up to 5.2m in height above natural ground level in lieu of 1.8m. The application was therefore advertised for comment and 1 objection was received. The proposed privacy screen is deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), it is therefore recommended that Council approves the application.


10

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council approves the development application to install a privacy screen adjacent to the northern (rear) boundary at (Lot 12) No. 7 Nidjalla Loop, Swanbourne, subject to the following conditions and advice: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans.

2. The privacy screening shown on the approved plans being maintained by

the landowners to the City’s satisfaction.

3. All footings and the structure shall be constructed wholly inside the site boundaries of the Certificate of Title.

4. The privacy screen being ‘off-white’ powder coated aluminium, or other

material(s) acceptable to the City. Advice Notes specific to this approval: 1. 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.

3.0 Site Details

Lot area 310m2


Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Residential R30





The subject property contains a single dwelling and its topography is relatively flat, as shown on the locality plan on the following page. It falls within Precinct 2 of the Swanbourne Design Guidelines. The adjoining properties contain single dwellings and associated outbuildings. The Swanbourne Estate Reserve adjoins the subject property’s western boundary.


11

4.0 Specific Application Details The applicant seeks approval to install a 5.2m high, 3.7m long privacy screen adjacent to the subject property’s northern boundary. By way of justification in support of the proposal, the applicant has advised the following:

“The outdoor and indoor living spaces including bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper floor are overlooked by upper level windows associated with the adjoining dwelling. Council should also be aware that the screen in front of the major opening to the adjoining dwelling appears to have been installed upside down and permits overlooking of the outdoor living spaces of the proposed dwelling.”


12

5.0 Consultation The development application was advertised to the affected landowners by the City for 14 days for comment. One objection was received during the consultation period. The following is a summary of the concerns received:

The visual impact of the privacy screen on the adjoining landowner’s amenity due to its height.

The privacy screen reducing the amount of light entering the dwelling on the adjoining property.

The privacy screen potentially being fixed to the parapet wall on the neighbouring property.

By way of justification in support of the proposal the applicant has advised the following:

“It is not visible from any other location on the adjoining property or adjacent street. The screen is only visible from the courtyard which forms the main outdoor living area of the subject dwelling, and the balcony and bedrooms on the upper floor where it provides the necessary perception of privacy.” “The louvre screen will not have any measurable effect on the amount of light entering the adjoining property. In winter when natural lighting is desirable the proposed screen will assist in reflecting sunlight from the north into the windows and open areas of the adjoining property.” “The screen is fully erected in the subject property and is not affixed to the parapet wall of the adjoining property.”

The application was also referred to the Mirvac Swanbourne Design Committee as the property falls within Precinct 2 of the Swanbourne Design Guidelines, and the Committee raised no concerns. Note: A full copy of the consultation feedback by the City has been given to the Councillors prior to the Council meeting.


13


2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections. 6.2 Fill and Fencing Local Planning Policy

Policy Clause Assessment Comment

Complies

4.0 Fencing Height Requirements Dividing fences shall have a maximum height of 1.8m above any approved or deemed-to-comply fill or retaining under the R-Codes.

The privacy screening is 5.2m in height above natural ground level.

No

Policy Objective To outline the City’s requirements with regard to the minimum standard of fencing to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties and the streetscape is maintained.

Administration Comments The screen will be 1.8m higher than an existing parapet wall on the adjoining property, and is being proposed in order to provide privacy for a raised outdoor living area on the subject property. The only upper level windows on the adjoining lot visible from the raised area belong to a stairway and a toilet, which in accordance with the R-Codes do not require privacy screening due to not being habitable rooms. The upside down screen referred to in the applicant’s justification is screening for an air conditioning unit, and not a major opening. The outdoor living area on the adjoining lot is adjacent to its western boundary and not within close proximity to the screen’s proposed location. Considering that no habitable rooms on the neighbouring property will be affected, the screen will not have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity. In addition to this, its height and location will also mean that the screen will not have a significant impact on the streetscape.


14

7.0 Other Matters of Concern During the advertising period concerns were also raised with regard to:

The privacy screen reducing the amount of light entering the dwelling on the adjoining property.

The privacy screen potentially being fixed to the parapet wall on the neighbouring property.

In response to these concerns it can be confirmed that due to the screen’s height and location the amount of overshadowing created by the screen will be compliant with both the R-Codes and the Building Codes of Australia. The applicant has also provided written confirmation that the screening will not be fixed to the neighbour’s parapet wall. Matters relating to attaching structures to dividing fencing/walls are dealt with under the Dividing Fences Act which the City does not administer.


9.0 Risk management There are no known risks for the City.

10.0 Conclusion Considering that the majority of the structure will be screened by an existing parapet wall on the neighbour’s property, and no habitable rooms nor outdoor living areas on the neighbours’ property will be affected, the screen will not have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Its height and location also means that the screen will also not have a significant impact on the streetscape. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved by Council.

PD02.17 - Attachment 1Photograph of the privacy screen’s proposed location when

viewed towards the northern boundary of 7 Nidjalla Loop

Ou

tlin

e o

f

pro

po

sed

scr

een

Ou

tlin

e o

f

pro

po

sed

scr

een

PD02.17 - Attachment 2Photograph of the privacy screen’s proposed location

when viewed from Nidjalla Loop to the west

9 N

idja

lla L

oo

p

7 N

idja

lla L

oo

p

Ap

pro

xim

ate

loca

tio

n

of

pro

po

sed

scr

ee

n


15

PD03.17 (Lot 1) No. 14 Wattle Avenue, Dalkeith – Additions to Dwelling



Applicant Dynamic Planning and Developments

Landowner A Yoong



Previous Item Nil.


Attachments 1. Photograph of the subject property from Wattle Avenue

2. Photograph of the proposed garage extension’s and

conservatory’s location looking eastward

3. Photograph of the proposed garage extension’s and conservatory’s location looking westward

1.0 Executive Summary Development approval is being sought to extend an existing garage and construct a conservatory adjacent to the property’s southern (side) boundary, and install a water impermeable roof over an existing pergola structure towards the rear of the property. The application was advertised to nearby residents for comment due to variations to the lot boundary setback requirements. During the advertising period 1 objection was received. The garage addition and conservatory are proposed to have a nil side setback from the boundary with 16 Wattle Avenue, and be 44cm higher and 2.5m longer than a former parapet wall. The proposed variations are deemed to satisfy the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2) and the design principles of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). It is therefore recommended that the application be approved by Council.


16

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council approves the additions to the single dwelling at (Lot 1) No. 14 Wattle Avenue, Dalkeith, received on 1 November 2016, subject to the following conditions and advice:

a) The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans. b) This development approval pertains to the garage extension,

conservatory and patio only. c) All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable and non-

permeable areas, shall be contained onsite. d) The parapet wall being finished to a professional standard by the

landowner prior to the practicable completion of the garage extension and conservatory, and be maintained thereafter by the landowner, to the City’s satisfaction.

e) All footings and the building shall be constructed wholly inside the site

boundaries of the Certificate of Title. Advice Notes specific to this approval:

a) 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.

b) Prior to the commencement of any demolition works, any Asbestos

Containing Material (ACM) in the structure to be demolished, shall be identified, safely removed and conveyed to an appropriate landfill which accepts ACM.

i. Removal and disposal of ACM shall be in accordance with Health

(Asbestos) Regulations 1992, Regulations 5.43 - 5.53 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996, Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition, Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in a Workplace, and any Department of Commerce Worksafe requirements.

ii. Where there is over 10m2 of ACM or any amount of friable ACM to be

removed, it shall be removed by a Worksafe licensed and trained individual or business.

c) Any construction in the verge will require a Nature-Strip Development

Application (NSDA) to be lodged with, and approved by, the City’s Engineering section, prior to construction.


17

d) 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.

3.0 Site Details

Lot area 994m2


Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Residential R10





The subject property contains a single dwelling and its topography is relatively flat, as shown on the locality plan below. Until approximately mid-2016, a garage with a nil side setback existed on the northern boundary of 16 Wattle Avenue. The garage has since been removed as a new dwelling is currently being constructed on the property, however a wall which formed part of the garage remains on the dividing boundary between 14 and 16 Wattle Avenue. On the opposite side of Wattle Avenue is the David Cruickshank Reserve.


18

4.0 Specific Application Details The applicant seeks approval to:

Extend the existing garage towards the southern (side) lot boundary.

Construct a conservatory behind the garage, adjacent to the southern lot boundary.

Place a water impermeable roof over an existing pergola structure towards the rear of the property. By doing this the structure becomes a patio (deemed to be a building under the R-Codes) and is therefore subject to the lot boundary setback provisions.

Various internal and other external alterations are also proposed to the dwelling however as they comply with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes they do not require development approval.

5.0 Consultation The development application was advertised to affected landowners by the City for 14 days for comment. One objection was received during the consultation period. The following is a summary of the concerns received:

The proposed extension having an impact on the streetscape.

The appearance of the extension and the potential impact this will have on property value.

Noise created by those using the proposed garage and/or conservatory potentially being excessive.

Overshadowing from the proposed garage and conservatory having an impact on the adjoining property.

Hazardous chemicals potentially being stored within the garage. Note: A full copy of the consultation feedback by the City has been given to the Councillors prior to the Council meeting. By way of justification in support of the proposal the applicant has advised the following in response to the concerns raised:

“The reduced lot boundary setback is considered to have a negligible impact on the streetscape for the following reasons:

“The structure is setback 9m from the Wattle Avenue street boundary which is compliant.

The existing dwelling is setback 7m from the Allenby Road street boundary (secondary street) which further reduces the dominance of the dwelling when viewed from the streetscape.

The proposed boundary wall is consistent with numerous existing single storey boundary walls throughout the Dalkeith area.

The proposed single storey addition is considered to have a minor visual impact in comparison to the prevailing 2-3 storey development context within the surrounding locality.”


19


2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections. 6.2 Residential Design Codes - State Planning Policy 3.1 6.2.1 Rear Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Development on properties with an R10 density coding being setback 6m from the rear lot boundary in accordance with Table 1 of the R-Codes.

The patio is proposed to be setback 1m from the rear (eastern) lot boundary.

No

Design Principles Variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following design principle provisions: “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.”

Administration Comments A pergola approved in 1981 is proposed to have a water impermeable roof installed over it. The footprint of the structure will not be enlarged, and it will be screened from the lot at the rear by existing storerooms which were also approved in 1981. The roof will have a 2 degree slope and therefore its height will not be significantly different to what it is currently. The R-Codes permit up to 25% of an adjoining property with an R10 density coding to be overshadowed. The location of the structure means that the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes will be complied with. No overlooking will be possible due to the proposed finished floor level not being more than 0.5m above natural ground level. Considering the above the building is unlikely to have a significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours. No concerns were raised during the advertising period regarding this component of the application.


20

6.2.2 Side Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Walls may be built up to a lot boundary behind the street setback and subject to the overshadowing provisions, where the wall abuts an existing wall of similar dimension.

The proposed development will be 44cm higher and 2.5m longer than the former parapet wall which exists on the boundary between 14 and 16 Wattle Avenue.

No

In accordance with Table 2a of the R-Codes the proposed garage extension and conservatory are required to be setback 1.5m from a side lot boundary.

The garage extension and conservatory are proposed to have a nil side setback from the southern lot boundary.

No

Design Principles Variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following design principle provisions: “Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:




Administration Comments The majority of the proposed development will adjoin a 2.82m high 9.79m long wall on the dividing boundary which was formerly a parapet wall for a garage on 16 Wattle Avenue. The remainder of the dividing lot boundary has a solid wall along it of between 1.7m and 2.2m in height above natural ground level. The area on the adjoining property directly impacted by the proposal is not an active habitable space (outdoor living area). Rooms on the neighbouring property from which the proposed additions will be partially visible from include an ensuite and a bedroom. The proposed development will be single storey in nature, and 44cm higher and 2.5m longer than the former parapet wall. The R-Codes permit up to 25% of an adjoining property with an R10 density coding to be overshadowed. The location of the proposed development means that the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes will be complied with. No overlooking will be possible due to the proposed finished floor level not being more than 0.5m above natural ground level. Element 4 of the R-Code Explanatory Guidelines stipulates that single storey walls are not usually problematic in terms of impact on adjoining properties.


21

The proposed development will be setback 9m from the street boundary and be partially screened from the street by an existing 1.8m high solid wall within the street setback area of the property. On the opposite side of Wattle Avenue is the David Cruickshank Reserve. Considering the above, whilst the proposed development is not setback a compliant distance from the southern boundary it will be similar in dimension to the former parapet wall which exists on the dividing boundary. It is therefore unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the neighbours’ amenity.

7.0 Other Matters of Concern During the advertising period concerns were also received with regard to:

The potential impact the proposal will have on property value.

In response it is advised that the potential impact proposed development may have on the value of nearby properties is not a planning ground, and therefore is not a matter Council is required to have regard to when determining development applications.

Noise created by those using the proposed garage and/or conservatory potentially being excessive.

In response it is advised that there is no evidence to suggest that noise levels will be excessive if the application is approved. If anything, the levels are likely to be compliant with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 due to the construction method (masonry walls) and the frequency the areas will be used.

Hazardous chemicals potentially being stored within the garage.

In response it is advised that there is no evidence to suggest that an excessive amount of hazardous chemicals will be stored within the proposed garage extension compared with what would normally be stored within a garage and/or an outbuilding (shed) on a residential property.




22

10.0 Conclusion The scale of the alterations proposed to be made to the existing pergola structure are deemed to be minor, and the structure’s location means that it will be screened sufficiently from the adjoining properties. The proposed garage extension and conservatory will be similar in dimension to the former parapet wall which exists on the dividing boundary, and the proposal complies with the overlooking and overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes. The development is proposed to be setback a compliant distance from the primary street boundary, and on the opposite side of Wattle Avenue is the David Cruickshank Reserve. Considering the above, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the local amenity and/or the streetscape. Accordingly it is recommended that Council approves the application.

PD03.17 - Attachment 1Photograph of the subject property from Wattle Avenue

PD03.17 - Attachment 2Photograph of the proposed garage extension’s and conservatory’s location looking eastward

Ou

tlin

e o

f p

rop

ose

d

ext

ensi

on

PD03.17 - Attachment 3Photograph of the proposed garage extension’s and conservatory’s location looking westward


23

PD04.17 (Lot 75) No. 35 Shann Street, Floreat – Retrospective Privacy Screen



Applicant I and A Mirmikidis

Landowner I and A Mirmikidis



Previous Item Item PD19.16 – May 2016


Attachments 1. Photographs of the existing 2.5m high privacy screening on the applicant’s property

2. Photographs of the existing and the proposed locations of the 2.5m high privacy screening as seen from 33 Shann Street (neighbouring property)

1.0 Executive Summary Retrospective development approval is being sought for an existing 2.5m high privacy screen adjacent to the eastern (side) boundary of the property to remain. Approval is also being sought to extend this screen along the remainder of the lot boundary, behind the street setback area, also at 2.5m in height. Previously development approvals have been granted for portions of privacy screening between 1.95m and 2.1m in height to be erected adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. As a consequence of concerns being received, the City became aware that portion of the approved privacy screening had been erected up to 2.5m in height. Subsequently an application for the screening to be 2.5m in height in lieu of 1.8m along the whole boundary behind the street setback area, was advertised for comment and during the advertising period an objection was received. It is recommended that the application be approved by Council subject to the screening being 2.5m in height where it is immediately adjacent to the house and patio on the applicant’s property, and be 2.1m in height along the remainder of the boundary so as not to be as imposing when viewed from the neighbour’s outdoor living area.


24

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council approves the retrospective development application for a privacy screen adjacent to the eastern (side) boundary at (Lot 75) No. 35 Shann Street, Floreat, subject to the following conditions and advice: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans, with

the exception of the following:

a) The privacy screen being a maximum of 2.5m in height above natural ground level immediately adjacent to the house and patio structure on 35 Shann Street, and a maximum of 2.1m in height above natural ground level for the remainder of the lot boundary behind the street setback area.

2. The privacy screening being maintained by the landowners to the City’s

satisfaction. 3. All footings and the structure shall be constructed wholly inside the site

boundaries of the Certificate of Title. Advice Notes specific to this approval: 1. Any fencing and/or further privacy screening behind the street setback

area which is more than 1.8m in height above natural ground level and within 0.9m of a dividing lot boundary, requires approval from the City prior to erecting.

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


3.0 Site Details

Lot area 875m2


Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Residential R12.5





The property contains a single dwelling and semi mature vegetation, and its topography falls towards the western (side) boundary as shown on the locality plan on the following page. There is a difference of approximately 0.4m in natural ground level between 33 and 35 Shann Street, Floreat.


25

4.0 Background Previously development approvals have been granted for privacy screening of between 1.95m and 2.1m in height to be erected adjacent to the eastern boundary of 35 Shann Street. Below is a diagram showing the screening which exists and is proposed along the eastern boundary.


26

5.0 Specific Application Details Retrospective development approval is being sought for an existing 2.5m high privacy screen adjacent to the eastern (side) boundary of the property, behind the street setback area, to remain. Approval is also being sought to extend this screen along the remainder of the lot boundary, behind the street setback area, also at 2.5m in height. By way of justification in support of the proposal the applicant has advised that the screening has been erected to provide more privacy for their outdoor living area which has a lower natural ground level than 33 Shann Street.

6.0 Consultation The development application was advertised to the affected landowners by the City for 14 days for comment. One objection was received during the consultation period.

The visual impact of the screen.

The installation of the screen making it difficult to safely and efficiently replace the asbestos fence.

The existing screening being erected without approval being obtained. Note: A full copy of all relevant consultation feedback received by the City has been given to the Councillors prior to the Council meeting.


2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections. 7.2 Fill and Fencing Local Planning Policy

Policy Clause Assessment Comment

Complies

4.0 Fencing Height Requirements Dividing fences shall have a maximum height of 1.8m above any approved or deemed-to-comply fill or retaining under the R-Codes.

The privacy screening is proposed to be 2.5m in height above natural ground level.

No

Policy Objective To outline the City’s requirements with regard to the minimum standard of fencing to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties and the streetscape is maintained.


27

Administration Comments The existing dividing fencing along the eastern boundary is between 1.5m and 1.8m in height when viewed from the neighbours’ property. A solid dividing fence of up to 1.8m in height is permitted behind a property’s street setback area. Taking this into consideration, the proposed screen will be up to 70cm higher than what dividing fencing is usually permitted to be. If the 2.5m high screening was constructed along the entire length of boundary behind the street setback area, being approximately 39m in length, it would likely be quite imposing on the neighbours due to its scale particularly when viewed from their outdoor living area. Previously approval was granted by Council for screening of up to 2.1m in height on the applicant’s property as it was deemed that it would not have a significant impact on the neighbour and provide adequate privacy for the applicant’s outdoor living area. If the screening was to only be 2.5m high adjacent to the applicant’s house and patio the only area impacted on the neighbour’s property contains a garage and a shed. Due to the likely frequency this area on the neighbouring property would be used, and its proximity to their outdoor living area, this would not have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Considering the above, if Council approves the application it is recommended that it be subject to the screening being a maximum of 2.5m in height where it is adjacent to the applicant’s house and patio. Along the remaining portion of the boundary behind the street setback area it is to be a maximum of 2.1m in height.

8.0 Other Issues Raised During the advertising period concerns were also raised that the installation of the screen will make it difficult to safely and efficiently replace the asbestos dividing fence in future. It should be noted that the screen is not proposed to be attached to the dividing fencing. Issues relating to the erection and/or repair of dividing fences are a civil matter between adjoining land owners under the Dividing Fences Act 1961, which the City does not administer. The removal of any asbestos is required to be undertaken in accordance with Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Department of Commerce requirements. There is no evidence to suggest that the installation of the screen will prevent this.


28



11.0 Conclusion If the 2.5m high screening was constructed along the entire length of boundary behind the street setback area it would likely have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity due to its proximity to their outdoor living area and the structure’s height being imposing. Accordingly it is recommended that if Council approves the application it be subject to the screening being a maximum of 2.5m in height where it is adjacent to the applicant’s house and patio. Along the remaining portion of boundary behind the street setback area it is to be a maximum of 2.1m in height.

PD04.17 - Attachment 1Photographs of the 2.5m high privacy screening on the applicant’s property

PD04.17 - Attachment 2Photographs of the existing and the proposed locations of the 2.5m high privacy screening as seen from 33 Shann Street (neighbouring property)

Above – View of existing 2.5m high screening from front garage on neighbouring property looking southward

Above – View from rear area on neighbouring property looking northward

Above – View from rear area on neighbouring property towards proposed screening location on 35 Shann Street (both photos)


29

PD05.17 (Lot 13) No. 45 Melvista Avenue, Nedlands – Retrospective Outbuilding



Applicant White Noise Designs

Landowner Mr R Webster and Mrs A Webster


Reference DA16/317

Previous Item ADJ.17.11.94 Proposed Carport With Zero Lot Setback

E86.02 Proposed Overheight Fence

Delegation In accordance with Clause 6.7.1 (d) of the City’s Instrument of Delegation, Council is required to determine the application where discretion exists for Council to approve the variations under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.2, policies and/ or the Residential Design Codes.

Attachments 1. Photograph of the existing building from Bostock Road 2. Photograph of the existing building facing south from 22

Bostock 3. Photograph of the existing roller door and piers from

Bostock Road

1.0 Executive Summary Retrospective development approval is being sought for an existing unauthorised outbuilding to remain and to enclose it fully with solid walls. The scale and location of the outbuilding means that there are inadequate sightlines for drivers exiting the property, potentially posing a risk to pedestrians using the footpath immediately adjacent, other vehicles on the road and vehicles exiting the neighbouring property. Additionally, the reduced building setback has a negative impact on the amenity of the streetscape. As the proposal does not satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) nor the Council’s Fill and Fencing Policy, it is therefore recommended that the application be refused by Council.


30

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council refuses the retrospective application for an outbuilding within the secondary street setback area at Lot (13) No. 45 Melvista Avenue, Nedlands, received 21 October 2016, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not satisfy the design principles stipulated under

clauses 5.1.2 (Street setback) and 5.2.5 (Sight lines) of the Residential Design Codes and not complying with the Council’s Fill and Fencing Local Planning Policy, due to not providing adequate sight lines, and its scale and location having a significant impact on the streetscape.

2. The proposal not satisfying provisions (m) and (n) of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 cl.67, as the proposal for a boundary wall is incompatible with low density zone and will negatively impact the character of the locality.

Advice Notes specific to this proposal: 1. The applicant is advised that if the existing unapproved structure within

the secondary street setback area is not removed within 60 days from the date of this decision, the City may issue a Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) as an offence under Regulation 42 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 has been committed. A PIN carries an initial penalty of up to $500.00 and can be issued on multiple occasions by the City prior to taking legal action.

3.0 Site Details

Lot area 701m2


Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Residential – R12.5





The subject property contains a single dwelling and an unauthorised outbuilding located as shown on the locality plan on the following page. On the opposite side of Bostock Road is College Park.


31

4.0 Background In March 1994, Council approved a ‘Loggia’ (similar to an open sided patio) with posts located on both the northern and western (secondary street) boundary. In November 1994, Council refused an application to convert the ‘Loggia’ to a carport with a nil setback to the northern boundary and a 500mm setback to the secondary street boundary. The refusal was based on inadequate sight lines being provided. However, the carport was subsequently built without approval. In June 2002, Council approved a retrospective application for a proposed over height fence / lattice section erected along the northern boundary,17.7m in length and 2.9m in height (existing structure).

In 2005 the property was sold to the current landowner. In 2016 an application was lodged to fully enclose the existing structure. Whilst assessing the application, it came to the City’s attention that the existing structure did not have the necessary planning approvals. Subsequently, the application was amended and is now a retrospective application.

Existing outbuilding


32

5.0 Specific Application Details

The application seeks retrospective approval:

For an existing unauthorised outbuilding in the north west portion of the property to remain.

To extend the existing northern boundary wall (currently 1.8m in height, lattice atop) to a height of 3m.

To enclose the eastern façade of the outbuilding with a translucent metal sliding door 6.5m in length and 3m in height.

By way of justification in support of the retrospective development application the applicant has advised the following:

“The carport has existed in this location for more than 20 years without any problems or complaints. Alterations to the design do not affect existing setbacks or sight lines in any way.”

6.0 Consultation Due to the proposed setback, sightline and fencing variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and Council’s Fill and Fencing Policy the development application was advertised to the affected neighbouring landowner by the City for 14 days for comment. No objections were received during the consultation period. In addition, the adjoining landowner has signed an over height dividing fence / boundary wall agreement form.


2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections. 7.2 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 7.2.1 Amenity Under clause 5.5.1 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.”


33

Properties within the locality (zoned R12.5) are not permitted as of right to have

boundary walls. This application proposes two boundary walls.

In addition to the City’s amenity provision of the Scheme, Clause (m) and (n) ii of

the Planning Regulations refer to the compatibility and impact of a development and

not reducing the amenity and character of the locality.

As seen from the site photographs the existing impact of the structure built up to the

northern and western boundaries have a negative impact on the streetscape and

sets an undesirable precedence in a low density area where buildings are generally

setback a minimum of 2m from the secondary street.

Additionally, the size and layout of the property means there is the ability to have

two covered car spaces with compliant distances from the boundaries whilst

maintaining vehicular sight lines.

7.3 Residential Design Codes (State Planning Policy 3.1)

7.3.1 Outbuilding Requirements

Deemed-to-Comply

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Outbuildings that:

Do not exceed a wall height of 2.4m;

Are not within the primary or secondary street setback area;

Are set back in accordance with Tables 2a and 2b.

The outbuilding is proposed to be 3m in height in lieu of 2.4m and setback 0m from the secondary street (western) boundary in lieu of 2m and 0m from the side (northern) lot boundary in lieu of 1m.

No

Design Principles Variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following Design Principle provisions: “Outbuilding that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.”

Administration Comments The footprint of the existing structure will not be increased, and is proposed to be 3.0m in

height (with a flat roof) and 6.5m in length, meaning that it will be 40cm higher than the

existing wall and lattice atop.

The area on the adjoining property impacted by the proposal is adjacent to the driveway/

garage and is not an active habitable space.

Considering the above, the proposed increase in fencing height will not have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining neighbour.


34

Whilst it is acknowledged that the structure is existing, a 2m secondary setback variation

is not supported. There are no other properties within the vicinity with buildings built up to

the boundary of a secondary street.

Additionally, the bulk of the existing 2.9m building negatively impacts the streetscape including the pedestrian footpath directly adjacent to it. The existing building contributes unnecessary bulk to the streetscape and could be a setback a compliant distance from the boundary. The buildings location adjoining the secondary street fencing also compromises the sight

lines for vehicles when reversing.

7.3.2 Sight lines

Deemed-to-Comply

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

“Walls, fences and other structures truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect.”

The solid piers adjacent to the roller door are 800mm in width and 2.9m in height setback on the secondary street boundary.

No

Design Principles Variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following Design Principle provisions: “Unobstructed sight lines provided at vehicle access points to ensure safety and visibility along vehicle access ways, streets, rights-of way, communal streets, crossovers and footpaths.”

Administration Comments The solid infill compromises the sight line when reversing out of the property. As the outbuilding is located within the 2m secondary street setback there is no ability for drivers to reverse a car before being able to stop for pedestrians using the adjacent footpath. The location of the property opposite a Local Reserve (college park) increases the likelihood of pedestrians using the footpath.


35

7.4 Local Planning Policy - Fill and Fencing

7.4.1 Fencing Within Truncation Areas

Policy Requirement

Proposed Complies?

Within the 1.5m area stipulated under

clause 4.4 of this policy, the following

obstructions are deemed acceptable by

the City:

One pier with a maximum height of 2.1 metres above natural ground level with a length and width of no greater than 0.5m; and

All other solid structures to be reduced to a height of no greater than 0.75 metres above natural ground level; and

All visually permeable structures to a maximum height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level.

The piers adjacent to the roller

door are 800mm in width and 2.9m

in height.

The secondary street fence within

the 1.5m truncation is solid to a

height of 1.8m.

No

Policy Objectives “To clarify the acceptable level of fill and the location of boundary fences on or adjacent to fill on residential lots throughout the City, so that the existing landform and privacy between neighbours, is maintained.”

Administration Comments The existing solid fencing abutting the roller door and the nil setback to the secondary street compromises the sight line when reversing from out of the property across the footpath / driveway. There is no precedence of high solid walls adjacent to vehicle access points within the

surrounding streetscape area.

8.0 Budget / Financial Implications Should Council refuse the application, there may be costs incurred through an

appeal of Council’s decision.



36

10.0 Conclusion Whilst the proposed increase in the dividing fence’s height will unlikely have a significant impact on the local amenity due to its scale and location, the reduced setback of the outbuilding is posing a risk to pedestrian safety and is having an undesirable impact on the streetscape. An adequate amount of space exists of the property for two covered car spaces to exist at least 2m from the Secondary Street and rear boundaries. A similar application for this building was previously refused by Council due to inadequate sightlines being provided. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused by Council. 10.1 Recommended Conditions if Application is Approved If Council resolves to approve the application the following wording and conditions are recommended: Council approves the additions to retrospective outbuilding at (Lot 13) No. 45 Melvista Avenue, Nedlands, received on 21 October 2016, subject to the following conditions and advice: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans. 2. This development approval pertains to the outbuilding only. 3. All stormwater from the development, which includes permeable and non-

permeable areas, shall be contained onsite. 4. The parapet wall being finished to a professional standard by the

landowner prior to the practicable completion of the outbuilding extension and be maintained thereafter by the landowner, to the City’s satisfaction.

5. All footings and the building shall be constructed wholly inside the site

boundaries of the Certificate of Title.


37

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. Where there is over 10m2 of ACM or any amount of friable ACM to be

removed, it shall be removed by a Worksafe licensed and trained individual or business.

PD05.17 - Attachment 1Photograph of the existing building from Bostock Road

PD05.17 - Attachment 2Photograph of the existing building facing south from 22 Bostock

PD05.17 - Attachment 3Photograph of the existing roller door and piers from Bostock Road


38

PD06.17 (Lot 2) No. 115 North Street, Swanbourne – Proposed Ancillary Accommodation and Carport



Applicant Perspective Developments

Landowner V Plazy


Reference DA16/194

Previous Item Nil.


Attachments 1. Photograph of the split level backyard at 115 North Street

(facing north)

2. Photograph of the proposed location for ancillary

accommodation (facing west) from 115 North Street


accommodation (facing north) from 115 North Street


accommodation (facing east) from 115 North Street


accommodation (facing south east) from 115 North Street

6. Photograph of the proposed carport location (facing north)

from North Street

1.0 Executive Summary

Development approval is being sought to construct ancillary accommodation at the rear of a property and a carport at the front of the property. The application was advertised to nearby residents for comment due to variations to lot boundary setback and visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and variation to Councils Local Planning Policy Carports and Minor Structures Forward of the Primary Street Setback (Carport LPP). During the consultation period two objections were received. The proposed variations are deemed to satisfy the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2) and the design principles of the R-Codes and the Carport LPP and the proposal is not considered to significantly impact the amenity of the local area. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved by Council.


39

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council approves the application for ancillary accommodation and a carport to be constructed at (Lot 2) No. 115 North Street, Swanbourne, received on 6 July 2016, subject to the following conditions and advice: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved plans. 2. This development approval only pertains to the ancillary accommodation

and proposed carport. 3. This development approval does not pertain to any proposed works in the

verge (refer to advice note 3). 4. The ancillary accommodation building shall be occupied only by persons

related to the occupiers of the main dwelling. 5. The landowner shall execute and provide to the City a notification

pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893, to be registered on the title to the land as notification to prospective purchasers that the use of the ancillary accommodation building is subject to the restriction set out in Condition 4. The full costs of the notification shall be borne by the landowner; and this condition shall be fulfilled prior to practicable completion of the ancillary accommodation.

6. All footings and the building shall be constructed wholly inside the site

boundaries of the Certificate of Title. 7. All sides of the carport shall remain open. 8. The proposed reversing area adjacent to the carport (as marked in red on

the plans) shall comply with the Australian Standards and be trafficable for vehicles. The reversing area shall be installed prior to the proposed carport’s practicable completion and be maintained thereafter by the landowner to the City’s satisfaction.

9. 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, shall prevent overlooking in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes 2015 (R-Codes). The structures shall be installed prior to the development’s practical completion and remain in place permanently, unless otherwise approved by the City.

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

permeable areas, shall be contained onsite.


40

Advice Notes specific to this approval: 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. 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) 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 fair air noise calculator at www.fairair.com.au and use this as a guide to prevent noise affecting neighbouring properties.

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

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


3.0 Site Details

Lot area 809m2


Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning Residential R12.5/20





The subject property contains a single dwelling with a single car garage and its topography rises approximately 4.5m from front to back, including an existing terraced back yard (refer to attachment 1), as shown on the locality plan on the following page. The adjoining properties contain single dwellings and associated outbuildings.

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


41

4.0 Specific Application Details

The applicant seeks approval to construct ancillary accommodation within the rear setback of the property and a carport within the primary street setback, details of which are as follows:

The proposed ancillary accommodation will be 59m2 in area.

A deck with 1.6m high privacy screens and a pergola good roof is proposed in front.

The ancillary accommodation has an overall height of 3.7m (2.4m wall height) from natural ground level with a skillion roof.

The ancillary accommodation is proposed to be setback 1m from the northern (rear) boundary, 1m to 3.1m from the eastern (side) and 1m from the western (side) boundaries.

The proposed carport is to be setback 1.5m from the primary street boundary and 1m from the eastern side boundary.

The proposed carport will be 30m2 in area and has been designed to enter the street in a forward gear.

Various internal alterations and external additions (a proposed 2nd storey atop a new single car garage, new kitchen, ground level deck and pergola) are also proposed to the dwelling, however as they comply with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes they do not require development approval.


42

5.0 Consultation The applicant conducted the required neighbour consultation with all adjoining landowners as per the City’s neighbour consultation requirements due to lot boundary and visual privacy setback variations. Two objections were received. The following is a summary of the concerns received:

Impacting on visual amenity and existing vista.

Already overlooked to the north and this aperture is the only natural vista and important for providing northern winter sunlight into the living room.

Impact of overlooking, bulk, height and scale.

Visual privacy concerns into the rear of the property from the ancillary accommodation.

The applicant has provided a detailed justification in support of the development application, summarised as follows:

The proposed location has been chosen to minimise the visual impact on adjoining properties.

There are no habitable buildings in close proximity to the rear boundary.

The ancillary accommodation has been designed to minimise bulk by designing a low pitched skillion roof (21 degrees).

Alternate locations with compliant rear setbacks would have more significant impact on neighbour’s amenity.

The proposed FFL of the ancillary accommodation (14.0) has been reduced (previously 14.2) to minimise bulk.

An outbuilding of equal size with a ridge height of 4.2m (500mm greater than what is proposed) would be deemed-to-comply.

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


2015 Schedule 2, Part 9, clause 67 (Matters to be considered by local government) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. Where relevant, these matters are discussed in the following sections.


43

6.2 Residential Design Codes - State Planning Policy 3.1

6.2.1 Rear Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Development on properties with an R12.5/20 density coding being setback 6m from the rear lot boundary in accordance with Table 1 of the R-Codes.

The ancillary accommodation is proposed to be setback 1m from the rear (northern) lot boundary.

No

Design Principles Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following Design Principle provisions: “Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:




Administration Comments The building has been designed with a 2.4m wall height and skillion roof with a 21 degree pitch to a maximum height of 3.7m above the NGL. To the west of the property, an outbuilding with a height of 3.2m is located 1m from the boundary (attachment 2), to the north 3m high trees are located (attachment 3) and a 1.9-2.3m high dividing fence and dense vegetation exist to the east (attachment 4 and 5). The finished floor level of the proposed ancillary accommodation unit has been lowered 200mm to further reduce the height of the building and hence visibility from neighbouring properties. A 60m2 outbuilding with a wall height of 2.4m and overall ridge height of 4.2m would be deemed-to-comply and could be constructed in this location 1m from the rear and side boundaries. This building would be no different to a compliant outbuilding in terms of impact on neighbouring owners and is considered to have a more aesthetically pleasing external appearance than a typical outbuilding. It is considered that a building with a compliant 6m rear setback would have greater impact on the neighbouring properties at 113 and 117 North Street due to an increased effect of building bulk from the building being closer to designated outdoor living areas and habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties (refer to aerial image) and images on page 5, 6 and appendix 8 of the applicant’s justification located in the councillors confidential attachments. The applicant has advised that native vegetation will be planted along the eastern dividing boundary to reduce exposure to the sun, reduce the impact of bulk onto the adjoining properties to the east and strengthen the existing slope of the land with deep landscaping.


44

The R-Codes permit up to 25% overshadowing of an adjoining property with an R12.5 density coding. The location of the structure on the northern boundary means that no overshadowing is proposed. Due to the Finished Floor Level being more than 500mm above the Natural Ground Level the proposed deck at the front of the ancillary accommodation will potentially overlook the property at 117 North Street, Swanbourne. The proposed visual privacy variation was advertised to the adjoining landowner who returned no objection. As discussed in the following section of the report the proposed visual privacy variation is considered to comply with the design principles as there is no visual impact on outdoor living areas and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. Considering the above, the ancillary accommodation is not considered to have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity due to its scale and location, especially when compared to a complaint outbuilding as discussed above.

6.2.2 Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Major openings and unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces, which have a floor level of more than 0.5m above natural ground level and overlook any part of any other residential property behind its street setback line are: Setback, in direct line of sight within the cone of vision from the lot boundary, a minimum distance as prescribed in the table below:

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces: 7.5m

Unscreened portion of deck setback 1.5m in lieu of 7.5m from the western boundary.

No

Design Principles Variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements can be considered subject to satisfying the following Design Principle provisions: “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;


45

Setting back the first floor from the side boundary;

Providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and /or

Scree devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens,

external blinds, window hoods and shutters).”

Administration Comments Due to the slope of the site there is natural overlooking onto adjacent properties. As such 1.6m high obscure privacy screens are proposed to be installed on the sides of the raised deck. The location of the existing outbuilding on 117 North Street, adjacent to the proposed ancillary accommodation restricts views into the property (refer to attachment 2). The northern facing bedroom window at 117 North Street is effectively screened by existing dense vegetation. Additionally, the adjoining landowner returned no objection to the proposed variation.

6.3 Local Planning Policy – Carports and Minor Structure’s Forward of the

Primary Street Setback Area

Policy Requirement Proposed Complies?

The following setbacks shall be deemed as standard and measured to the columns of the carport.

Primary Street Setback 3.5 metres.

Side Boundary 1.0 metre.

The proposed carport will be setback 1.5m from the primary (southern) street boundary.

No

The proposed carport will be setback 1m

from the side (eastern) boundary.

Yes

Policy Objectives “To ensure that the present open character and street amenity of the City of Nedlands is not compromised by the construction of carports and other small structures within the primary street setback area.”

Administration Comments Due to the retention of the existing dwelling, crossover and the R-Code requirement for vehicles to enter the street in forward gear, the proposed front setback of the carport has been reduced to 1.5m to accommodate a reversing area within the properties front setback area (refer to attachment 6). The carport has a 2.3m post height with a flat roof. The materials of construction are proposed to complement the 2nd storey extension. The proposal was advertised to all surrounding landowners, with no objections received.


46

7.0 Other Issues Raised During the advertising period concerns were raised about the ancillary accommodation and possible the master bedroom being used as two separate holiday lets, with regard to noise and security implications. The owner has confirmed the ancillary accommodation is for use by her daughters who will stay at the property when visiting. Short stay accommodation is not proposed as part of this application and if the development is approved and such development occurs afterwards, the City has the ability to take enforcement action. A recommended condition of approval is that a S70a Notification be placed on the Certificate of Title, stating that the ancillary accommodation is only to be used by relatives of the main dwelling.

8.0 Budget / Financial Implications Should Council refuse the application, there may be costs incurred through an appeal of Council’s decision


10.0 Conclusion The proposal involves variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes being the reduced rear boundary setback and visual privacy setback and the primary street setback as per Councils Carport’s Policy. The variations are considered to be compliant with the relevant design principles of the R-Codes and policy objectives as the height and bulk of the ancillary accommodation and location of the carport is not considered to have a negative impact on amenity of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the application is recommended to Council for approval.

PD06.17 - Attachment 1Photograph of the split level backyard at 115 North Street (facing north)

PD06.17 - Attachment 2Photograph of the proposed location for ancillary

accommodation (facing west) from 115 North Street

PD06.17 - Attachment 3Photographs of the proposed location for ancillary

accommodation (facing north) from 115 North Street

PD06.17 - Attachment 4Photograph of the proposed location for ancillary

accommodation (facing east) from 115 North Street

PD06.17 - Attachment 5 Photograph of the proposed location for ancillary

accommodation (facing south east) from 115 North Street

PD06.17 - Attachment 6Photograph of the proposed carport location (facing north) from North Street


47

PD07.17 Development Assessment Panels – City of Nedlands Nomination of Members



Applicant City of Nedlands

Officer Jennifer Heyes – Manager Planning


Reference PLAN-032248

Previous Item Item 14.4 - 24 May 2011 Item 13.5 - 26 February 2013

Item PD07.15 - 24 February 2015

Attachments Nil.

1.0 Executive Summary The Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regulations) requires Council to nominate four elected members of the Council, comprising two local members and two alternate local members to sit on the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). Current Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) member appointments expire on 26 April 2017 and as such Council is requested to submit new nominations. Current members are eligible for re-nomination. Nominees will be appointed for up to a three-year term (recently amended from a two-year term) and it is a mandatory requirement for members to attend training before they sit on a DAP. Previous members who have undertaken training are not required to attend further training.

2.0 Recommendation to Committee Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 26 of the Planning and Development

(Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, nominates the following two local members and two alternate local members to sit on the City of Nedlands Development Assessment Panel:

a) Local members:

i. (insert nominee) ii. (insert nominee)

b) Alternate local members

i. (insert nominee) ii. (insert nominee); and


48

2. Approves these nominations to be submitted to the Department of

Planning.

3.0 Background 3.1 Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: In 2011, Council nominated Councillors Tan and Negus as local members and Mayor Frose and Councillor Hodson as alternate members. In 2013, Council nominated Mayor Hipkins and Councillor Shaw as local members and Councillor Hassell and Councillor Somerville-Brown as alternative members. In 2015, Council nominated Mayor Hipkins and Councillor Shaw as local members and Councillors Hassell and Smyth as alternative members.

4.0 Consultation Required by legislation: Yes No Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

5.0 Legislation / Policy

Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regulations)

Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Amendment Regulations 2016 (DAP Amendment Regulations)

6.0 Budget/Financial Implications Should Council refuse the application, there may be costs incurred through an appeal of Council’s decision.

7.0 Risk Management There are no known risks for the City.

8.0 Discussion 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. Appointment of the City’s current DAP members, (Mayor Max Hipkins and Councillor Nigel Shaw as local members, and Councillor Hassell and Smyth as alternate local members), expires on 26 April 2017.


49

The City is requested to nominate two new local members and two new alternate local members to sit on the DAP for the next three year term, expiring on 26 April 2020. Current members are eligible for nomination. The DAP Regulations 2011 have been recently amended by the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Amendment Regulations 2016 (DAP Amendment Regulations). These amended regulations come into operation on the 1st February 2017 and have amended the term of appointment for DAP members from two years to three. The reason being, that as local government elections are held every 2 years for half the Council , if the DAP members term expires at the same time, situations may arise in which no local government councillors have been formally appointed to the DAP. The amendment will allow local government DAP members who retain office as local councillors after an election to remain in place as DAP members until they can be formally reappointed. The original three month period to re-appoint members was not proving sufficient time for formal re-appointment. DAP members are entitled to be paid for their attendance at DAP meetings and training, unless they fall within a class of persons excluded from payment. If Council nominates local members as requested, the nominees will be submitted to the Department of Planning and the Minister of Planning will consider and appoint the nominees for up to a three-year term. All appointed local members will be placed on the local government member register and advised of DAP training dates and times. If Council chooses not to nominate members, the Minister has the power to appoint two non-councillors from the community to represent the local community. The Department of Planning has noted that “When selecting nominees, the Council should consider that local government elections may result in a change to DAP membership if current councillors, who are DAP members, are not re-elected. If members are not re-elected, the local government will need to re-nominate for the Minister’s consideration”.

9.0 Conclusion It is recommended Council nominate four local DAP members as requested, for the consideration of the Minister.


50

PD08.17 Public Health Act 2016 – Authorised Officers



Applicant City of Nedlands

Officer Andrew Melville – Manager Health and Compliance


Reference PLAN-032491

Previous Item Nil.

Attachments Nil.

1.0 Executive Summary The new Public Health Act 2016 provides a modern legislative framework to regulate public health in Western Australia. This Act will repeal much of the outdated Health Act 1911, where traditionally all Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were “approved” by the Executive Director Public Health (EDPH) to perform specified functions of that Act. The introduction of the Public Health Act 2016 will see EHOs be referred to as Authorised Officers and as such, are to be designated and authorised by the Local Government that employs them. The Local Government may delegate the function of authorising officers to the Chief Executive Officer.

2.0 Recommendation to Committee That Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to designate authorised officers under the Public Health Act 2016 in accordance with section 21 (1) (b) (i) of the Public Health Act 2016.

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

3.0 Strategic Plan KFA: Natural and Built Environment This report will enable the City to undertake inspections, compliance actions and enforcement of the Public Health Act 2016.


51

4.0 Background The Public Health Act 2016 received Royal Assent on 25 July 2016. The long standing Health Act 1911 will be phased out by the state government over a period of 3-5 years through a staged process and replaced by the Public Health Act 2016. This report informs the Council of the commencement of the Public Health Act 2016, and provides the Chief Executive Officer with the appropriate delegation to designate Environmental Health Officers with authority as described in the Act. Under the provisions of the old Health Act 1911, Environmental Health Officers employed by Local Governments were “approved” through the powers conferred to the Executive Director Public Health from the Department of Health WA. Under the provisions of Section 21 of the Public Health Act 2016, the Local Government, also referred to as an enforcement agency, has the power to delegate the duty conferred or imposed on it, to the City’s Chief Executive Officer. 4.1 Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Nil

5.0 Consultation Required by legislation: Yes No Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

6.0 Legislation / Policy This report will enable the City to appoint authorised officers as described under the Public Health Act 2016.

7.0 Budget/Financial Implications Within current approved budget: Yes No Requires further budget consideration: Yes No There are no financial implications to this report.

8.0 Risk Management The Department of Health WA has recommended that local governments take steps to ensure that relevant delegated authorities are in place, In order to minimise the impact on local governments. There is a risk that if the steps recommended by the Department of Health WA are not taken near the time the new Act comes into effect the City will not have all the authority it needs to enforce the legislation. This could mean that the responsible officers will not have the authority for investigating any public health matter within the City of Nedlands local government district.


52

9.0 Discussion The new Public Health Act 2016 provides modern legislation to regulate public health in Western Australia. The Act will repeal much of the outdated Health Act 1911 and is designed to better protect and promote the health of all Western Australians. The Public Health Act 2016 provides a flexible and proactive framework for the regulation of public health. Key features of the Act include:

Promoting public health and wellbeing in the community;

Help prevent disease, injury, disability and premature death;

Inform individuals and communities about public health risks;

Encourage individuals and their communities to plan for, create and maintain a healthy environment;

Support programs and campaigns intended to improve public health;

Collect information about the incidence and prevalence of diseases and other public health risks for research purposes; and

Reduce the health inequalities in public health of disadvantaged communities. Local governments will enforce the Public Health Act 2016. Authorised officers (previously known as Environmental Health Officers) are responsible for investigating any public health matter within their local government district. Traditionally, under the provisions of the Health Act 1911, all Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were “approved” by the Executive Director Public Health (EDPH) to perform specified functions of the Act. The EDPH was a specified role within the Health Act 1911 and the person assigned to that role was an employee of the Department of Health WA. Each time a Local Government appointed an EHO, it had to seek “approval” from the EDPH for that EHO to undertake the duties of the Health Act 1911. This application process can take several weeks with the EHO being ultimately issued with an authority card through the Department of Health. The introduction of the Public Health Act 2016 will see EHOs be referred to as Authorised Officers and as such are to be designated and authorised by the Local Government that employs them, and no longer relies on “approvals” from the Department of Health WA. The Local Government may delegate the function of authorising officers to the Chief Executive Officer. The Public Health Act 2016 (Section 25) does however, require that those authorised persons to have certain qualifications and experience and aligns with those typically required of an EHO. As such, the administrative process for issuing approvals for authorised officers can be taken with minimum delay and EHO’s can be given authority to perform their functions almost immediately after they are employed through the delegation of that duty to the Chief Executive Officer.


53

Section 30 of the Public Health Act 2016 specifies that an authorised officer must be issued a certificate of authority card by the Local Government. It is envisaged that this certificate of authority card would be signed or approved by the delegate of the Council who it is recommended would be the Chief Executive Officer.

10.0 Conclusion The new Public Health Act 2016 provides modern legislation to regulate public health in Western Australia. The Act will repeal much of the outdated Health Act 1911 where traditionally, all Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were “approved” by the Executive Director Public Health (EDPH) to perform specified functions of the Act. The introduction of the Public Health Act 2016 will see EHOs be referred to as Authorised Officers and as such are to be designated and authorised by the Local Government that employs them, and no longer relies on “approvals” from the Department of Health WA. The Local Government may delegate the function of authorising officers to the Chief Executive Officer.

planning and development reports › sites › default › files... · 2017 pd reports – pd01.17...

Documents