town of claremont ordinary council meeting minutes tuesday ...€¦ · 9/12/2014 · mr amar...

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER, 2014

Stephen Goode CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Date:

DISCLAIMER Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to any particular decision.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 9 DECEMBER, 2014

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ............ 1

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE .......... 1

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS .................................................................. 2

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE . 2

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .......................................................................... 2

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ....................................................................... 2

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................ 2

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS ........................................ 2

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ..................... 2

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ......................................... 3

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ............... 3

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ..................................................................... 4

12.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE ................................................ 4

12.1.1 INTERNAL AUDIT FRAMEWORK ......................................... 4

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO ............................................................................. 7

13.1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 7

13.1.1 LOT 3 (5) BAY VIEW TERRACE, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SHOP FRONT ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE FOR ‘EYE STATION’.............................................................. 7

13.1.2 NORTH EAST PRECINCT, LOT 504 GRAYLANDS ROAD, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED FIVE AND SIX-STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 142 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING ............................................................................. 12

13.1.3 NORTH EAST PRECINCT, LOT 505 GRAYLANDS ROAD, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIX STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 92 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS33


Page (ii)

13.1.4 LOT 1 (23) ST QUENTIN AVENUE, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR 'WIZARD PHARMACY' .......... 53

13.1.5 LOT 2 (222) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO HERITAGE LISTED BUILDING ............................................................... 57

13.1.6 LOT 31 (209-211) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR EXISTING SHOWROOM ‘GODFREYS’ ........................................................................ 62

13.1.7 LOT 6 (273) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE TO EXISTING SHOWROOM FOR ‘LAXXON’ ............................................. 66

13.1.8 LOT 505 (301) STIRLING HIGHWAY - PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO 'RECREATION-INDOOR (ACTIVE)' FOR SNAP FITNESS ........................................................... 71

13.1.9 ADOPTION OF CLAREMONT NORTH EAST PRECINCT DESIGN GUIDELINES AS A LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND PROPOSED VARIATION TO DETAILED AREA PLAN FOR LOTS 528-530 AND 532-543 ....................................... 81

13.1.10 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW – CONSIDERATION OF 13 SMITH STREET, CLAREMONT . 85

13.1.11 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW – CONSIDERATION OF 18 BINDARING PARADE AND 3 PENNELL ROAD, CLAREMONT ......................................... 94

13.2 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE ............................................ 103

13.2.1 REVIEW OF POLICY MANUAL ......................................... 103

13.2.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 NOVEMBER 2014 ................... 106

13.2.3 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1 TO 30 NOVEMBER 2014 ............. 110

13.2.4 2013-14 ANNUAL REPORT ............................................... 112

13.2.5 CLAREMONT ON THE PARK - PROPOSED DAVIES ROAD CAR PARK UPGRADE, PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE ........ 115

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................... 118

13.3.1 PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE OF AVION WAY - SINGLE LANE (SOUTH TO NORTH) ................................ 118


Page (iii)

13.3.2 USE OF ROAD RESERVE WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY JUDGE AVENUE, ASHTON AVENUE AND RAILWAY LINE FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF MATERIALS...... 121

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON ............................. 124

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ........................................................................................... 124

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING ....................... 124

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ..................................................................... 124

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ....................................................... 124

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ....................................... 124


Page 1

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

9 DECEMBER, 2014

MINUTES

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

His Worship the Mayor, Mr Jock Barker, welcomed members of the public, staff and Councillors and declared the meeting open at 7:01 PM.

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

ATTENDANCE

Mayor Barker Cr Karen Wood West Ward Cr Peter Edwards West Ward Cr Peter Browne West Ward Cr Jill Goetze South Ward Cr Chris Mews South Ward Cr Alistair Tulloch East Ward Cr Bruce Haynes East Ward Cr Anita Lorenz East Ward

Mr Stephen Goode (Chief Executive Officer) Mr Saba Kirupananther (Executive Manager People and Places) Ms Liz Ledger (Executive Manager Planning and Development) Mr David Vinicombe (Executive Manager Planning and Development) Ms Julia Kingsbury (Manager Planning) Ms Katie Bovell (Governance Officer)

10 Members of the public 2 Member of the press

APOLOGIES

Cr Paul Kelly – Leave of Absence

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Moved Cr Browne, seconded Cr Wood That Cr Kelly be granted leave of absence for Ordinary Council Meeting 9 December 2014 to the Ordinary Council Meeting 3 February 2014.

CARRIED(191/14) (NO DISSENT)


Page 2

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

An interest was declared by Cr Edwards, for Item No 13.1.1, Lot 3 (5) Bay View Terrace, Claremont – Proposed Shop Front Alterations and Signage for ‘Eye Station’. Nature of Interest: Financial. Extent of Interest: By virtue of working in competition with the applicant

within the town centre.

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

NIL

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME NIL

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME Mr Amar Patel, PO Box 1213, Joondalup. Re: Item 13.1.8, Lot 505 (301) Stirling Highway - Proposed Change of Use to 'Recreation-Indoor (Active)' for Snap Fitness. Mr Patel spoke in favour of the proposed change of use application. Ms Jeanette O’Keefe, 13 Smith Street, Claremont. Re: Item 13.1.10, Draft Municipal Inventory Review – Consideration of 13 Smith Street, Claremont. Ms O’Keefe spoke against the Officer Recommendation. Mr Phillip Pullinger, 1 Mount Street, Claremont. Re: Item 13.1.11, Draft Municipal Inventory Review – Consideration of 18 Bindaring Parade and 3 Pennell Road, Claremont. Mr Pullinger spoke against the Officer Recommendation.

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence was granted for Cr Kelly in Item 2.

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

NIL

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Browne That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 18 November 2014 be confirmed.



Page 3

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

NIL

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

NIL


Page 4

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

12.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

12.1.1 INTERNAL AUDIT FRAMEWORK

File Ref: GOV/00054 Attachments: Draft Risk Management Framework

Risk Categories Terms of Reference

Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Author: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014

Purpose The report presents the Draft Risk Management Framework, Risk Categories, and revised Terms of Reference of the Audit Committee for adoption by Council.

Background The Town has been undertaking a review of its risk management practices and has developed a draft Risk Management Framework for adoption by Council. The draft was presented for discussion by Council at a briefing session held on 20 October 2014 and, at the request of Council, reviewed by the Audit Committee at its meeting held 28 November 2014.

Discussion The Town has undertaken a review of its risk management practices and established a draft Risk Management Framework (Attachment 1). This document provides the components which make up the foundations and arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring and reviewing risk management throughout the organisation. In addition, and to guide implementation of the framework, five Risk Categories (Attachment 2) have been developed which best classify those areas of risk considered relevant to the Town. Within each category, a measure of consequence or significance is provided to assist in prioritising action and allocation of resources. The five risk categories include;

• Human safety and well-being • Financial and legal • Environmental • Reputation and governance • Capacity to deliver services


Page 5

Changes to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 require the Audit Committee to receive reports from the CEO on reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of systems and procedures in relation to –

• Risk management • Internal control, and • Legislative compliance. In formalising Councils response to this requirement, it is proposed the risk program be established to encompass monitoring and reporting on activities as determined by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis in accordance with the framework. This includes the management of the Strategic and Operational Risk Register. Internal audit activity focuses on areas of risk including financial and non-financial systems and compliance with legislation, regulations, policies and best practice. Where required, action plans will be developed and agreed with management for audit recommendations and follow-ups conducted to ensure that they are implemented as agreed. The status of internal audit recommendations will be reported to the CEO on a monthly basis and the Audit Committee quarterly. Action plans, if required, will be developed following the monitoring and reviewing of activities when improvements are identified. The terms of reference (Attachment 3) of the Audit Committee will be amended to reflect its role in risk management and is recommended for adoption.

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications The draft framework includes a draft Risk Management Policy which outlines the Town’s commitment and approach to managing risks that may impact on its day-to-day operations and threaten the achievement of its objectives.

Publicity Nil

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

• Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.


Page 6

Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Wood That Council adopt the; 1. Draft Risk Management Framework

2. Draft Risk Categories

3. Draft Audit Committee – Terms of Reference as presented.



Page 7

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO

13.1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Cr Edwards declared a financial interest in Item 13.1.1 due to his employer being in competition with the applicant within the town centre and left the meeting at 7:22 PM.

13.1.1 LOT 3 (5) BAY VIEW TERRACE, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SHOP FRONT ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE FOR ‘EYE STATION’

File No: A-411/DA-2014.00199 Attachments - Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph

Attachments - Restricted: Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe

Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Josh Wilson

Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 15 December 2014 Property Owner: Gretna Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted By: Mathews and Scavalli Architects Area of Lot: 1,511m2 Zoning: Town Centre Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) Town Centre Zone Signage Policy (PS202)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a shop front alterations, an

internal reconfiguration and associated signage for ‘Eye Station’.

• Subject site is listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory and the TPS3 Heritage Schedule as being part of the Bay View Terrace Heritage Precinct.

• No change of use is proposed as an optometrist is classified as a ‘shop’ under TPS3.

• Application is recommended for approval.

Purpose For Council to consider an application for a shop front alterations, an internal reconfiguration and signage to the existing commercial building on the subject site. The application requires the Council’s determination as it is of a commercial nature.


Page 8

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome 16 October 2014 Planning application received by Council. 22 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 28 October 2014 Advertising commenced. 14 November 2014 Advertising closed. 25 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application.

Heritage The subject site is listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory and the TPS3 Heritage Inventory as being located within the Bay View Terrace Heritage Precinct. As such the proposal was referred to the Town’s heritage officer for comment and he has advised that the Town’s Inventory makes it clear that the shop front of No.5 Bay View Terrace is contemporary and not original. The proposed alterations relate primarily to the shopfront. The other changes being made to the building relate to the internal finishes. The form of the building is being maintained and no significant fabric is being altered. Based on this assessment the application can be supported.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Eight neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

Discussion Description The application proposes the following works:

• Removal of the existing shopfront (folding doors).

• New shopfront including full-height glazing, new double doors and window displays.

• New internal partitions and refurbishment to create a consultation room and kitchenette at the rear of the shop.

• Two signs as detailed below. The proposed alterations will maintain the existing appearance of the ground floor shop front and in particular the glazing will provide substantial views into the shop from the street, which will enhance the pedestrian amenity and activity of the area.


Page 9

Use An optometrist is classified as a ‘shop’ under TPS3 which is defined as: ‘A building or part of a building in which goods are kept exposed for sale by retail, and includes a lunch bar, newsagency, a branch of a building society or bank in which the services provided involve continuing contact with the public, or a building or part of a building in which counter services involving continuing contact with the public are provided. The word does not include: (a) premises used for the sale of petrol, boats, motor or other vehicles; (b) a Showroom.’ An alternative use-class of ‘consulting room’ could be considered however as the majority of the optometrists is proposed to be taken up by retail displays this is not seen as appropriate. Compliance Shopfront Alteration and Internal Refurbishment: The proposed shopfront alterations and internal fitout comply with the requirements of TPS3 and Council Policy and will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Signage: The application proposes two signs:

• One ‘window sign’ measuring 1.1m by 0.8m with an area of 0.88m2 displaying the words ‘The Eye Station’.

• One illuminated ‘under verandah sign’ measuring 1.7m x 0.5m with an area of 0.85m2 displaying the words ‘The Eye Station’.

The proposed signage has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS). Under the Town’s LLRS window signs are required to occupy no more than 50% of any window and no more than 25% of all combined windows. The proposed sign occupies 11% of the window and is well below the maximum permitted size. The proposed illuminated ‘under verandah sign’ complies with the requirements of the LLRS with the exception of having a clearance above footpath level of 2.4m in lieu of 2.7m. As the proposed sign overhangs a public footpath the required clearance above the footpath level ensures public safety. As the subject site is located on Bay View Terrace with high levels of pedestrian traffic the proposal is required to comply with minimum clearance. Any approval should be conditioned to provide a minimum 2.7m clearance above the existing footpath level with revised dimensions of the signage being submitted for approval prior to the issue of a sign licence. Signage in the Town Centre may also be required to comply with the Town Centre Zone Policy (PS202). Table 1 of PS202 states that the policy does not apply to


Page 10

window signs and under verandah signs therefore the proposed signage is not required to be assessed. Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation. Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Wood

THAT Council grant planning approval for the proposed shop front alterations, an internal reconfiguration and signage for ‘The Eye Station’ at Lot 1 (5) Bay View Terrace subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings (Planning Application DA2014.199), as amended by these conditions.

2. The proposed under verandah sign is to have a minimum clearance above the existing footpath level of 2.7m with revised details to be submitted prior to the issue of a Sign Licence.

3. The under verandah sign is to comply with the requirements for illuminated signs as per clause 21 of the Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs.

4. Window signage is to occupy no more than 25% of any window and no more than 50% of the total glazed area of the shop front.

5. All signage is to be kept clean, intact and free of graffiti/vandalism at all times and any such graffiti or vandalism being removed within 24 hours.

6. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval.

Advice Notes: (i) This is a Planning Approval only. A Building Permit must be obtained

from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission;

(ii) A sign licence must be obtained from the Town’s Building Services prior to the installation of any signage.

(iii) This property is listed on the Town of Claremont's Heritage Schedule and/or the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places. Any future alteration to the building or development on the land requires planning approval and the application may be referred to the Heritage Council.

(iv) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out:

a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.


Page 11

(v) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.


Cr Edwards returned to the meeting at 7:23 PM


Page 12

13.1.2 NORTH EAST PRECINCT, LOT 504 GRAYLANDS ROAD, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED FIVE AND SIX-STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 142 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING

File No: A-4759/DA2014.00213 Attachments - Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph

Attachments - Restricted: Plans

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Author: Julia Kingsbury Manager Planning

Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Date Prepared: 17 November 2014 60 Days Due Date: 22 December 2014 Property Owner: LandCorp Submitted By: Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd

Zoning: Development Zone Financial Implications: Nil

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Claremont North East Precinct (NEP) Structure Plan (SP) Claremont NEP Design Guidelines (DGs) and Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) Residential Design Codes (RDC)

Summary • Application received for a proposed five/six-storey residential development at

Lot 504 of the North East Precinct (NEP) development containing 142 Multiple Dwellings.

• This application relates to an associated application for 92 Multiple Dwellings located on the adjacent Lot 505, being the subject of another report contained in this Council Agenda.

• Proposal is generally consistent with the NEP Structure Plan (SP), Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) and the Design Guidelines (DGs), although some variations are proposed relative to minor intrusions of building height, direct access to the oval edge, allocation of parking bays and the assigned vehicle access point for the development.


Page 13

• Proposal has been reviewed by the Claremont on the Park Architect and is generally supported.

• In order to comply with TPS3 requirements on amalgamation over boundaries, specific measures need to be taken to allow the common basement parking area to be constructed under Lots 504 and 505 together with the POS located in between.

• Recommended that the application be approved by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose For Council to: (i) Be informed that the application has been referred to the JDAP for

determination in accordance with the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs); and

(ii) Consider the officer recommendation for the proposed residential development at proposed Lot 504.

Background The land is described as Lot 504 Davies Road, Claremont and is zoned “Development” under TPS3. The Development zone is subject to the Claremont NEP Structure Plan (SP) that was initially endorsed by Council on 2 December 2008 and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in August 2010. Council endorsed variations to the Structure Plan in December 2012 and the WAPC endorsed in part the Council supported SP in April 2013. The WAPC decision was partially acknowledged in July 2013 and unresolved matters were deferred for further consideration.

Lot 504 is 3,831m2 in area and maintains a frontage to Graylands Road and the new road to be constructed to the north of the site.

From a legislative point of view, the application is required to be assessed by a JDAP. Given the estimated cost of development (i.e. greater than $7 million), the application under the DAP Regulations is listed as a “Mandatory Development Assessment Panel Application” and therefore must be considered and determined by a JDAP.

The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome

23 October 2014 Planning Application received by Council. 29 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 5 November 2014 Advertising commenced. 21 November 2014 Advertising closed. 24 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions The Claremont NEP SP was initially approved by Council at its 2 December 2008 OCM and subsequently endorsed by the WAPC on 16 June 2010.


Page 14

The Design Guidelines (DGs), which were adopted as Council Policy on 18 December 2012, aim to encourage high quality architectural expression, form and consistency throughout the NEP. The DGs outline the design intent for all development within the NEP and collectively ensure that the principles and objectives are being met. As a Local Planning Policy, advertised and adopted under cl.82 of TPS3, any variation to the DGs must have regard to the provisions and the objectives the Policy is designed to achieve.

The Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) outline the mandatory fundamental development controls to address the specific requirements of the individual lots. As the DAPs are now part of the SP, any formal variation to the DAPs are required, in accordance with cl.75P(9) of TPS3, to follow procedures set out in cl.75P onwards, providing they do not prejudice the intention of an related SP. These variations are considered to relate the actual DAPs rather than the “standards” which are applied within each DAP. The SP indicates that “The future provision of Design Guidelines and Detailed Area Plans, to be read in conjunction with the local Structure Plan will provide a clear guide for future development of the NEP to ensure that the vision for this exciting project is achieved to the highest standard.” Given that the DAPs are to “guide” development it would be illogical to conclude that minor variations to the DAPs require full consultation as provided for under cl.75P. In addition, it is noted in the various locations within the DGs (and DAPs) adopted by Council on 18 December 2012, specifically within the approval process, that applications are to substantially achieve all the design criteria or be varied with satisfactory justification.

At its meeting held on 21 October 2014 the Council resolved to note a number of minor clarifications to the DGs and DAPs including revised lot numbers for the WA Police and Community Youth Centres (PCYC) subdivision, sewer easement locations and the renaming of the ‘Town Architect’ to the ‘Claremont on the Park Architect’. Council also resolved to advertise for public comment proposed modifications to the public art and waste storage requirements of the DG’s which are the subject of another report on this Council Agenda.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Three neighbours including the Royal Agricultural Society, the PCYC and Georgiou Group (developers of Lot 503) were consulted and no submissions were received.

Discussion

Description Approval is sought for the construction of a six storey residential development containing 142 multiple dwellings and associated car parking. This application has been lodged in tandem with an application for 92 multiple dwellings on the adjacent Lot 505 (separated by a pocket park of POS). The combined application provides for a coordinated development with a joint underground parking area linked under the POS. Details of the proposal include:

• A six-storey development on the corner of Graylands Road and Road 2 to the north of Lot 504.


Page 15

• A total of 142 multiple dwellings comprising of 37 one-bedroom dwellings (48 – 62m²), 86 two-bedroom dwellings (68 – 104m²), and 19 three-bedroom dwellings (105 – 115m²). All the dwellings feature a balcony or terrace overlooking Graylands Road, Road 2 or the Claremont Football Oval.

• Vehicle access from Graylands Road to two shared basement car parking levels containing 300 residential car parking bays and 39 visitor car parking bays. It is proposed to share the vehicle access and basement parking levels with the adjacent development at Lot 505.

• Dual pedestrian access to a residential lobby proposed from Graylands Road and the south-west edge of the development (facing the Claremont Football Oval). Pedestrian access to an additional residential lobby is also proposed from Road 2 to the north of the site. The majority of the ground floor level apartments also feature direct access from either Road 2 to the north of the site or the internal pedestrian access way adjacent to the Claremont Football Oval.

• An internal landscaped area below an internal void accessible from the pedestrian lobby.

Compliance The proposal has been assessed against the TPS3, SP, DAPs and DGs for the subject site. Details of the proposal’s compliance with these requirements are discussed further in the report.

As per the requirements of the DGs, the proposal has also be assessed by the Claremont on the Park Architect. Attached is a schedule of the DG and DAP requirements and the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comments.

The application generally complies with TPS3 requirements relating to Design and Construction, Protection of Townscape, Landform and Vegetation (clauses 76, 77, 80 and 81) and Submission of the required information (cl. 83).

Land Use In accordance with Table 1 of TPS3, the permitted uses within the ‘Development’ zone are to be determined with reference to the designations in the approved SP. The SP and DAP indicate that Lot 504 is designated for ‘Residential’ use including a minimum yield of 97 dwellings. It is proposed to provide 142 multiple dwellings on the subject site, representing a 46% increase in development yield. The combined development site proposes the construction of 234 dwellings, which compared to the minimum yield of 178 dwellings, represents an increased development yield of 56 dwellings or 31.5%. The increased development yield has resulted from the WAPC decision not to endorse 93m2 as the average minimum apartment size within the development. It is noted that Council resolved (in part) on 2 July 2013 to accept the WAPC position on the apartment sizes within the development.

It is noted that the applicant has submitted plans to the Town to construct a temporary Sales Office on the POS between Lots 504 and 505 to facilitate the pre-sale of the residential development. Although technically a Sales Office would be defined as an ‘Office’ use it is considered that the proposed use would be incidental in this instance and only temporary in nature. To avoid an unnecessary separate


Page 16

application for approval, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to permit the construction of a temporary sales office on the subject site, for a period of less than 12 months, subject to details of the proposed location, design and landscaping treatment of the Sales Office being submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont prior its construction.

Detailed Area Plan – Lot 504 The proposal has been assessed against the approved DAP for Lot 504. The table below addresses the proposals and requirements, and includes the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comments on the proposal. In general the proposal is supported noting the proposal does not strictly comply with the Building Height requirements of the DAP, but however meets the objectives and intent of the DGs. Individual elements of the design were assessed against the provisions of the DAP relevant to Lot 504 are outlined in the Table below.

Detailed Area Plan (Lot 504) Design Element

Development Requirement

Proposal Complies

Target Dwelling Yield

97 Dwellings (based on an average dwelling size of 93m²)

The proposed development will accommodate 142 dwellings.

Complies Officer Comment It is noted that the proposed minimum average dwelling size of 93m² was not supported by the WAPC and Council has accepted this position. Comments regarding the proposal’s compliance with the development diversity requirements of the DGs (RDC) are discussed later in the report.

Building Height

• Minimum 4, maximum 5 storeys for the northern portion of the site to a minimum depth of 30m from the northern boundary;

• 5 storey building height for the northern portion of the lot;

• 6 storey building height for the southern portion of the lot;

• Complies

Officer Comment It is however noted that due to the slope of the lot (increasing from north to south), the upper basement parking level extends above ground level adjacent to Road 2 to the north west of the site. Instead of incorporating above ground parking in this area, which would result in a ground level blank and inactive wall along Road 2, it is proposed to incorporate nine dwellings in the area to sleeve the parking and conceal it from view of the street. This results in five levels fronting Road 2 and five levels fronting both Graylands Road and the POS around


Page 17

• Minimum 5,

maximum 6 storeys for the southern portion of the site.

• Apartments A605 and A611 result in a minor encroachment into the sixth storey setback under the DAP.

the oval. Does not comply Officer Comment The proposed development encroaches into the 30m set back area to accommodate portions of two additional apartments within the development (approximately 75% of each apartment). The upper level extends approximately 9m into the setback area along the Graylands Road frontage and between 7m and 13m along the oval frontage. The proposed variation is considered minor and will not significantly add to the bulk of the development as viewed from the street or oval. The encroachments will not significantly increase overshadowing of the internal courtyard, oval or adjoining sites and not have an adverse impact on the amenity of occupants of the development or the adjoining sites. It is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the DG with dwellings within the development being provided with sufficient access to sun breeze, views and privacy. The proposed encroachment into the setback area for the 6th storey will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent dwellings within the development or on the future development of the adjacent sites. Claremont on the Park Architect Comment Some encroachment has occurred into the upper level height setbacks. The applicant has demonstrated that the encroachment does not negatively impact on adjacent development or existing neighbours in regards to shadow or form. With regards to the


Page 18

architectural proportions of the building these are well composed. Given the above the partial encroachment is supported.

Setbacks Unless otherwise stated, all buildings shall have a zero setback to the boundary for a minimum of 70% of the building facade. Small setbacks to a maximum of 3.0 metres are permitted to allow for architectural articulation of the facade and the provision of recessed building entries and landscape elements.

A nil setback is proposed to a minimum of 70% of the proposed development.

Complies

Construction Zone

A 2m wide construction zone, along the southern and eastern lot boundaries, being provided for temporary use by the developer to facilitate the construction process.

Details are not provided on this construction aspect at this time.

Officer Comment Details should be provided to the Town as part of the required Site, Traffic and Noise Management Plan prior to the issue of a building permit.

Vehicle Access location

Two Vehicle access points permitted located on the New Road and Graylands Road as shown on the DAP.

A single, double width vehicle access point is proposed to the north of the preferred location on Graylands Road.

Generally Complies Officer Comment The proposed vehicle access point is not located in the nominated position as per the DAP being approximately the middle point of the site along Graylands Road. It is proposed to locate the vehicle access point to the north of the preferred location. This will minimise traffic crossing points and, given that this has been supported by the applicant’s traffic consultants. Concern has been raised by Engineering Services that the entrance design may not provide sufficient design capacity to avoid queuing on Graylands Road. The Traffic Report submitted with


Page 19

the application does not presently suitably address this matter. Whilst a significant redesign of the entrance and its associated internal driveway is not likely, the Traffic Engineer may prove that the driveway will operate to a suitable design standard, or alternatively the applicant is to submit design details which will rectify any potential problems without removal of any car bays.

Communal Amenity Space Area

Communal private open space being provided in the location as shown on the DAP.

An internal courtyard is proposed in the location as detailed on the DAP. The landscaped courtyard is also accessible from the adjacent pedestrian access way to the south of the site.

Complies

Claremont NEP Design Guidelines The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the DGs. A schedule of the proposal’s compliance with all the DG requirements including the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comment in regards to its compliance is attached to this report.

Details of the proposal’s compliance are as follows:

Urban Design

• Climate and Site The proposed development complies with the DG objectives to ensure buildings are designed to respond to their environment; and provide an amenable micro-climate for habitation while minimising the ongoing energy consumption. A central external courtyard void has been proposed within the development which assists in achieving cross ventilation to the dwellings surrounding this space. Where dwellings back onto an access corridor, dual aspects are maximised to as many of these dwellings as possible (corner dwellings and dwellings adjacent to recesses within the building facade) so as to increase the opportunity for cross ventilation. Where possible the solar orientation of the development has been considered whilst ensuring the development addresses the public streets and the Claremont Football Oval. East and west facing glazing is proposed to be protected by movable screens and projecting slab edges. Additional information has been provided by the applicant in regards to the number of screens provided per apartment and the percentage of shading the screens will provide to the living and bedroom areas. It is noted that the proposed development only features a limited number of due west facing dwellings – those which face the Oval.

• Interface to the Public Domain


Page 20

The proposed development complies with the DG objectives to ensure buildings provide an appropriate response to the adjacent public realm that correlates to the overall character and sense of place, provide amenity and outlook to development, enhance the perceived sense of safety of public spaces through positive passive surveillance, and establish a sense of shared ownership and accessibility of public spaces. The subject site is located adjacent to the Graylands Plaza (shown as “The Race” on the plans), a linking plaza and pocket park and the North Link, a pedestrian link from Road 2 to the public street interface of the oval known in the DGs as Apex Park.

Adjacent to the North Link (Link 7 in DGs), the proposed development is designed to feature major openings, including balconies overlooking the PAW. The proposed facade is articulated through the use of shade screens and different materials, textures and finishes.

Adjacent to Graylands Plaza (Link 6 in DGs), the proposed development is also designed to feature major openings and balconies overlooking the POS. The proposed facade is articulated through the addition of depth to section of the facade and the use of a variety of materials, textures and finishes. The development also incorporates a public artwork at the corner of Graylands Road and Graylands Plaza.

• Precinct Context The proposed development complies with the DG objectives to maintain individual design elements and expression and corresponds to the adjacent development to the west at Lot 503 and proposed development associated with this application on the adjacent Lot 505 in terms of built form, modern and contemporary design and compatible materials and finishes to provide a cohesive approach to development throughout the precinct.

• Discovery The proposed development complies with the objectives of the DGs to create a quality visual experience at the pedestrian scale, maximise legibility and visual linkages and views. The proposed development does not impede on the view corridors through the POS and access ways between Lots 503, 504 and 505 and views to the public areas including the street and oval are achieved through major openings and balconies of the development. The DGs identify a requirement for a ‘View Terminating Element’ on the corner of Graylands Road and Road 2 which is to be appropriately designed and detailed so as to provide clear way finding and a high level of architectural interest. The proposed development is designed to step down in height towards the corner of the site and wrap around the corner to the northern and eastern facades of the development. The corner presents as a unique design expression, however transitions to the adjoining facades with a cohesive use of materials and features. A range of materials and finishes including painted render, timber look “Trespa” panels, glazing and a stone feature add interest to the view terminating facade with darker colour finishes highlighting the facades behind this element of the building.

• Development Diversity The proposed development complies with the DG objective to provide a range and variety of dwelling sizes and types to cater for a diverse range of housing types and


Page 21

income levels. In this regard 26% of dwellings are one bedroom dwellings which complies with the minimum 20% requirement of the Residential Design Codes (RDC) and 61% of the dwellings are two bedroom dwellings which comply with the minimum 40% requirement of the RDC. In addition, 13% of the dwellings are three bedroom dwellings. The proposed dwellings range in size from 48m² to 115m².

• Active Edges The proposed development generally complies with the objectives to create interesting, attractive and safe streets and public places for residents and visitors, maximise views across the public realm, orientate residential living spaces toward the street and contribute to a sense of liveliness and safety. The proposed design, materials and finishes including the integration of the proposed public art elements creates an articulated, interesting and complexity to the development. The proposal includes two through site lobby connections with both physical and visual links and also encourages informal surveillance of the surrounding public realm areas through use of balconies and major openings. A variation to the setback requirements of the DAP for the subject lot is proposed which is discussed further in this report. The proposed setback variation does not impact on the street level streetscape which is activated by locating balconies and terraces on the street and oval frontages with direct pedestrian access from the street and oval where possible. It is noted that where direct pedestrian access to individual apartments is not provided along the oval frontage, the apartments are located adjacent to secondary pedestrian access points connecting to the main lobby areas. This ensures that access to and from the public realm is in close proximity to all ground floor apartments. It is noted that this requirement was varied for Lot 503 due to the raised level of the apartments above the oval edge POS levels. The subject lot accommodates the proposed vehicle entrance for the car parking area to be shared with Lot 505 to the south of the subject site. The remainder of the ground floor level is activated by lobby entries or residential apartments. A small section of the ground floor level (with parking located behind) adjacent to the vehicle entry and at the north-west corner of the site does not feature an active facade due to the natural levels of the site and to conceal the parking. The facade is proposed to be finished in a high quality stone finish which is discussed further in this report in relation to the ground floor height above street level.

• Public Art The applicant has engaged ‘Form’ to complete a public art strategy of the subject site in order to comply with the objectives and development controls of the DGs. The applicant has identified two potential locations for a large scale integrated public art work feature and a medium singular art work feature for the subject site. The art strategy identifies the curved oval facing facade of the development as an opportunity to create an integrated public art work feature through the design, material and finish of the proposed sun shade screens. As the proposed screens are moveable there is an opportunity to create a changing element of visual interest. The strategy also identifies a location on the southern facade of the development adjacent to the POS separating the subject lot from Lot 505 as a potential location for a single public art work feature. The proposed location enables an opportunity to install either an integrated art work feature or separate feature on the corner of the development.


Page 22

The applicant is currently short listing potential artists to design and complete the public art work features for the development. It is considered that the proposed locations and concepts providing in the public art strategy comply with the objectives of the DGs to foster a sense of character and identity within the NEP, be of design excellence and enhance the quality of the built environment and public facilities of the development. The current development control in the DGs requires the applicant to contribute 1% of the total construction value to the proposed public art work features within the development. It is proposed (in this Council Agenda) to modify the DGs to require development to contribute 75% (of the 1% construction cost) to the public art work of the development and the remaining 25% (of the 1% construction cost) to the overall NEP development. At its meeting held on 21 October 2014 the Council resolved to advertise for public comment proposed amendments to the DGs including an amendment to the public art provision to require 0.25% of the construction cost be provided to Landcorp to deliver precinct wide public art. The remaining 0.75% of the total construction cost will be required for the public art contribution within each individual development. No objections in regards this amendment to the DGs has been received and it is recommended (in the subject Council Report) that Council resolve to adopt the proposed amendment as part of Council Policy. The subject proposal is therefore compliant with the amendment to the DGs and can be supported. Any approval should be conditioned to require final details of the proposed location, design and value of the proposed art work features be submitted to the Town of Claremont for approval prior to issue of a building permit for the development of the multiple dwellings.

• Safety and Surveillance The proposed development complies with the objective to promote safety and security for occupants and visitors, encourage natural/passive surveillance, maintain distinct public and private realms and provide open sight lines. Passive surveillance of the public realm is proposed through the use of balconies and major openings facing the street and public open space areas. Entries and exists are clearly defined and visible from the surrounding area and appropriate lighting is proposed. A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) statement has been submitted in support of the proposal. The plan assesses the safety, security, surveillance, access control, territorial enforcement and space management of the development including specific review of the basement car park access driveway and parking area, service areas and dwellings and the street frontages. The Claremont on the Park Architect has noted that the proposal complies with the DG and CPTED principles, however notes that the proposal does not include specific details of the proposed external lighting within and surrounding the development. Any approval should be conditioned to require the submission of a lighting plan for approval prior to the issue of a building permit.

• Access, Parking and Service The proposal complies with the objective to provide for pedestrian safety and effective vehicle access. The proposed vehicle access point is located along


Page 23

Graylands Road near the intersection of Road 2. Although the proposed vehicle access point is not located in the preferred location as per the DAP, the DAP does permit one vehicle access point along Graylands Road. It proposed to provide one vehicle access point for both the proposed development at Lots 504 and 505, where three vehicle access points are permitted under the DAPs. All levels of parking are adequately screened from public view including the adjacent POS. It is proposed to minimise any signage at the vehicle entry point and finishes will promote pedestrian movement over vehicles. As discussed in the details of this report the car parking for the development is proposed to be provided over two basement levels accommodating the required car parking bays for both the developments on Lots 504 and 505. See details below on amalgamation requirements. It is proposed to provide 300 residential car parking bays, 39 visitor parking bays and associated service bays. It is noted that across both developments there are a total of 234 dwellings. The combined proposal complies with the minimum requirements of the RDC for the combined residential car parking bays, however exceeds the maximum number of bays permitted under the SP, being 1.2 bays per dwelling or 280 bays (20 additional bays proposed). In addition, the proposal also does not comply with the minimum requirement of the RDC for visitor car bays, being one bay for every four dwellings or 59 bays (39 proposed). The applicant has advised the Town that the 20 additional residential parking bays are provided due to the proposed product mix having an emphasis on two bedroom dwellings where there will be a demand for a minimum of two bays for a number of these apartments. It is proposed to provide 1.28 bays per apartment or 66 apartments with two car parking bays. It is considered that the proposed number of residential car parking bays will not have a detrimental impact on the development or the locality and can be supported in this instance. Any approval should be conditioned to permit a maximum of 300 residential car parking bays being permitted on the site with a minimum of one bay being provided per dwelling. Whereas additional parking bays for the dwellings are proposed to accommodate perceived market expectations detailed above, the proposal does not comply with the minimum number of visitor bays as required under the RDC being 0.25 bays per dwelling or 59 bays. It is proposed to provide 39 visitor bays or one bay per six dwellings with the 20 bay shortfall being allocated to the residential dwellings as discussed above. In total the number of car parking bays provided across the sites complies with the maximum residential bays requirement and the minimum visitor parking bays requirement. The RDC does not vary the requirements for visitor parking bays depending on the number of dwellings proposed within a development. Therefore it could be considered that the proposed development provides a sufficient proportion of visitor bays per dwelling to ensure that visitor parking can be adequately accommodated on site whilst not transferring the parking requirements to the surrounding streets. It is proposed to allocate more car parking bays to individual apartments, where there will be a demand for two car bays to reduce the misuse of visitor bays and have these bays specifically for visitors to the development and not occupants with more than one car. It is considered that the provision of visitor parking bays is adequate for the


Page 24

development and can be supported. Any approval should be conditioned to require a minimum of 39 visitor car parking bays being provided and marked on the site. In favourably considering this matter, it is noted that, the development site frontage will also contain 16 street parking embayments. It is also proposed to locate the visitor bays behind the security access to the basement levels. It is proposed to secure these bays to avoid misuse given the sites proximity to the train station, town centre and adjoining showgrounds. The applicant has advised that residents will be able to provide access to the parking bays for visitors as they arrive at the development. This is likely to include the use of intercoms and key panel access codes. Any approval should be conditioned to require a management plan detailing the proposed access to and management of the visitor bays to ensure they are utilised and functional.

• Signage The proposal does not include any signage. There is no specific requirement for signage for the subject proposal as the development does not incorporate any commercial or retail uses. Entrances have been recessed to minimise the need for future way finding signage. Any approval should be conditioned to require the submission of any proposed signage for approval of the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit.

Built Form Design The proposal complies with the primary building controls of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Building Depth The DGs require that any development does not have building depth of greater than 20m to provide sufficient access to sun and ventilation, provide dual aspects where possible and maintain the intended future scale of the precinct. The proposed development exceeds the above requirement in the western and south-eastern end of the development, adjacent to the POS where, due to the dimensions and orientation of the lot, the depth of the building is proposed to be 24 – 27m. The corner apartments have dual aspect and access to sun and ventilation is maximised for the living/dining and bedroom areas of these apartments. It is considered that the proposed variation will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the future occupants of the development. The Claremont on the Park Architect has advised that the overall planning and footprint of the development is well configured and laid out. The footprint provides for significant cross ventilation and overlooking of adjacent streets and access ways and therefore supports the proposed variation.

• Heights As discussed in the DAP compliance table above, the upper level of the proposed development encroaches into the 30m set back area to accommodate portions of two additional apartments within the development (approximately 75% of the apartment in each case). The upper level extends approximately 9m into the setback area along


Page 25

the Graylands Road frontage and between 7m and 13m along the oval frontage. The proposed variation is considered minor and will not add to the bulk of the development as viewed from the street or oval. The encroachments will not significantly increase overshadowing of the internal courtyard, oval or adjoining sites and not have an adverse impact on the amenity of occupants of the development or the adjoining sites. It is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the DGs with dwellings within the development being provided with sufficient access to sun breeze, views and privacy. The proposed encroachment into the setback area will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent dwellings within the development or on the future development of the adjacent sites. The Claremont on the Park Architect has advised that applicant has demonstrated that the encroachment does not negatively impact on adjacent development or existing neighbours in regards to shadow or form. It is also noted that the form of the building is well composed and therefore supports the minor variation. Given the above it is recommended that the proposed variation be supported.

• Floor Levels Under the DGs residential ground floors shall be a maximum of 1.5m and a maximum average of 1.2m above adjacent street level. The DGs specify some discretion may be permitted on significantly sloping sites. Portions of the ground floor level adjacent to the proposed car park entry and the north-east corner of the site adjacent to the POS between Lots 503 and 504 exceed the minimum ground floor level by up to 1m (e.g. 2.5m). This is of a result of the change in levels increasing from the north of the site to the south (approximately 3.5m). Where the height of the ground floor level exceeds the DG requirement, the facade is appropriately treated in a high quality stone finish. Given the above it is considered that the proposal achieves the objectives of the DGs including responding to the level changes across the site, development addressing the public realm at ground level with entrances to the building appropriately meeting the ground plane and ensuring appropriate natural/passive surveillance of public areas. In this instance it is recommended that the proposed variation be supported.

Architectural Character The proposal complies with the architectural character requirements of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Oval’s Edge Interface Zone Under the DGs the ground floor level at the oval boundary is to be a minimum of 0.9m, maximum of 1.5m and average of 1.2m. The ground floor level is proposed between 0.5m and 1.2m above the height of the oval boundary to provide a transition to the balconies of the ground floor apartments from the oval whilst reducing the extent of ramping or stairs otherwise required. It is noted that four of the 14 apartments on the ground level do not have direct access to the Oval Edge. Whilst visual connectivity is maintained, level differences would result in constrained terrace spaces if steps were contained in these areas.


Page 26

Where direct pedestrian access to individual apartments is not provided along the oval frontage, the apartments are located adjacent to secondary pedestrian access points connecting to the main lobby areas. This ensures that access to and from the public realm is in close proximity to all ground floor apartments.

Environmental Design and Performance The proposal complies with the environmental design and performance requirements of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Solar Access A minimum of 70% of dwellings must have outdoor areas that benefit from a northerly aspect and no more than 10% of the apartments should solely face south. Lot 504 has a significant percentage of its frontage that faces either east, west or south and not directly north making compliance with this requirement difficult to achieve. A number of apartments have a north-easterly or north-westerly aspect to maximise the developments compliance. A minimum of 70% of all residential dwellings must receive two hours of direct sunlight to major living rooms and private open space between 9am and 3pm mid winter. 50% of the dwellings comply with this requirement (20% shortfall). The Claremont on the Park Architect has advised that given the dual aspect of nearly all of the dwellings, achieving the proposed percentage of dwellings that comply with this requirement is a satisfactory outcome. Given the above it is considered that the proposed variation meets the objectives of the DGs and can be supported in this instance.

Building Services The proposal complies with the building services requirements of the DGs with the exception of end of trip facilities. In regards to waste management any approval should be conditioned to require a Waste Management Agreement being entered into with the Town to provide access to the development for relevant waste services.

• End of Trip Facilities The provisions relating to end-of-trip facilities aim to ensure that residential developments are provided with adequate storage facilities for bicycles that are integrated with the car parks of buildings. In this regard, the DGs require that a secure bicycle storage area be provided accommodating 1 bicycle bay per apartment and being designed in accordance with the CPTED principles. Bicycle parking for the proposed development is to be accommodated within residential stores where they meet the 4m2 minimum storage area. Those dwellings provided with less than 4m2 of storage are provided with a separate bicycle parking bay. It is also noted that additional communal secure storage areas are proposed within the basement levels for communal storage of large items. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to adequately provide for bicycle parking for residents.

Landscape Design The proposal complies with the landscape design requirements of the DGs. Any approval should be conditioned to require a final landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit and all the


Page 27

landscaping to be installed prior to occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

TPS3 Requirements for Amalgamation Cl.38 of TPS3 states that where a development is proposed to extend over the boundary of a lot the Council may only approve the development if it is conditioned to require the amalgamation of the lots prior to the issue of a building permit. As it is proposed to construct two basement levels across both Lot 504 and 505, including land below the POS area, any approval will be required to be conditioned to comply with this requirement. It is noted that there are three possible options to satisfy this requirement including: 1. Amalgamate Lots 504 and 505 including the two subterranean levels below

the POS into one Certificate of Title. A three dimensional lot would be required to be created for the POS above the basement parking levels.

2. Create a separate subterranean lot below Lots 504, 505 and the POS. 3. Amalgamate Lot 504, Lot 505 and the portion of POS located above the

proposed basement levels into one lot on one Certificate of Title including a public access easement over the portion of POS to maintain public access and use of this land. If the POS was to be amalgamated with the adjacent lots the owner(s) of the proposed lot would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and associated liability of the land.

As the applicant has not indicated their preference for complying with the amalgamation requirements of TPS3, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to require compliance with cl.38 of TPS3 and enter into any necessary legal agreements to provide for either construction, maintenance and public liability relative to the POS easement, or access requirements for common property driveways, visitor parking and waste collection prior to the issue of a building permit to the satisfaction of the Town.

Contribution to Developer Contribution Plan It is noted that the applicant is contractually bound to LandCorp to pay the required contribution to the Developer Contribution Plan prepared to deliver the NEP project and accordingly, no specific development approval requirement on this matter is required as part of any approval for this development.

Officer Recommendation to JDAP As this application is to be determined by the JDAP, Council is required to submit its recommendation and accompanying report to the JDAP. The officer’s recommendation to the JDAP is as follows: Recommend that the Western Joint Development Assessment Panel approve the proposed six-storey residential development containing 142 multiple dwellings and associated car parking subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. In all other respects, development is to occur in accordance with the drawings

submitted with the application for planning approval (Planning Application 2014.00213), as amended by these conditions.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit the development is to comply with clause 38 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont


Page 28

and any necessary legal agreement relative to either construction, maintenance and liability relative to the POS easement, or access requirements for common property driveways, visitor parking and waste collection to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. Any necessary legal agreements are to be prepared by Council’s solicitors at the applicant’s cost and registered as an easement in gross or absolute caveat on the relevant Certificates of Title to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

3. Prior to the issue of a building permit, final details of the proposed materials, colours and finishes of the proposed development compliant with the requirements of Clauses 76 and 77 of the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

4. In order to address the amenity of residents of the fifth and sixth storey apartments, the roofs above the fourth and fifth storey apartments are to be suitably coloured or treated to reduce the impact of glare on the residents to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, final details of the proposed vehicle entry and egress including the use of high quality finishes for the driveway, walls and ceiling up to the proposed roller shutter to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

6. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details of the proposed location of all service equipment, air conditioner unit enclosures and storage areas including details of the proposed screening of all services from view of the street is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

7. The dimensions of all car parking bays, aisle widths and circulation areas complying with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1/2004.

8. A minimum of 39 visitor car parking bays being provided on site (inclusive of the land below the public open space).

9. A maximum of 300 residential car parking bays being provided on combined site (inclusive of the land below the public open space) with a minimum of one car parking bay being provided per dwelling.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a management plan detailing the proposed access to and management of the visitor bays to ensure they are utilised and functional is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

11. All vehicle crossovers are to be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the Town’s Crossover Policy with plans being submitted to and approved by the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit.

12. Any existing crossover/s are to be removed and the verge reinstated in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan prior to occupation of the development.


Page 29

13. The driveway to the car parking area is to be designed to ensure stormwater cannot enter the property from the new street.

14. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant is to provide further evidence that the internal driveway design adjacent to the entrance of the common parking area located on Lot 504 will operate to a suitable design capacity which ensures that no queuing will occur on Graylands Road. Alternatively, redesign of the internal driveway junction adjacent the main entrance is to be provided and implemented to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

15. A Site, Traffic and Noise Management Plan for the construction of the proposed development including tradespersons and delivery vehicles is to be provided and approved by the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit and implemented for the duration of construction. The plan is to also include details on the 2m wide construction zone, along the sites boundary adjoining the oval, being provided for temporary use by the developer to facilitate the construction process.

16. All stormwater is to be contained on site. Details are to be provided with an application for a building permit.

17. Prior to the issue of a building permit, design details are to be provided with the building application indicating compliance with the Design Guideline requirements for a 6 Star individual and 7 Star collective average rating under Section J of the National Construction Code 2013 to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

18. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed development, details of the proposed public art work, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct, to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont. All approved art work on site is to be installed prior to occupation to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

19. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a lighting plan is to be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont. The Lighting Plan shall cover all public areas of the building including stairwells, entry points and the building perimeter, showing suitable levels and types of lighting to ensure maximum visibility and safety for pedestrians and users of the site in accordance with the Australian Standards.

20. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design audit of the proposed development inclusive of any design detail modifications is to be completed and approved to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

21. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details regarding the provision of any signage consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct to the satisfaction of the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.



Page 30

23. All servicing areas and other parts of the land or building, which are likely to be untidy in appearance, are to be completely screened from public view and from view from adjoining properties. Details are to be provided with an application for a building permit.

24. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a final Landscaping and Reticulation Plan for the whole development is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont with the approved landscaping to be installed prior to occupation of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

25. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed development on Lot 504, Graylands Road, the owner shall enter into a deed with the Town of Claremont whereby the owner: (a) Indemnifies the Town of Claremont and its officers, employees and

contractors in respect of any potential damage that may occur within the land to any property or person relative to the performance of waste collection services for the occupants of the subject development.

(b) Agrees to take out and maintain a policy of public liability insurance to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont in respect of all claims arising out any loss or damage occurring on the land in the course of the waste collection services by the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors.

(c) Agrees to provide internal storage for all waste on site and to maintain all common accessways on the land so as to permit the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors to gain access to the land for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land.

26. The agreement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. The legal agreements is to be prepared at the applicant’s cost and registered as an absolute caveat on the relevant Certificates of Title to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

27. Prior to the occupation of any part of the proposed development the owner shall grant to the Town of Claremont an easement in gross for vehicular access purposes pursuant to section 195 of the Land Administration Act 1997 over the common accessways and waste storage areas forming part of the proposed development in accordance with the specifications and to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont to ensure that Town of Claremont officers, employees and contractors may access the waste storage areas and common accessways for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land. The Easement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors and the owner shall be responsible to cover all associated costs.

28. Prior to the issue of a building permit for a sales office for a period of no more than 12 months, details are to be provided on the proposed location, design and landscaping treatment of the sales office to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

29. This approval is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval.


Page 31

Advice Notes:

(i) This is not an approval to commence development. A building permit must be obtained from the local government’s Building Services prior to the commencement of any building works.

(ii) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300.

o The development and use of the land is required to comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

o The applicant is required to remove any hazardous materials encountered during construction/demolition at their own expense and in accordance with the Code of Practice on Safe Removal of Asbestos (NOHSC: 2002(1988) as stipulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 1996, and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004.

o Laundries are not be located in a room in which food is prepared, stored, served or consumed.

o All plant and machinery (such as air-conditioners and pool pumps) are to be suitably sound proofed to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and so as not to cause an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining residential properties.

o Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(iii) If the applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.



Page 32

Moved Cr Mews, seconded Cr Lorenz THAT Council: 1. Support the officer recommendation to the Metro West Joint

Development Assessment Panel for the development approval of 142 Multiple Dwellings on Lot 504 Graylands Road, Claremont.

2. Authorise the Executive Manager Planning and Development to forward a report on the application to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel.



Page 33

13.1.3 NORTH EAST PRECINCT, LOT 505 GRAYLANDS ROAD, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIX STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 92 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

File Ref: A-5445/DA-2014.00214 Attachments – Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph Attachments – Restricted: Plans


Author: Jeremy Swan Senior Planner

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 22 December 2014 Property Owner: Landcorp Submitted By: Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Claremont North East Precinct (NEP) Structure Plan (SP) Claremont NEP Design Guidelines (DGs) and Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) Residential Design Codes (RDC)

Summary • Application received for a proposed six-storey residential development at Lot

505 of the North East Precinct (NEP) development containing 92 Multiple Dwellings.

• This application relates to an associated application for 142 Multiple Dwellings located on the adjacent Lot 504, being the subject of another report contained in this Council Agenda.

• Proposal is generally consistent with the NEP Structure Plan (SP), Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) and the Design Guidelines (DGs), although some variations are proposed relative to minor intrusions of building height, direct access to the oval edge, allocation of parking bays and the assigned vehicle access point for the development.

• Proposal has been reviewed by the Claremont on the Park Architect and is generally supported.

• In order to comply with TPS3 requirements on amalgamation over boundaries, specific measures need to be taken to allow the common basement parking


Page 34

area to be constructed under Lots 504 and 505 together with the POS located in between.

• Recommended that the application be approved by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose For Council to: (i) Be informed that the application has been referred to the JDAP for

determination in accordance with the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs); and

(ii) Consider the officer recommendation for the proposed residential development at proposed Lot 505.

Background The land is described as Lot 505 Davies Road, Claremont and is zoned “Development” under TPS3. The Development zone is subject to the Claremont NEP Structure Plan (SP) that was initially endorsed by Council on 2 December 2008 and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in August 2010. Council endorsed variations to the Structure Plan in December 2012 and the WAPC endorsed in part the Council supported SP in April 2013. The WAPC decision was partially acknowledged in July 2013 and unresolved matters were deferred for further consideration.

Lot 505 is 2,724m2 in area and maintains a frontage to Graylands Road and a proposed street (shown on the plan as Durack Way – this has not been approved by Geographic Names and a new name will need to be determined – subject of a future report to Council).

From a legislative point of view, the application is required to be assessed by the JDAP. Given the estimated cost of development (i.e. greater than $7 million), the application under the DAP Regulations is listed as a “Mandatory Development Assessment Panel Application” and therefore must be considered and determined by a JDAP.

The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome

23 October 2014 Planning Application received by Council. 29 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 5 November 2014 Advertising commenced. 21 November 2014 Advertising closed. 24 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.


Page 35

Past Resolutions The Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan was initially approved by Council at its 2 December 2008 OCM and subsequently endorsed by the WAPC on 16 June 2010.

The Design Guidelines (DGs), which were adopted as Council Policy on 18 December 2012, aim to encourage high quality architectural expression, form and consistency throughout the NEP. The DGs outline the design intent for all development within the NEP and collectively ensures that the principles and objectives are being met. As a Local Planning Policy, advertised and adopted under cl.82 of TPS3, any variation to the DGs must have regard to the provisions and the objectives the Policy is designed to achieve.

The Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) outline the mandatory fundamental development controls to address the specific requirements of the individual lots. As the DAPs are now part of the SP, any formal variation to the DAPs are required, in accordance with cl.75P(9) of TPS3, to follow procedures set out in cl.75P onwards, providing they do not prejudice the intention of an related SP. These variations are considered to relate the actual DAPs rather than the “standards” which are applied within each DAP. The SP indicates that “The future provision of Design Guidelines and Detailed Area Plans, to be read in conjunction with the local Structure Plan will provide a clear guide for future development of the NEP to ensure that the vision for this exciting project is achieved to the highest standard.” Given that the DAPs are to “guide” development it would be illogical to conclude that minor variations to the DAPs require full consultation as provided for under cl.75P. In addition, it is noted in the various locations within the DGs (and DAPs) adopted by Council on 18 December 2012, specifically within the approval process, that applications are to substantially achieve all the design criteria or be varied with satisfactory justification.

At its meeting held on 21 October 2014 the Council resolved to note a number of minor clarifications to the DG’s and DAP’s including revised lot numbers for the WA Police and Community Youth Centres (PCYC) subdivision, sewer easement locations and the renaming of the ‘Town Architect’ to the ‘Claremont on the Park Architect’. Council also resolved to advertise for public comment proposed modifications to the public art and waste storage requirements of the DG’s which are the subject of another report on this Council Agenda.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525. Three neighbours including the Royal Agricultural Society, the PCYC and Georgiou Group (developers of Lot 503) were consulted no submissions were received.

Discussion

Description Approval is sought for the construction of a six storey residential development containing 92 multiple dwellings and associated car parking. This application has been lodged in tandem with an application for 142 multiple dwellings on the adjacent Lot 504 (separated by a pocket park of POS). The combined application provides for


Page 36

a coordinated development with a joint underground parking area linked under the POS. Details of the proposal include:

• A six storey development with frontages to Graylands Road and a new road to the south.

• A total of 92 multiple dwellings comprising of 13 one-bedroom dwellings (52 – 62m²), 62 two-bedroom dwellings (58 – 85m²) and 17 three-bedroom dwellings (118 – 175m²). All the dwellings feature a balcony or terrace overlooking Graylands Road, the new road to the south or the Claremont Football Oval.

• Vehicle access is from Graylands Road to two shared basement car parking levels containing 300 residential car parking bays and 39 visitor car parking bays. It is proposed to share the basement parking levels with the adjacent development at Lot 504.

• Pedestrian access is acquired from the new road to the south and the POS between the subject site and Lot 504.

• An internal landscaped area named ‘The Court’.

Compliance The proposal has been assessed against the TPS3, SP, DAPs and DGs for the subject site. Details of the proposal’s compliance with these requirements are discussed further in the report.

As per the requirements of the DGs, the proposal has also be assessed by the Claremont on the Park Architect. Attached is a schedule of the DG and DAP requirements and the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comments.

The application generally complies with TPS3 requirements relating to Design and Construction, Protection of Townscape, Landform and Vegetation (clauses 76, 77, 80 and 81) and Submission of the required information (cl. 83).

Land Use In accordance with Table 1 of TPS, the permitted uses within the ‘Development’ Zone are to be determined with reference to the designations in the approved SP. The SP and DAP indicate that Lot 505 is designated for ‘Residential’ use with a minimum yield of 81 dwellings. It is proposed to provide 92 multiple dwellings on the subject site, representing a 13.5% increase in development yield. The combined development site proposes the construction of 234 dwellings, which compared to the minimum yield of 178 dwellings, represents an increased development yield of 56 dwellings or 31.5%. The increased development yield has resulted from the WAPC decision not to endorse 93m2 as the average minimum apartment size within the development. It is noted that Council resolved (in part) on 2 July 2013 to accept the WAPC position on the apartment sizes within the development.

It is noted that the applicant has submitted plans to the Town to construct a temporary Sales Office on the POS between Lots 504 and 505 to facilitate the pre-sale of the residential development. Although technically a Sales Office would be defined as an ‘Office’ use it is considered that the proposed use would be incidental in this instance and only temporary in nature. To avoid an unnecessary separate application for approval, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to


Page 37

permit the construction of a temporary sales office on the subject site, for a period of less than 12 months, subject to details of the proposed location, design and landscaping treatment of the Sales Office being submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont prior its construction.

Detailed Area Plan – Lot 505 The proposal has been assessed against the approved DAP for Lot 505. The table below addresses the proposals and requirements, and includes the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comments on the proposal - as required under the DGs. In general the proposal is supported noting the proposal does not strictly comply with the Building Height requirements of the DAP (slight encroachment of the six storey section into the adjacent four–five storey section), but however meets the objectives and intent of the DGs. Individual elements of the design were assessed against the provisions of the Detailed Area Plan relevant to Lot 505 are outlined in the Table below.

Detailed Area Plan (Lot 505) Design Element

Development Requirement

Proposal Complies

Target Dwelling Yield

81 Dwellings (based on an average dwelling size of 93m²)

The proposed development will accommodate 92 dwellings.

Complies Officer Comment It is noted that the proposed minimum average dwelling size of 93m² was not supported by the WAPC and Council has accepted this position. Comments regarding the proposal’s compliance with the development diversity requirements of the DGs (RDC) are discussed later in the report.

Building Height

• Minimum 4, maximum 5 storeys for the eastern portion of the site;

• Minimum 5, maximum 6 storeys for the western portion of the site.

• 5 storey building height for the eastern portion of the lot;

• 6 storey building height for the western portion of the lot;

• Apartments B607 and B611 result in a minor encroachment into the sixth storey setback under the DAP.

Does not comply Officer Comment The upper levels of the proposed development encroach slightly into the 5 storey height area (between a third and a half of the relative two apartments including balcony areas). The proposed encroachments are considered minor and will not add to the bulk of the development as viewed from the street as the major portions adjacent the road frontages are balconies. The encroachments will not significantly increase overshadowing of the oval or adjoining sites and not have an adverse impact on the


Page 38

amenity of occupants of the development or the adjoining sites. The encroachment relative to Apartment B607 at the junction of the POS and Graylands Road will create a stronger corner feature and balance with the adjacent height of development on Lot 504. Given the above it is recommended that the proposed variations be supported. Claremont on the Park Architect Comment Some encroachment has occurred into the upper level height setbacks. The applicant has demonstrated that the encroachment does not negatively impact on adjacent development or existing neighbours in regards to shadow or form. With regards to the architectural proportions of the building these are well composed. Given the above the partial encroachment is supported.

Setbacks Unless otherwise stated, all buildings shall have a zero setback to the boundary for a minimum of 70% of the building facade. Small setbacks to a maximum of 3.0 metres are permitted to allow for architectural articulation of the facade and the provision of recessed building entries and landscape elements.

A nil setback is proposed to a minimum of 70% of the proposed development.

Complies

Construction Zone

A construction zone, along the southern and western lot boundaries, being provided for temporary use by the developer to facilitate the construction process.

Details are not provided on this construction aspect at this time.

Officer Comment Details should be provided to the Town as part of the required Site, Traffic and Noise Management Plan prior to the issue of a building permit.


Page 39

Vehicle Access location

Vehicle access to be provided from new street to the south of the site as shown on the DAP.

Single vehicle crossover proposed to the Graylands Road frontage on Lot 504 and servicing Lots 504 and 505.

Does not comply. Officer Comment The DG states that Lot 505 should acquire vehicular access from the proposed southern road, however, as both Lot 504 and Lot 505 are sharing basement car parking, a single entry point from Graylands Road is proposed. This will minimise traffic crossing points and, given that this has been supported by the applicant’s traffic consultants. Concern has been raised by Engineering Services that the entrance design may not provide sufficient design capacity to avoid queuing on Graylands Road. The Traffic Report submitted with the application does not presently suitably address this matter. Whilst a significant redesign of the entrance and its associated internal driveway is not likely, the Traffic Engineer may prove that the driveway will operate to a suitable design standard, or alternatively the applicant is to submit design details which will rectify any potential problems without removal of any car bays.

Communal Private Open Space (CPOS)

CPOS being generally provided in the location depicted on the DAP and being a minimum width of 8m.

Generally located within the location provided on the DAP however, extends through to the Graylands Road property boundary to provide a visual relief to the streetscape.

Complies

Communal Amenity Space Area

Communal private open space being provided in the location as shown on the DAP.

A communal landscaped courtyard area is proposed in the location designated on the DAP. The courtyard area can be accessed from Graylands Road.

Complies

Claremont NEP Design Guidelines The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Guidelines. A schedule of the proposal’s compliance with all the DG requirements including the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comment in regards to its compliance is attached to this report.


Page 40

Details of the proposal’s compliance are as follows:

Urban Design

• Climate and Site The proposed development complies with the DG objectives to ensure buildings are designed to respond to their environment; and provide an amenable micro-climate for habitation while minimising the ongoing energy consumption. Lot 505 features terraces and courtyard apartments that provide through ventilation and dual aspect advantages. Further, corner apartments and apartments at entry points utilise openings on dual aspects to provide cross ventilation. The apartments also feature appropriate balcony depths and full height moveable screens to provide required shading. Additional skylights and roof vents are utilised as required on upper level apartments to provide light and ventilation. The proposal demonstrates solar passive design principles. Terraces, courtyard apartments and corner apartments benefit from dual aspects and desirable solar access. External screens for the two and three bedroom apartments are generally provided. Most single bed apartments are located at the lower levels which will ensure some further protection from the western sun. It is noted that apartments facing the oval all face due west and accordingly face afternoon sun which reduces the ability of the dwellings to meet the these requirements.

• Interface to the Public Domain The proposed development complies with the DGs objectives to ensure buildings provide an appropriate response to the adjacent public realm that correlates to the overall character and sense of place, provide amenity and outlook to development, enhance the perceived sense of safety of public spaces through positive passive surveillance, and establish a sense of shared ownership and accessibility of public spaces. The subject site is located adjacent to the Graylands Plaza (shown as “The Race” on the plans) to the north, Apex Park to the west and a new road to the south. The proposed development abuts a Public Open Space (POS) area to the north and has been orientated to respond to the POS area through the provision of active edges that encourage shared ownership and use of the POS. The proposed development has been designed to respond effectively to the public domain and minimise blank walls to public view. The development provides passive surveillance of the public realm through major openings to habitable rooms and unenclosed outdoor habitable spaces enhancing the safety of the public realm and contributing to an activated interface with adjoining POS.

• Precinct Context The proposed development complies with the DG objectives to maintain individual design elements and expression and corresponds to the adjacent development to the north west at Lot 503 and proposed development associated with this application on the adjacent Lot 504 in terms of built form, modern and contemporary design and compatible materials and finishes to provide a cohesive approach to development throughout the precinct.


Page 41

• Discovery The proposed development complies with the objectives of the DGs to create a quality visual experience at the pedestrian scale, maximise legibility and visual linkages and views. The proposed development does not impede on the view corridors through the POS and access ways between Lots 503, 504 and 505 and views to the public areas including the street and oval are achieved through major openings and balconies of the development. The opening of the internal courtyard to Graylands Road adds an additional element of visual interest to the streetscape.

• Development Diversity The proposed development complies with the DG objective to provide a range and variety of dwelling sizes and types to cater for a diverse range of housing types and income levels. In this regard, 14% of dwellings are one bedroom dwellings which does not comply with the minimum 20% deemed to comply requirement of the Residential Design Codes (RDC) and 67% of the dwellings are two bedroom dwellings which complies with the minimum 40% requirement of the RDC. In addition, 18% of the dwellings are three bedroom dwellings. In order to address the design principles of the RDC relative to the single bedroom apartments, it is noted that the combined development with Lot 504 will provide for a total of 50 single bedroom apartments, which represents 21% of the dwellings and achieving the minimum development diversity requirements of the RDC. The proposed dwellings range in size from 52m² to 175m².

• Active Edges The proposed development generally complies with the objectives to create interesting, attractive and safe streets and public places for residents and visitors, maximise views across the public realm, orientate residential living spaces toward the street and contribute to a sense of liveliness and safety. The proposed design, materials and finishes including the integration of the proposed public art elements creates an articulated, interesting and complexity to the development. The proposal includes two through site lobby connections with both physical and visual links and also encourages informal surveillance of the surrounding public realm areas through use of balconies and major openings. A variation to the setback requirements of the DAP for the subject lot is proposed which is discussed further in this report. The proposed setback variation does not impact on the street level streetscape which is activated by locating balconies and terraces on the street and oval frontages with direct pedestrian access from the street and oval where possible.

• Public Art The applicant has engaged ‘Form’ to complete a public art strategy of the subject site in order to comply with the objectives and development controls of the DGs. The applicant has identified two potential locations for a large scale integrated public art work feature and a medium singular art work feature for the subject site. The art strategy identifies the curved oval facing facade of the development as an opportunity to create an integrated public art work feature through the design, material and finish of the proposed sun shade screens. As the proposed screens are


Page 42

moveable there is an opportunity to create a changing element of visual interest. The strategy also identifies a location on the southern facade of the development adjacent to the POS separating the subject lot from Lot 504 as a potential location for a single public art work feature. The proposed location enables an opportunity to install either an integrated art work feature or separate feature on the corner of the development. The applicant is currently short listing potential artists to design and complete the public art work features for the development. It is considered that the proposed locations and concepts providing in the public art strategy comply with the objectives of the DGs to foster a sense of character and identity within the NEP, be of design excellence and enhance the quality of the built environment and public facilities of the development. The current development control in the DGs requires the applicant to contribute 1% of the total construction value to the proposed public art work features within the development. It is proposed (in this Council Agenda) to modify the DGs to require development to contribute 75% (of the 1% construction cost) to the public art work of the development and the remaining 25% (of the 1% construction cost) to the overall NEP development. At its meeting held on 21 October 2014 the Council resolved to advertise for public comment proposed amendments to the DGs including an amendment to the public art provision to require 0.25% of the construction cost be provided to Landcorp to deliver precinct wide public art. The remaining 0.75% of the total construction cost will be required for the public art contribution within each individual development. No objections in regards this amendment to the DGs has been received and it is recommended (in the subject Council Report) that Council resolve to adopt the proposed amendment as part of Council Policy. The subject proposal is therefore compliant with the amendment to the DGs and can be supported. Any approval should be conditioned to require final details of the proposed location, design and value of the proposed art work features be submitted to the Town of Claremont for approval prior to issue of a building permit for the development of the multiple dwellings.

• Safety and Surveillance The proposed development complies with the objective to promote safety and security for occupants and visitors, encourage natural/passive surveillance, maintain distinct public and private realms and provide open sight lines. Passive surveillance of the public realm is proposed through the use of balconies and major openings facing the street and public open space areas. Entries and exists are clearly defined and visible from the surrounding area and appropriate lighting is proposed. A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) statement has been submitted in support of the proposal. The plan assesses the safety, security, surveillance, access control, territorial enforcement and space management of the development including specific review of the basement car park access driveway and parking area, service areas and dwellings and the street frontages. The Claremont on the Park Architect has noted that the proposal complies with the DG and CPTED principles, however notes that the proposal does not include specific details of the proposed external lighting within and surrounding the development. Any


Page 43

approval should be conditioned to require the submission of a lighting plan for approval prior to the issue of a building permit.

• Access, Parking and Service The proposal complies with the objective to provide for pedestrian safety and effective vehicle access. The proposed vehicle access point is located along Graylands Road near the intersection of Road 2. Although the proposed vehicle access point is not located in the preferred location as per the DAP, the DAP does permit one vehicle access point off the proposed road to the south. It proposed to provide one vehicle access point for both the proposed development at Lots 504 and 505, where three vehicle access points are permitted under the DAPs. All levels of parking are adequately screened from public view including the adjacent POS. As discussed in the details of this report the car parking for the development is proposed to be provided over two basement levels accommodating the required car parking bays for both the developments on Lots 504 and 505. See details below on amalgamation requirements. It is proposed to provide 300 residential car parking bays, 39 visitor parking bays and associated service bays. It is noted that across both developments there are a total of 234 dwellings. The combined proposal complies with the minimum requirements of the RDC for the combined residential car parking bays, however exceeds the maximum number of bays permitted under the SP, being 1.2 bays per dwelling or 280 bays (20 additional bays proposed). In addition, the proposal also does not comply with the minimum requirement of the RDC for visitor car bays, being one bay for every four dwellings or 59 bays (39 proposed). The applicant has advised the Town that the 20 additional residential parking bays are provided due to the proposed product mix having an emphasis on two bedroom dwellings where there will be a demand for a minimum of two bays for a number of these apartments. It is proposed to provide 1.28 bays per apartment or 66 apartments with two car parking bays. It is considered that the proposed number of residential car parking bays will not have a detrimental impact on the development or the locality and can be supported in this instance. Any approval should be conditioned to permit a maximum of 300 residential car parking bays being permitted on the site with a minimum of one bay being provided per dwelling. Whereas additional parking bays for the dwellings are proposed to accommodate perceived market expectations detailed above, the proposal does not comply with the minimum number of visitor bays as required under the RDC being 0.25 bays per dwelling or 59 bays. It is proposed to provide 39 visitor bays or one bay per six dwellings with the 20 bay shortfall being allocated to the residential dwellings as discussed above. In total the number of car parking bays provided across the sites complies with the maximum residential bays requirement and the minimum visitor parking bays requirement.


Page 44

The RDC does not vary the requirements for visitor parking bays depending on the number of dwellings proposed within a development. Therefore it could be considered that the proposed development provides a sufficient proportion of visitor bays per dwelling to ensure that visitor parking can be adequately accommodated on site whilst not transferring the parking requirements to the surrounding streets. It is proposed to allocate more car parking bays to individual apartments, where there will be a demand for two car bays to reduce the misuse of visitor bays and have these bays specifically for visitors to the development and not occupants with more than one car. It is considered that the provision of visitor parking bays is adequate for the development and can be supported. Any approval should be conditioned to require a minimum of 39 visitor car parking bays being provided and marked on the site. In favourably considering this matter, it is noted that, the development site frontage will also contain 16 street parking embayment’s. It is also proposed to locate the visitor bays behind the security access to the basement levels. It is proposed to secure these bays to avoid misuse given the sites proximity to the train station, town centre and adjoining showgrounds. The applicant has advised that residents will be able to provide access to the parking bays for visitors as they arrive at the development. This is likely to include the use of intercoms and key panel access codes. Any approval should be conditioned to require a management plan detailing the proposed access to and management of the visitor bays to ensure they are utilised and functional.

• Signage The proposal does not include any signage. There is no specific requirement for signage for the subject proposal as the development does not incorporate any commercial or retail uses. Entrances have been designed to incorporate canopies, landscaping and artwork to minimise the need for future way finding signage. Any approval should be conditioned to require the submission of any proposed signage for approval of the Town Architect and the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit.

Built Form Design The proposal complies with the primary building controls of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Heights As discussed in the DAP compliance table above, the upper level of the proposed development encroaches into the ‘5 storey maximum’ area to accommodate portions of two additional apartments within the development (between 50 and 75% of the respective apartment sizes). The upper level extends approximately 10m into the setback area along the new southern road frontage and between 5m and 6m along the POS area called “Graylands Plaza” under the DGs and shown as “The Race” on the application. The proposed variation is considered minor and will not add to the bulk of the development as viewed from the street or oval. The encroachments will not significantly increase overshadowing of the internal courtyard, oval or adjoining sites and not have an adverse impact on the amenity of occupants of the development or the adjoining sites. The corner elevation for the junction of Graylands Plaza and Graylands Road will be accentuated as a result and this will improve the relationship and scale of the building with the adjacent Lot 504 to the north.


Page 45

It is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the DGs with dwellings within the development being provided with sufficient access to sun breeze, views and privacy. The proposed encroachment into the setback area will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent dwellings within the development or on the future development of the adjacent sites.

The Claremont on the Park Architect has advised that applicant has demonstrated that the encroachment does not negatively impact on adjacent development or existing neighbours in regards to shadow or form. It is also noted that the form of the building is well composed and therefore supports the minor variation. Given the above it is recommended that the proposed variation be supported.

Architectural Character The proposal complies with the architectural character requirements of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Oval’s Edge Interface Zone Under the DGs the ground floor level at the oval boundary is to be a minimum of 0.9m, maximum of 1.5m and average of 1.2m. A minor variation is proposed to this requirement to provide a transition to the balconies (terraces) of the ground floor apartments from the oval whilst reducing the extent of ramping or stairs otherwise required. It is noted that one of the apartments (B102) does not obtain direct pedestrian access from the oval frontage. Due to the shape of this apartment (mainly due to the shape of the lot boundary), if a staircase was provided from the balcony (terrace) to the oval, it would considerably reduce the size of the balcony which is considered to compromise the amenity of this apartment. However, this apartment is not located immediately adjacent alternative access from an internal access, hence restricting direct or reasonably indirect access to the oval edge open space. In this instance, it is considered desirable to improve the direct access by seeking minor level changes and landscape treatment in the adjacent POS to provide a stepped access to the balcony/terrace from the POS. This will require liaison with LandCorp as the developer of the site. Environmental Design and Performance The proposal complies with the environmental design and performance requirements of the DGs with the exception of the following:

• Solar Access A minimum of 70% of dwellings must have outdoor areas that benefit from a northerly aspect and no more than 10% of the apartments should solely face south. Lot 505 has a significant percentage of its frontage that faces either east, west or south and not directly north making compliance with this requirement difficult to achieve. A number of apartments have a north-easterly or north-westerly aspect to maximise the developments compliance. A minimum of 70% of all residential dwellings must receive two hours of direct sunlight to major living rooms and private open space between 9am and 3pm mid


Page 46

winter. 50% of the dwellings comply with this requirement (20% shortfall). The Claremont in the Park Architect has advised that given the dual aspect of nearly all of the dwellings, achieving the proposed percentage of dwellings that comply with this requirement is a satisfactory outcome. Given the above it is considered that the proposed variation meets the objectives of the DGs and can be supported in this instance.

Building Services The proposal complies with the building services requirements of the DGs with the exception of storage and end of trip facilities. In regards to waste management any approval should be conditioned to require a Waste Management Agreement being entered into with the Town to provide access to the development for relevant waste services.

• Storage There are 15 stores located within Lot 505 which do not comply with the 4m2 minimum area. These stores have an area of between 2m2 and 3.9m2. It should be noted that these stores have been provided with a separate bicycle bay and will also have access to the communal storage area. It should also be noted that the average storage area across the development on both Lots 504 and 505 is 4.93m2. The Claremont on the Park Architect has advised that due to the provision of floor to ceiling storage and the average size being well above the requirements of the DG, the discretion requested regarding the distribution of storage is recommended to be supported.

• End of Trip Facilities The provisions relating to end-of-trip facilities aim to ensure that residential developments are provided with adequate storage facilities for bicycles that are integrated with the car parks of buildings. In this regard, the DGs require that a secure bicycle storage area be provided accommodating 1 bicycle bay per apartment and being designed in accordance with the CPTED principles. Bicycle parking for the proposed development is to be accommodated within residential stores where they meet the 4m2 minimum storage area. Those dwellings provided with less than 4m2 of storage are provided with a separate bicycle parking bay. It is also noted that additional communal secure storage areas are proposed within the basement levels for communal storage of large items. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to adequately provide for bicycle parking for residents.

Landscape Design The proposal complies with the landscape design requirements of the DGs. Any approval should be conditioned to require a final landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit and all the landscaping to be installed prior to occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

TPS3 Requirements for Amalgamation Cl.38 of TPS3 states that where a development is proposed to extend over the boundary of a lot the Council may only approve the development if it is conditioned to require the amalgamation of the lots prior to the issue of a building permit. As it is


Page 47

proposed to construct two basement levels across both Lot 504 and 505, including land below the POS area, any approval will be required to be conditioned to comply with this requirement. It is noted that there are three possible options to satisfy this requirement including: 1. Amalgamate Lots 504 and 505 including the two subterranean levels below

the POS into one Certificate of Title. A three dimensional lot would be required to be created for the POS above the basement parking levels.

2. Create a separate subterranean lot below Lots 504, 505 and the POS. 3. Amalgamate Lot 504, Lot 505 and the portion of POS located above the

proposed basement levels into one lot on one Certificate of Title including a public access easement over the portion of POS to maintain public access and use of this land. If the POS was to be amalgamated with the adjacent lots the owner(s) of the proposed lot would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and associated liability of the land.

As the applicant has not indicated their preference for complying with the amalgamation requirements of TPS3, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to require compliance with cl.38 of TPS3 and enter into any necessary legal agreements to provide for either construction, maintenance and public liability relative to the POS easement, or access requirements for common property driveways, visitor parking and waste collection prior to the issue of a building permit to the satisfaction of the Town.

Contribution to Developer Contribution Plan It is noted that the applicant is contractually bound to LandCorp to pay the required contribution to the Developer Contribution Plan prepared to deliver the NEP project and accordingly, no specific development approval requirement on this matter is required as part of any approval for this development.

Officer Recommendation to JDAP As this application is to be determined by the JDAP, Council is required to submit its recommendation and accompanying report to the JDAP. The officer’s recommendation to the JDAP is as follows: Recommend that the Western Joint Development Assessment Panel approve the proposed six storey residential development containing ninety two multiple dwellings and associated car parking subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. In all other respects, development is to occur in accordance with the drawings

submitted with the application for planning approval (Planning Application 2014.00214), as amended by these conditions.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit the development is to comply with clause 38 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont and any necessary legal agreement relative to either construction, maintenance and liability relative to the POS easement, or access requirements for common property driveways, visitor parking and waste collection to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. Any necessary legal agreements are to be prepared by Council’s solicitors at the applicant’s cost and registered as an easement in gross


Page 48

or absolute caveat on the relevant Certificates of Title to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

3. Prior to the issue of a building permit, final details of the proposed materials, colours and finishes of the proposed development compliant with the requirements of Clauses 76 and 77 of the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

4. In order to address the amenity of residents of the sixth storey apartments, the roof above the fifth storey apartments are to be suitably coloured or treated to reduce the impact of glare on the residents to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details of the proposed location of all service equipment, air conditioner unit enclosures and storage areas including details of the proposed screening of all services from view of the street is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

6. The dimensions of all car parking bays, aisle widths and circulation areas complying with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1/2004.

7. A minimum of 39 visitor car parking bays being provided on the combined site (inclusive of the land below the public open space).

8. A maximum of 300 residential car parking bays being provided on the combined site (inclusive of the land below the public open space) with a minimum of one car parking bay being provided per dwelling.

9. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a management plan detailing the proposed access to and management of the visitor bays to ensure they are utilised and functional is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant is to provide further evidence that the internal driveway design adjacent to the entrance for the common parking area located on the adjoining Lot 504 will operate to a suitable design capacity which ensures that no queuing will occur on Graylands Road. Alternatively, redesign of the internal driveway junction adjacent the main entrance is to be provided and implemented to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

11. A Site, Traffic and Noise Management Plan for the construction of the proposed development including tradespersons and delivery vehicles is to be provided and approved by the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit and implemented for the duration of construction. The plan is to also include details on the 2m wide construction zone, along the sites boundary adjoining the oval, being provided for temporary use by the developer to facilitate the construction process.

12. All stormwater is to be contained on site. Details are to be provided with an application for a building permit.


Page 49

13. Prior to the issue of a building permit, design details are to be provided with the building application indicating compliance with the Design Guideline requirements for a 6 Star individual and 7 Star collective average rating under Section J of the National Construction Code 2013 to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

14. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed development, details of the proposed public art work, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct, to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont. All approved art work on site is to be installed prior to occupation to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a lighting plan is to be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont. The Lighting Plan shall cover all public areas of the building including stairwells, entry points and the building perimeter, showing suitable levels and types of lighting to ensure maximum visibility and safety for pedestrians and users of the site in accordance with the Australian Standards.

16. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design audit of the proposed development inclusive of any design detail modifications is to be completed and approved to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

17. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details regarding the provision of any signage consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct to the satisfaction of the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont.


19. All servicing areas and other parts of the land or building, which are likely to be untidy in appearance, are to be completely screened from public view and from view from adjoining properties. Details are to be provided with an application for a building permit.

20. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a final Landscaping and Reticulation Plan for the whole development is to be submitted and approved by the Claremont on the Park Architect and the Town of Claremont with the approved landscaping to be installed prior to occupation of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

21. The applicant is to liaise with LandCorp with the view of raising the Oval Edge Open Space level and revising the landscaping plan for the land immediately adjacent to proposed apartment B102 with the view of providing direct stepped access to the balcony/terraced area in order to improve the connectivity between the apartment and the Public Open Space.

22. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed development on Lot 505, Graylands Road, the owner shall enter into a deed with the Town of Claremont whereby the owner:


Page 50

(a) Indemnifies the Town of Claremont and its officers, employees and contractors in respect of any potential damage that may occur within the land to any property or person relative to the performance of waste collection services for the occupants of the subject development.

(b) Agrees to take out and maintain a policy of public liability insurance to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont in respect of all claims arising out any loss or damage occurring on the land in the course of the waste collection services by the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors.

(c) Agrees to provide internal storage for all waste on site and to maintain all common accessways on the land so as to permit the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors to gain access to the land for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land.

23. The agreement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. The legal agreements is to be prepared at the applicant’s cost and registered as an absolute caveat on the relevant Certificates of Title to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

24. Prior to the occupation of any part of the proposed development the owner shall grant to the Town of Claremont an easement in gross for vehicular access purposes pursuant to section 195 of the Land Administration Act 1997 over the common accessways and waste storage areas forming part of the proposed development in accordance with the specifications and to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont to ensure that Town of Claremont officers, employees and contractors may access the waste storage areas and common accessways for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land. The Easement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors and the owner shall be responsible to cover all associated costs.

25. Prior to the issue of a building permit for a sales office for a period of no more than 12 months, details are to be provided on the proposed location, design and landscaping treatment of the sales office to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

26. This approval is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval.

Advice Notes:

(i) This is not an approval to commence development. A building permit must be obtained from the local government’s Building Services prior to the commencement of any building works.

(ii) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300.

o The development and use of the land is required to comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.


Page 51

o The applicant is required to remove any hazardous materials encountered during construction/demolition at their own expense and in accordance with the Code of Practice on Safe Removal of Asbestos (NOHSC: 2002(1988) as stipulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 1996, and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004.

o Laundries are not be located in a room in which food is prepared, stored, served or consumed.

o All plant and machinery (such as air-conditioners and pool pumps) are to be suitably sound proofed to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and so as not to cause an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining residential properties.

o Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(iii) If the applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.


Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Lorenz, seconded Cr Wood THAT Council: 1. Support the officer recommendation to the Metro West Joint Development

Assessment Panel for the development approval of 92 Multiple Dwellings on Lot 505 Graylands Road, Claremont.


AMENDMENT

Moved Cr Tulloch, seconded Cr Browne That an additional point be added to read ‘Request the JDAP to consider that the entry to the car park be from the side road (New Road) and not Graylands Road’.



Page 52

THE AMENDED PRIMARY MOTION WAS PUT

THAT Council: 1. Support the officer recommendation to the Metro West Joint Development

Assessment Panel for the development approval of 92 Multiple Dwellings on Lot 505 Graylands Road, Claremont.

2. Request the JDAP to consider that the entry to the car park be from the side road (New Road) and not Graylands Road.




Page 53

Items 13.1.4 to 13.1.7 were carried en bloc.

13.1.4 LOT 1 (23) ST QUENTIN AVENUE, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR 'WIZARD PHARMACY'

File Ref: A-5141/DA2014.00204 Attachments – Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph

Attachments – Restricted: Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe


Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 16 December 2014 Property Owner: SPB (Australia) Pty Ltd and QIC CM Pty Ltd Submitted By: Masterplanners Interiors Pty Ltd Area of Lot: Tenancy 26m2

Zoning: Town Centre Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) Town Centre Zone Signage Policy (PS202)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for signage for ‘Wizard Pharmacy’.

• Proposal does not comply with the Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) requirements for signage.

• Signage requires a variation due to the existing configuration of the pharmacy, which does not allow for views into the building.

• Application is recommended for approval, subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose For Council to consider an application for signage that does not comply with the LLRS. The application requires the Council’s determination as it is of a commercial nature.


Page 54


Date Item/Outcome 17 October 2014 Planning Application received by Council. 22 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 3 November 2014 Advertising commenced. 18 November 2014 Advertising closed. 25 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.


Heritage The property is not listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory or in the TPS3 Heritage Schedule.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Three neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

Discussion Description The application proposes the following signage:

• Window sign adjacent the entry door (left) measuring 1.75m by 2.6m and 4.55m2

in area, (100% coverage)

• Window sign adjacent the entry door (right) measuring 0.75m by 2.6m and 1.95m2 in area (100% coverage)

• Main window sign ‘Wizard Pharmacy’ measuring 3.8m by 2.6m and 9.9m2 in area (100% coverage)

• Large window sign ‘Open 7 Days’ measuring 4.5m by 3.6m and 16.2m2 in area (100% coverage)

• Under Verandah Sign measuring 1.4m by 0.4m and 0.56m2 in area. It is noted that window signage is not proposed to three window sections of the shopfront as the fit-out includes an internal window display which can be changed periodically to display internal advertising and/or product displays. Compliance Under the Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) window signs are required to occupy no more than 50% of any window and no more than 25% of all combined windows. The proposed signs occupy 100% of each respective window. The total signage area is 32.8m2 which is 46% of the overall window area (71m2).


Page 55

In addition to the above signage, the application shows several changeable graphics that are intended to be displayed within purpose-built window displays. As these signs are technically within the building, planning approval is not required for them. Signage in the Town Centre may also be required to comply with Town Centre Zone Signage Policy (PS202). Although Table 1 of PS202 states that the policy does not apply to window signs and under verandah signs, the policy provides Council discretion to vary LLRS where the sign meets the aesthetic, amenity and safety objectives of the Policy. The applicant requests that Council permit the increased signage on the basis that they have taken over an existing pharmacy and that the existing layout of the pharmacy does not allow for views into the shop through the front windows. Floor plans for the pharmacy show that it has been constructed with the counter and dispensary backing onto the front windows. This area contains the prescription medicines that the pharmacy stocks and relocating these shelves would require a full internal refurbishment of the store. As a result it is not practical or desirable to require the applicant to comply with the signage requirements under the LLRS and if this were required (without internal reconfiguration) it would result in large expanses of blank walls being visible from the street. The proposed signage and window displays will offer a significantly better appearance to this. The one area where the proposed signage is not required for screening of the inside of the tenancy is adjacent to the front door of the pharmacy. It is recommended that these signs be deleted and removed so as to allow maximum views into this portion of the store. Having regard for the above the proposed window signage is consistent with the existing streetscape, does not present as an unnecessary distraction to motorists or pedestrians and does not block important views into the building. Accordingly, it is considered that, with the removal of the signage either side of the door, the application can meet the aesthetic, amenity and safety objectives of PS202 and the application can be supported. The under verandah sign complies with all requirements under the LLRS.

Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation.



Page 56

Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Browne THAT Council grant planning approval for proposed signage for ‘Wizard Pharmacy’ at Lot 4003 (Tenancy 143, 23) St Quentin Avenue, Claremont subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2014.204), as amended by these conditions. 2. The proposed window signage either side of the main doors is to be

removed entirely to improve the activation of the tenancy with St Quentin Avenue.



Advice Notes: (i) A sign licence must be obtained from the Town’s Building Services prior

to the installation of any signage. (ii) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no

construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(iii) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.

CARRIED(198/14)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 57

13.1.5 LOT 2 (222) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO HERITAGE LISTED BUILDING


Photograph

Attachments - Restricted: Plans Heritage Impact Statement

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Josh Wilson Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 13 December 2014 Property Owner: Dion Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted By: Hocking Design Studio Area of Lot: 1,239m2 Zoning: Highway (TPS3) Primary Regional Road Reserve (MRS) Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for the enclosure of an existing

verandah with clear glazing.

• Subject site is listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory and the TPS3 Heritage Schedule.

• Proposal complies with the TPS3 and Council Policy requirements.

• Application is recommended for approval, subject to the verandah area not being used for commercial purposes.

Purpose For Council to consider an application to enclose the front verandah of the existing heritage listed commercial property at the subject site. The application requires the Council’s determination as it is of a commercial nature.


Page 58


Date Item/Outcome 14 October 2014 Planning application received by Council. 22 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 27 October 2014 Advertising commenced. 15 November 2014 Advertising closed. 24 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions The following resolutions are relevant to this application:

Ordinary Council Meeting, 2 October 2012, Resolution 190/12: Council resolved to support the officer’s recommendation for referral to the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) of an application for the construction of a three storey office development and alterations to the two existing single storey office buildings at 220 – 222 Stirling Highway, Claremont. The proposal was subsequently approved by the JDAP at its meeting held on 16 October 2012. The application included a proposal for the enclosure of the existing verandah of the heritage building on the subject site. This included removal of existing timber columns and replacement with glazed panels and carpeting of the verandah to allow for office use. This portion of the development was not supported and subsequently the approval was subject to the following conditions: 12. Proposed alteration to the verandah of the heritage listed building at 222

Stirling Highway being revised so that there is no change to the verandah floor.

13. The timber posts of the verandah of the heritage listed building on the property at 222 Stirling Highway being retained and any glazing being installed between these posts.

Ordinary Council Meeting, 19 February 2013, Resolution 28/13: Council resolved to support the officer’s recommendation for referral to the JDAP of a revised proposal for the construction of a three storey office development and alterations to the two existing single storey office buildings at 220 – 222 Stirling Highway, Claremont. The proposal was subsequently approved by the JDAP at its meeting held on 19 March 2013. The revised approval did not include any alterations to the verandah. The original application was not acted on and has since expired. Given the original approval was superseded by the revised approval the applicant is now requesting a new approval for these works.

Heritage The subject site is listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory and the TPS3 Heritage Schedule.


Page 59

In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Statement which states that the proposed alterations will not take away from the asymmetric plan form of the facade and will continue to expose its bulk, form and scale with its high degree of visual permeability. The use of high performance glazing in metal framing distinguishes it as a new addition to the existing building. The glazed enclosure will not harm the significance of the building and will be a reversible installation should the need to reinstate the original use of the verandah arise in the future. The proposal was referred to the Town’s Heritage Officer for comment. The proposal is a result of previous negotiations with the applicant and owner in regards to the original application for JDAP approval in which conditions relating to the enclosure of the verandah were imposed. It is advised that the proposed works will not significantly impact on the original fabric of the building and is reversible in nature and can be supported.

Consultation Public Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Three neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received. Metropolitan Region Scheme The subject site is partially reserved for the purpose of ‘Primary Regional Roads’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) with the remainder being zoned ‘Highway’ under TPS3. Under the Planning and Development Act (MRS) Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Town has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any approval being in accordance with the recommendations of Main Roads WA. Main Roads WA were referred the application and have formally advised the Town that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to standard advice regarding the future widening of Stirling Highway for the applicant’s information.

Discussion Description The application proposes to enclose the front verandah to the heritage listed building with floor-to-ceiling double-glazed windows to improve the thermal and noise performance of the building, which faces Stirling Highway. It is noted that the verandah has previously been enclosed with cafe blinds which have required continual maintenance and periodic replacement due to the quality of these blinds and their exposure to the elements. It is proposed to install a more practical, permanent and higher quality solution to enclose this area.


Page 60

Use The original application proposed to convert the verandah into an office space. This was not supported as using the verandah as an office could result in the space becoming filled with furniture and the potential installation of blinds or tinting would block views through the area and obscure the original facade to the building. Although the proposed development does not indicate any new use of the verandah area any approval should be conditioned to clarify that while the proposed development is approved, a change of use of the area for office is not supported. Compliance The proposal complies with the TPS3 provisions and Council Policy requirements. It is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the existing heritage listed building or the streetscape. The proposed enclosure will create a more usable amenity area for future occupants of the building and can be supported.


Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Browne THAT Council grant planning approval for the proposed verandah enclosure at Lot 2 (222) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2014.197), as amended by these conditions. 2. The verandah area is not to be used for commercial (office) purposes. 3. Tinting or curtains are not to be applied to the glazing as these would

obscure the original facade of the building when viewed from the street. 4. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24

months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) This is a Planning Approval only. A Building Permit must be obtained

from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission;

(ii) This property is listed on the Town of Claremont's Heritage Schedule and/or the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places. Any future alteration to the building or development on the land requires planning approval and the application may be referred to the Heritage Council.

(iii) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out:


Page 61

a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(iv) Main Roads WA advises the following: The property is affected by Metropolitan region Scheme Amendment

1210/41 – Rationalising of Stirling Highway reservation (refer to plan number 1.7146 attached). Enquiries on the amendment may be directed to Main Roads.

(v) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.

CARRIED(198/14)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 62

13.1.6 LOT 31 (209-211) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR EXISTING SHOWROOM ‘GODFREYS’


Photograph Attachments - Restricted: Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe

Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Julia Kingsbury

Planning Manager Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 16 December 2014 Property Owner: Black Rocks (WA) Pty Ltd Submitted By: Checkpoint Building Surveyors Area of Lot: 1,518m2 Zoning: Highway and MRS Reserve for Primary

Regional Road Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a proposed horizontal sign for

‘Godfreys’.

• Proposal complies with the Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs.

• 32 neighbouring owners and occupiers were notified and no submissions were received.

• Application is recommended for approval.

Purpose For Council to determine an application for planning approval for a horizontal sign at Lot 31 (209 – 211) Stirling Highway, Claremont. Council’s determination is required as the application is of a commercial nature.


Page 63


Date Item/Outcome 17 October 2014 Planning application received by Council. 22 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 23 October 2014 Revised plans requested from applicant. 29 October 2014 Revised Plans Received. 5 November 2014 Application referred to Main Roads WA for comment. 7 November 2014 Advertising commenced. 19 November 2014 Main Road WA comment received. 25 November 2014 Advertising closed. 25 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.


Heritage The subject site it not listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory or in the TPS3 Heritage Schedule.

Consultation Public Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Thirty two neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

Metropolitan Region Scheme (Main Roads WA Referral) The subject site is located partially within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for ‘Primary Regional Road’ (PRR). Under the Planning and Development Act (PDA) MRS Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Council has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any decision being consistent with the comment and recommendation of Main Roads WA (MRWA). The subject application has been referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA advised that they have no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign structure is to be placed on private property and shall not overhang or

encroach upon the road reserve. 2. Main Roads agreement is to be obtained prior to any modifications. 3. If illuminated it must be of low-level not exceeding 300cd/m2 not flash, pulsate or

chase. 4. The device shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or

materials. 5. The type of sign and location must comply with all relevant by-laws and planning

schemes made by Council. 6. No other unauthorised signage is to be displayed.


Page 64

Any approval should be conditioned to comply with Main Roads WA requirements.

Discussion Description Approval is sought for the proposed horizontal sign measuring 2.15m long by 0.6m high displaying the words ‘Godfreys We Are Clean’ located on the front facade of the existing showroom tenancy on the subject site. The proposal also includes repainting the existing grey, black and yellow facade cobolt blue. It is noted that since the application for planning approval was received the signage has been erected on the subject site. A building permit for an internal fitout was issued by the Town on 30 October 2014 as the proposed fitout and use were not subject to an application for planning approval. Compliance The proposed signs comply with to the provisions of the Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS), namely the requirements for a ‘Horizontal Sign’.


Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Browne THAT Council grant planning approval for a proposed horizontal sign for ‘Godfreys’ at Lot 31 (209 - 211) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2014.203), as amended by these conditions. 2. All signage is to be kept clean, intact and free of graffiti/vandalism at all

times and any such graffiti or vandalism being removed within 24 hours. 3. Window signage is not to occupy more than 50% of any window or 25%

of the total ground floor window area for the building. 4. The development is to comply with the requirements of Main Roads WA. 5. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24

months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) A Sign Licence is to be obtained from the Town's Building Services Unit. (ii) Main Roads WA advised the proposal must comply with the following:

a) The sign structure is to be placed on private property and shall not overhang or encroach upon the road reserve.


Page 65

b) Main roads agreement is to be obtained prior to any modifications. c) If illuminated it must be of low-level not exceeding 300cd/m2 not

flash, pulsate or chase. d) The device shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro

reflective colour or materials. e) The type of sign and location must comply with all relevant by-

laws and planning scheme made by Council. f) No other unauthorized signage is to be displayed.

(iii) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

CARRIED(198/14)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 66

13.1.7 LOT 6 (273) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE TO EXISTING SHOWROOM FOR ‘LAXXON’


Photograph Attachments - Restricted: Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe


Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 2 December 2014 Property Owner: Lorrmar Investments Pty Ltd Submitted By: Laxxon Construction and Design Area of Lot: 506m2 Zoning: Highway (TPS3)

Primary Regional Road Reserve (MRS) Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for alterations to an existing

building and new signage.

• The subject tenancy is currently approved as a ‘Showroom’ therefore no change of use is required under TPS3.

• 21 neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

• Application is recommended for approval subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose For Council to determine an application for alterations to an existing showroom tenancy and new signage for ‘Laxxon’. The application requires the Council’s determination as it is of a commercial nature.


Page 67


Date Item/Outcome 25 September 2014 Planning application received by Council. 1 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 7 October 2014 Advertising commenced. 23 October 2014 Advertising closed. 5 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions There are no relevant approvals that relate to this application.

Heritage The property is not listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory or the Town Planning Scheme Schedule of Heritage Places.

Consultation Public Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Council Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. Twenty one neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received. Metropolitan Region Scheme The subject site is partially reserved for the purpose of ‘Primary Regional Roads’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) with the remainder being zoned ‘Highway’ under TPS3. Under the Planning and Development Act (MRS) Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Town has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any approval being in accordance with the recommendations of Main Roads WA. Main Roads WA were referred the application and has formally advised the Town that they have no objection to the proposal and have provided advice to the applicant regarding the future widening of Stirling Highway.

Discussion Description The application proposes the following:

• Divide the existing 321m2 showroom into two separate areas with a gross leasable area (GLA) of 240m2. A common store and amenity area of 81m2 is proposed at the rear accessible from both tenancies. The two tenancies are proposed to be occupied by the one company.

• Construct a flat-roofed carport over the existing rear car parking area;

• Re-clad the front facade of the building; and


Page 68

• Install two horizontal signs measuring 3.0m wide by 0.65m high displaying the company details for ‘Laxxon’ located on the front facade of the building;

Compliance The proposed internal alterations, external carport addition and signage comply with the requirements under TPS3 and the LLRS with the exception of the following: Landscaping TPS3 requires showroom uses to provide a minimum of 5% landscaping which equates to 25.3m2 on the subject site. The existing landscaped area is approximately 13m2. There is an existing strip of landscaping located between the building and the car parking area and also to the west of the car parking bays in the front setback area. Any proposal to increase this area of landscaping will impact on the existing car parking layout and potentially compromise pedestrian safety along the footpath on Stirling Highway. As the majority of the site is reserved under the MRS for Primary Regional Roads the provisions of TPS3 do not strictly apply to this portion of the site. Given the existing landscaping area is located in the front setback areas and meeting the objective to soften the streetscape, it is considered that the existing landscaping on the site is adequate and can be supported. It is however recommended that any approval be conditioned to require the existing landscaping area be upgraded with additional plantings and maintained to a high standard thereafter. Signage The proposed horizontal signs comply with the Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) with the exception of the proposed height of the signs. The LLRS requires ‘horizontal signs’ to have a vertical dimension of no more than 600mm where the sign is located less than 7.5m above the ground. The proposed signs have an overall height of 650mm. As it is not possible to vary the LLRS it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to require the height of the proposed signs be reduced to comply with the requirements of the LLRS. Car Parking The subject site has eight car parking bays, four accessed directly off Stirling Highway and four accessed via the ROW at the rear of the site. The building is 321m2 in area and requires 1 car bay per 40m2 (eight bays). If the building is divided into two separate tenancies the shared areas of the building are excluded from the car parking calculations resulting in a GLA of 240m2. This reduces the parking requirement to six bays. The subject site therefore complies with the car parking requirements for either configuration of the tenancies. Although the tenancies are to be occupied by the same company the tenancies are not proposed to be interconnected other than the amenities located at the rear of the building being proposed to be shared and not exclusively allocated to one tenancy. It is recommended that any approval be conditioned to ensure sufficient parking is provided in either event (the common areas remaining for dual use or alternatively by use of one of the businesses only).


Page 69


Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Browne THAT Council grant planning approval for proposed internal alterations, external additions and signage for the existing showroom at Lot 6 (273) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2014.184), as amended by these conditions. 2. All storm water is to be retained on the site. Details are to be provided

on the application for Building Permit. 3. A minimum six car parking bays are to be provided on site if the building

is divided into two separate tenancies. Should the tenancies be combined, a minimum eight car parking bays are to be provided.

4. The existing landscaping area in the front setback is to be developed with further plantings to improve the quality of the existing landscaping prior to the occupation of the development. The car parking and landscaping areas are to be maintained to a high standard to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

5. All service and bin areas are to be screened from public view and maintained in a neat and tidy manner.

6. The proposed horizontal signs are to be altered to have a maximum vertical dimension of 600mm to comply with the Local Law Relating to Signs. Revised details to be provided with an application for a Sign Licence.


8. Window signage is not to occupy more than 50% of any window or 25% of the total ground floor window area for the shopfront.



from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission.

(ii) A Sign Licence is required to be obtained from the Town’s Building Services for all signage prior to installation.

(iii) The development is to comply with the Australian Standards for Disabled Access AS1428. If necessary revised plans are to be submitted with an application for a Building Permit.


Page 70

(iv) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300. a) All plant and machinery (such as air-conditioners and pool pumps)

are to be suitably sound proofed to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and so as not to cause an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.

b) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: i) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or ii) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

c) The applicant is required to remove any hazardous materials encountered during construction/demolition at their own expense and in accordance with the Code of Practice on Safe Removal of Asbestos (NOHSC: 2002(1988) as stipulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 1996, and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004.

(v) Main Roads WA advises the following: The property is affected by Metropolitan region Scheme Amendment

1210/41 – Rationalising of Stirling Highway reservation (refer to plan number 1.7146 attached). Enquiries on the amendment may be directed to Main Roads.

(vi) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.



Page 71

13.1.8 LOT 505 (301) STIRLING HIGHWAY - PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO 'RECREATION-INDOOR (ACTIVE)' FOR SNAP FITNESS


Photograph Submission Table

Attachments - Restricted: Plans Applicant’s Report Copy of Submissions


Author: Josh Wilson Urban Planner

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 60 Days Due Date: 21 December 2014 Property Owner: Invox Pty Ltd Submitted By: Amar Patel Area of Lot: 2343m2 Zoning: Highway (TPS3)

Primary Regional Road Reservation (MRS) Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a proposed change of use at the

subject site.

• Proposal does not meet TPS3 parking requirements.

• Five neighbours have objected due to potential traffic, parking and noise issues.

• The applicant proposes a range of measures to address these concerns.

• Application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Purpose For Council to consider the internal reconfiguration of an existing showroom tenancy and a change of use to ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’. The application requires the Council’s determination as it is of a commercial nature.


Page 72

Background This application has been preceded by Scheme Amendment No. 129 to TPS3 which rezoned a portion of the subject site from ‘Highway’ to ‘Special Zone – Restricted Use’. The intent of the amendment was to allow Council to consider an application to use the site as a 24 hour gym. The amendment included the following entry in Appendix 7 – Location Particulars of TPS3:

Location Particulars of Land Permitted Use Standards / Conditions No. 301 Stirling Highway, Claremont.

Lot 505 of Swan Location on Diagram 72584 of Certificate of Title Volume: 1786 Folio: 367.

All the uses that the land may be used for in the Highway Zone as determined by Table 1 Land Use Table and in addition ‘Recreation – Indoor (Active)’ shall be treated as an ‘AA’ use.

Use of the subject site for ‘Recreation – Indoor (Active)’ shall enable hours of operation to be 24hr per day, seven days per week.

The amendment was initiated by Council but following advertising Council resolved not to recommend finalisation of the amendment to the Minister for Planning due concerns raised by nearby residents. The Minister for Planning ultimately decided to approve the amendment, making ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’ an ‘AA’ or discretionary use for the site and allowing a 24-hour operation a permissible use. The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome 19 November 2013 Council initiates Scheme Amendment No. 129

1 April 2014 Council determines not to proceed with Amendment No. 129 following advertising.

24 September 2014 Minister for Planning approves Amendment No. 129. 21 October 2014 Planning application received by Council. 22 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 23 October 2014 Scheme Amendment No. 129 gazetted. 23 October 2014 Additional information requested from applicant. 24 October 2014 Advertising commenced. 24 October 2014 Additional information received from applicant. 11 November 2014 Advertising closed. 14 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions Council considered the final adoption of the proposed amendment at its ordinary meeting held 1 April 2014. Council did not support the recommendation to adopt the amendment for the following reason: Due to concerns over future parking, related to the operation of a 24 hour gym on 301 Stirling Highway and potential resultant amenity impacts on adjacent residential streets. This determination was ultimately overruled by the Minster for Planning. In making this decision the Minister advised the Town that the concerns raised were able to be dealt with as part of a development application for the use of the land and therefore the rezoning ought to be supported.


Page 73

Statutory Considerations Metropolitan Region Scheme The subject site is partially reserved for the purpose of ‘Primary Regional Roads’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) with the remainder being zoned ‘Highway’ under TPS3. Under the Planning and Development Act (MRS) Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Town has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any approval being in accordance with the recommendations of Main Roads WA. Main Roads WA advises the Town that they have no objection to the proposal subject to standard advice regarding future widening of the highway.

Heritage The property is not listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory or in the TPS3 Schedule.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 Advertising of Planning Applications. 29 neighbours were consulted and four submissions were received (three objections and one concern). A full copy of the submissions and a Submission Table is attached to this report. In summary, submissions from residents raised concerns with the following:

• Impact of new slip-lane on Leura Avenue

• Noise resulting from the development being too close to the northern boundary

• Gym users parking in Mary and Langsford Streets

• Whether existing car bays shown on the plan are useable, and

• Insufficient onsite parking. Each of these matters is addressed in the discussion section below.

Discussion Description The application proposes to change the use of an existing showroom tenancy to ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’. The area of the proposed tenancy is 489m2 (see further discussion on this matter). No changes to the external appearance or size of the building are proposed. The applicant does not propose to include facilities beyond the core requirements of fitness equipment and showers.


Page 74

Use The entry under Appendix 7 of TPS3 states that ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’ is to be considered as an ‘AA’ use under TPS3. Council may approve of such a use where it is satisfied that the proposal will provide a service to the local area and that the use will not impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties. A gym is considered to provide a needed amenity in the area given the recent closure of the only other larger scale gym within or immediately adjacent the Claremont Town Centre (Genesis - due to Bunning’s relocation). As discussed below, the use may have the potential to impact on the residents in the nearby streets, however these impacts should be ameliorated and managed by the applicant in the operation of the gym. Issues raised in submissions Submissions raised a number of objections and concerns with the proposal:

• Impact of new slip-lane on Leura Avenue One submission raised concerns with the new slip lane being constructed on Leura Avenue and whether this would result in the removal of the internal connection between parking areas on the property. Engineering Services advise that the road works have been designed to avoid impacting the subject site and as such this concern can be dismissed.

• Noise resulting from the development being too close to the northern boundary The concern regarding noise from the use and the fact that the existing building is too close to the adjoining residential property are not considered significant. The building is constructed with concrete walls and there are no openings or windows near the rear of the site that would allow noise to impact on the residential properties next door. While the applicant does not propose to install sound equipment, a condition is recommended to ensure noise from the premises does not impact the adjoining residential property to the north, including the car parking area adjacent to Mary Street not being used between 8pm and 7am.

• Gym users parking in Mary and Langsford Streets There is the potential for users of the gym to park in the surrounding residential streets due to inconvenient access to the site and insufficient parking. As detailed in the applicant’s report, there is sufficient parking for the use based on a peak-parking assessment – see details below. Further, as a members-only gym, management of the gym will have much greater control over its customers than the previous showroom tenancy (Dick Smiths). If approved a condition is proposed to ensure the gym management is responsible for its staff and members do not use Mary or Langsford Streets for parking and access.


Page 75

Parking in Mary and Langsford Streets by commercial staff and customers is an ongoing issue and is not limited to the subject site or the proposed use. Mary Street has parking restrictions and both streets are regularly patrolled by the Town’s rangers. Parking restrictions are currently being considered for Langsford Street and residents will be consulted in the coming months. The Town’s Parking Local Laws provide for parking restrictions in residential streets to apply where it is shown that public parking is an issue. In Mary Street, 2-hr parking restrictions apply unless residents have a Residential Parking Permit. This may also apply to any other residential streets (i.e. Walter Street). The process of having parking restrictions applied requires residents to justify their concerns and surveys being conducted with all residents. A ‘possible’ option may include signage being installed in Mary Street to advise that parking is permitted for residential purposes only – the Town’s Senior Ranger advises that this would require a modification to the Local Law. Concern has been raised that as the gym is not to be supervised, parking problems in Mary Street may result at night. Given ample parking is provided on-site parking late at night is readily accommodated directly in front of the gym (for their own personal security) and parking problems are not envisaged in Mary Street. In the event that parking is tight on site, the public parking station in Leura Avenue directly north of the site provides for 72 parking bays. If parking problems occur in Mary Street at night, swipe card access to the gym can be used to identify those users and measures can be put in place by management of the gym to address this situation.

• Whether existing car bays shown on the plan are useable A site visit has confirmed that several of the existing car bays are not able to be used due to obstructions and bins being placed on them. These bays are required to be made fully useable as per the original approval of the development. One bay on the upper level does not meet Australian Standards for manoeuvring space however is acceptable as a staff parking bay. Therefore 30 car bays are deemed to be provided on the site.

• Insufficient onsite parking On-site parking is discussed below.

Car Parking The development proposes a technical shortfall in the provision of TPS3 car parking bay requirements as detailed below:

Parking required for existing uses uses Gross Leasable

Area Parking

Ratio Bays

Required Bays

Provided Shortfall

4 Showrooms 1,981m2 1/50m2 39.6 30 9.6 bays

Parking required for proposed use (combined with remaining tenancies) uses Gross Leasable

Area Parking

Ratio Bays

Required Bays

Provided Shortfall

3 Showrooms 1,492m2 1/50m2 29.9 30 (bays not allocated)

39 bays Recreation-Indoor (Active) 489m2 1/12.5m2 39.1


Page 76

The above table shows that there is an existing shortfall of 9.6 bays for the entire site. The proposed change of use will increase this shortfall to 39 bays. The applicant proposes that parking is sufficient for the site based on the following:

• The number of bays required for ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’ is substantially more than required for this type of gym.

• The peak hours of operation to establish the realistic parking demand for the gym differs significantly from the other showrooms.

In support of the first point, the applicant has provided detailed attendance figures for two comparable ‘Snap Fitness’ gyms in Perth which show a maximum attendance of less than 20 people at any time. As at least some of these people would not drive or drive together, parking requirements are likely to be lower than this. The applicant states that the ‘Snap Fitness’ gym model has lower parking demand than most gyms due to the following:

• There are no group classes.

• They do not have additional facilities (crèches, saunas etc.) that encourage longer use per session – most people are there for 1 hour or less.

• They are open 24 hours, which reduces demand for use at peak times. Details of the operational activity of other ‘Snap Fitness’ gyms have been provided by the applicant and reviewed by the Town. As this is commercially sensitive information, the applicant has requested that this information not be provided publicly as part of this report. These gyms are however located in comparable locations on major roads and have around 1000-1100 members which is close to the target membership of 1000-1200 for this gym. The information provided supports the applicant’s claim that a gym operating in the proposed manner would have lower parking requirements than specified under TPS3, noting that this use-class includes high-intensity uses such as public swimming pools, skate rinks and dance halls as well as fully-featured gyms with group classes and numerous other offerings that create higher levels of usage and parking demands. In support of the second point, the attendance figures show that peak-use times for similar ‘Snap Fitness’ gyms are 5am-7am and 5pm-8pm with 18 people at maximum. A parking assessment of the subject site was undertaken by the applicant for one week between 19 September and 25 September 2013. Three other showrooms (excluding the subject tenancy) were trading to their peak during this time. The assessment shows that parking before 8am is not problematic as the other showrooms do not open until 9-10am. Closing times for the showrooms are 5-5:30pm, although there is the potential for all of the showrooms to remain open until 9pm on Thursdays. The parking data provided shows that there will be sufficient parking at all times with only a brief overlap in peak demand periods around 5pm each day and on Thursday evenings. The parking assessment noted that the greatest overlap in demand is likely to occur on Thursday nights. The survey counted 11 car bays in use at 6pm on Thursday during the assessed week with 19 free bays. During the normal working day, similar gym operations receive low usage (maximum of 14 at 4-5pm). During these times the parking survey for the site establishes a maximum of 7 bays being used with up to 23 bays being available on site for use of the gym. Similar gym operations also indicate low levels of usage on weekend days (5 on Saturday and 6 on Sunday) and late at night/early morning (max. 9 at 10-11pm


Page 77

on Monday night). As the anticipated maximum number of users at the gym are expected to be at or below the number of available car bays this is considered adequate relative to the current showroom activities on site. However, as the other showrooms have the capacity to open on Thursday evenings, there is potential for future conflict to occur. Accordingly there are two options to address this potential conflict:

• An approval could restrict the operating hours by preventing the gym operating during Thursday late night trading hours.

• A condition may be applied which provides some flexibility to allow the gym to operate unless the onsite showroom trading conditions change and no alternative arrangements can be accommodated.

The later has been discussed with the applicant and is considered a reasonable solution. The view that there is sufficient parking on the site is therefore supported, notwithstanding non-compliance with TPS3 requirements. In this regard, it is noted that a revised draft scheme amendment has been prepared for distribution to Elected Members and further discussion prior to reporting to Council in the new year. The proposals contained in the amendment and policies simplify the former proposals referred to Council in June 2014. They include reciprocal or peak-parking arrangements (and other concessions) in order to satisfy parking requirements under the Scheme. However, as this amendment is yet to be endorsed by Council, it is not possible to use these proposals to lower the parking requirements for Highway zoned land under TPS3. Specifically, in the face of objection from local residents and as parking reductions are inconsistent with the current approach to parking concessions within the Town Centre, it would be inappropriate to grant concessions based on the current parking review unless legally founded – see further comments below. It is noted that the front half portion of the lot is located within the MRS Primary Regional Road Reservation. As this portion of the lot is not zoned under TPS3, legal advice confirms that the Town’s planning requirements do not strictly apply over the regionally reserved land. Accordingly, although no discretion ordinarily exists as detailed above, Council may in this instance consider parking reductions based on the peak parking demand information and other comments provided by the applicant. It is noted that revised draft proposals for Amendment No. 123 support this approach. The parking requirements for the reserved portion of the lot are as follows:

Parking requirements for portion of the building within the MRS Reservation uses

Gross Leasable Area

Parking Ratio

Bays Required

Maximum reduction in

parking requirements

Shortfall if maximum reduction applied

Showroom 750m2 1/50m2 15 35 bays 5 bays Recreation-

Indoor (Active) 250m2 1/12.5m2 20

If the maximum reduction in car parking is applied to the reserved portion of the site (supported by the peak parking demand assessment above), then the proposed use will result in a shortfall of five car bays. The alternatives to address this include payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) or limiting the extent of the floor area applicable to the


Page 78

application. As the property is not located in the Town Centre and given that the future direction of parking amendments are not finalise by Council at this point, it would be appropriate to charge the full CIL value in accordance with the cl.33 of TPS3. This would be in the order of $100,000 or more per bay. This matter has been discussed with the applicant. Their preferred option is to remove 62.5m2 from the application (to be retained on site as a vacant floor space with no approved use to attract parking) and to have the matter reconsidered at a future date, once the parking amendments are finalised and more clarity on this matter is available. Removal of 62.5m2 (489m2 – 62.5m2 = 426.5m2) will reduce the parking requirement by five bays exactly and in accordance with the above table, bring the parking requirements into compliance with the parking provision on the zoned portion of the site (providing the full discretion for the bays associated with the MRS portion of the site are accepted).


Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Wood, seconded Cr Tulloch THAT Council grant planning approval for a change of use from ‘Showroom’ to ‘Recreation-Indoor (Active)’ at Lot 505 (Unit 4, 301) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. The 24 hour use of the premises is permitted subject to ongoing

management by the gym operators of potential amenity impacts on nearby residents, including parking in nearby residential streets, noise and disruption of residential properties at night and anti-social behaviour at night. Thursday evening operations are dependent on the current showroom activities on site remaining constant and allowing for sufficient parking on site. Should the showroom activities on site modify on Thursday evenings, suitable arrangements are to be made by the applicant to address any parking demand shortfalls, or alternatively the gym shall be restricted in its operating times on Thursday evenings to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

2. Facilities at the gym are to be limited to fitness equipment and change rooms only unless otherwise approved by the Town of Claremont. Fitness class activity is not permitted at any time.

3. No personal training or group sessions of more than four persons are permitted due to potential parking issues.

4. Any sound equipment within the premises is to be operated at a level that is not audible from the adjacent residential property to the north.

5. A minimum of 30 car bays is to be provided on the site. 6. Staff and visitors to the gym are not to park in the surrounding

residential streets. A notice regarding this is to be prominently placed within the premises and is to be provided as membership requirement for all new members upon registration.


Page 79

7. Signage within the property is to state that customer parking is not permitted in the bays adjacent to Mary Street between 9pm and 7am.

8. The gym area is to be reduced by 62.5m2 to 426.5m2 with the 62.5m2 being retained as a vacant space with no approved use until such time as Council reviews Town Planning Scheme No. 3 provisions relating to parking, or prior to commencement of the approved use of the full 489m2 floor space, the applicant/owner shall satisfy the cash-in-lieu of car parking bays for the shortfall of five car parking bays in accordance with Clause 33 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3.

9. Existing bin areas are to be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont and are to allow full use of all car bays on the site. Details of the screening are to be submitted along with the application for a Building Permit.

10. Landscaping and car parking areas on the site are to be maintained to a high standard to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

11. No signage is to be installed without planning approval first being granted by the Town of Claremont.

12. In all other respects, development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Planning Approval (Planning Application DA-2014.209), as amended by these conditions.



from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission.

(ii) As part of the application for a Building Permit the plans shall be required to comply with the Australian Standards for Disabled Access AS1428.

(iii) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300. a) All plant and machinery (such as air-conditioners) are to be suitably

sound proofed to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and so as not to cause an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property.

b) The development and use of the land is required to comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

c) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.


Page 80

d) This building is required to be registered as a Public Building under the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992 prior to occupation.

e) This building is required to comply with the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992 including maximum occupancy which is to be determined with regard to floor space and toilet facilities.

f) Food related activities (if proposed) are to comply with the Food Act 2008 and the food business is to be registered with the Town of Claremont’s Health Services.

(iv) Advice from Main Roads WA is attached to this approval. (v) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may

exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.

CARRIED(199/14)

For the Motion: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Wood, Goetze, Browne, Tulloch, Haynes and Lorenz. Against the Motion: Cr Mews.


Page 81

13.1.9 ADOPTION OF CLAREMONT NORTH EAST PRECINCT DESIGN GUIDELINES AS A LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND PROPOSED VARIATION TO DETAILED AREA PLAN FOR LOTS 528-530 AND 532-543

File Ref: LND/00091 Attachments: Extracts from Claremont NEP Design Guidelines Author: David Vinicombe

Executive Manager Planning and Development Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose The intent of this report is for Council to acknowledge a minor factual alteration to the Detailed Area Plan (DAP) relative to the Federation of WA Police and Community Youth Centres (PCYC) land to the north of the North East Precinct (NEP) and adopt final minor variations to the Design Guidelines (DGs) with regard to the use of public art contributions and waste collection as part of formal Planning Policy LV128 North East Precinct Design Guidelines.

Summary • LandCorp has prepared Design Guidelines (DGs) for the NEP together with

Detailed Area Plans (DAPs).

• Council adopted these DGs and DAPs on 18 December 2012 subject to minor details to be negotiated between LandCorp and the Town’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Final details of the DGs and DAPs detailed in Council’s 2012 resolution have been addressed to the satisfaction of the CEO and are now incorporated in a final document.

• During the process of negotiating the details, a number of elements were raised which extended beyond the CEOs authority to resolve. These matters are the subject of this report and include:

o Modifying the distribution of the public art spending requirements of the DGs.

o Modification to the DGs to clarify waste removal requirements for the single house PCYC lots.

• A further minor factual modification is included in the attached document relative to the PCYC DAP for Lots 528-530 and 532-543 to modify the Open Space requirement to refer to Lot 543, rather than the former Lot 560.

• The existing DGs are technically adopted as Council Planning Policy in accordance with cl.82 of TPS3. Changes to the DGs have been advertised for public comment and no submissions were received. Accordingly it is recommended that the DGs now be formally adopted as Local Planning Policy LV128 North East Precinct Design Guidelines.

• The proposed minor change to the DAP is a factual clarification matter and do not constitute a variation to the North East Precinct (NEP) Structure Plan (SP).


Page 82


Date Item/Outcome 18 December 2012 Council adopts changes to the NEP SP, proposed DGs and

DAPs subject to minor modifications pending further discussions between LandCorp and the Town’s CEO.

5 August 2014 Minor changes proposed to Public Art requirements under the DGs by LandCorp.

8 October 2014 Final DGs and DAPs addressing Council requirements following negotiations between LandCorp and the Town’s CEO signed off by the Town.

10 October 2014 Report prepared to address minor variations to DGs and DAPs beyond the scope of previous Council Resolution.

1 November 2014 Proposed variations to NEP DGs advertised for public comment.

21 November 2014 Closure of public submission period. 27 November 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions and Decisions Council resolved on 21 October 2014 as follows: That Council resolve to: 1. Note the minor clarifications to the Claremont North East Precinct Design

Guidelines and Detailed Area Plans with regard to:

• Federation of WA Police and Community Youth Centres Detailed Area Plans to reflect revised lot numbers and clarification that the lots are for single houses.

• Inclusion of an easement over the Detailed Area Plan for the Public Transport Authority Lot 512 to protect the sewer line and alert developers that special design considerations apply.

• Renaming the “Town Architect” to the “Claremont on the Park Architect” and providing for these services to be part of the approval process for all lots in the NEP (other than the single house lots).

2. Advertise for public comment the proposed modifications to the Design Guidelines, pursuant to clause 82 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, as follows:

• Development Controls section of cl.4.7 be amended to include: LandCorp will be provided with 25% (or 0.25% of total construction cost) of the abovementioned contribution, which will be retained within a consolidated fund and utilised to deliver precinct-wide public art. The remaining 75% (or 0.75% of total construction cost) will remain as the public art contribution for implementation by the Developer.

• Development Controls section of cl.5.5.1 be modified to include: Waste storage and collection for single dwelling lots shall be in accordance with the Town’s standard requirements for single residential developments.


Page 83

Compliance

The DGs are to be adopted as Council Policy in accordance with cl.82 of TPS3. The final part of this process in adopting the DGs as Council Policy involved notification in the local newspaper.

The minor change to the DAP for Lots 528-530 and 532-543 (renumbering Lot 460 to 543 in the Open Space section of the table) for the PCYC development is a factual clarification matter and does not formally constitute a variation to the DAP or require public consultation prior to endorsement in this document. Consultation TPS3 provides for a minimum 21 day consultation period to apply to variations to Council Policy. The DG variations were advertised in the Post Newspaper on 1 November 2014 and comments were sought prior to 21 November 2014. No submissions were received. Discussion The proposal is for Council to consider final adoption of the revised DGs as formal Planning Policy under TPS3 and further endorse a minor modification to the already adopted DAP for the PCYC development to acknowledge a correct lot number.

Public Art Cl.4.7 Public Art of the DGs presently require developments other than a single dwelling to contribute some form of public art to the public realm on or adjacent to their lot to the value of 1% of total construction cost. LandCorp has indicated that whilst this is a proven mechanism for ensuring the delivery of public art, experience shows that that this approach often results in an ad hock and uncoordinated response to the provision of public art.

In response to this, LandCorp has appointed Tony Jones and Angela McHarrie as ‘artists in residence’ for the duration of the project delivery phase. These artists are both well known and highly respected members of the Western Australian public art community and have been commissioned for many of Perth’s most iconic and well loved public art installations. In addition, it is proposed that the Development Controls section of cl.4.7 be amended to include:

LandCorp will be provided with 25% (or 0.25% of total construction cost) of the abovementioned contribution, which will be retained within a consolidated fund and utilised to deliver precinct-wide public art. The remaining 75% (or 0.75% of total construction cost) will remain as the public art contribution for implementation by the Developer.

No objections are raised to this initiative as it is considered that it will result in improved and coordinated public art outcome for the project. Waste Removal Cl.5.5.1 Waste Management of the DGs included Development Controls primarily aimed at the larger development sites to achieve rubbish collection from within the lots. LandCorp has raised a concern that it would be impractical for these


Page 84

Development Controls to apply to the PCYC single house lots. Accordingly it is proposed that the Development Controls section of cl.5.5.1 be modified to include:

Waste storage and collection for single dwelling lots shall be in accordance with the Town’s standard requirements for single residential developments.

No objections are raised to this practical clarification as the single house lots do not have the lot area to service rubbish collection from within.

PCYC DAP Minor modification to the PCYC DAP is proposed to reflect the revised lot number 543 (formerly Lot 560) in the Open Space section of the DAP for Lots 528-530 and 532-543. This is considered to be clarification of a factual matter and is not a formal variation to the DAP. Conclusion The proposed modifications to the DGs and DAP clarify and improve upon the existing document. Accordingly the modifications are supported. Formal changes to the DGs however constitute variations to Council Policy and accordingly have been formally advertised for public comment. As no submissions were received, it is recommended that the NEP DGs be adopted as a Local Planning Policy LV128 North East Precinct Design Guidelines. Further the minor clarification matter relative to Lot 543 be noted by Council as minor factual modification to the DAP for Lots 528-530 and 532-543. Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Haynes, seconded Edwards That Council resolve to: 1. Note the minor clarification to the Detailed Area Plan for Lots 528-530 and

532-543 relative to reference to Lot 560 in the Open Space section of the Detailed Area Plan.

2. Adopt the proposed modifications to the Design Guidelines, pursuant to clause 82 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, as follows: • Development Controls section of cl.4.7 be amended to include:

LandCorp will be provided with 25% (or 0.25% of total construction cost) of the abovementioned contribution, which will be retained within a consolidated fund and utilised to deliver precinct-wide public art. The remaining 75% (or 0.75% of total construction cost) will remain as the public art contribution for implementation by the Developer.

• Development Controls section of cl.5.5.1 be modified to include: Waste storage and collection for single dwelling lots shall be in accordance with the Town’s standard requirements for single residential developments.

3. Adopt the Claremont North East Precinct Design Guidelines as Planning Policy LV128 North East Precinct Design Guidelines pursuant to clause 82 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3.

CARRIED(200/14)/ (NO DISSENT)


Page 85

13.1.10 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW – CONSIDERATION OF 13 SMITH STREET, CLAREMONT

File Ref: DAB/00043 Attachments - Restricted: Property Place Records

Submissions Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe


Manager Planning Odhran O’Brien Heritage Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 Enabling Legislation: Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • At its meeting held on 5 August 2014 Council resolved to adopt the Draft

Municipal Inventory as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory).

• The Council’s resolution included the deferral of a decision on eight properties to allow the owners to make further submissions in regards to the officer’s recommendation to retain or include their property in the Inventory.

• A Peer Review Panel was established to review the submissions and the officer’s recommendation regarding the retention or inclusion of the eight deferred properties.

• A Peer Review Panel session was held on Monday 1 December 2014 to consider the property at 13 Smith Street, Claremont.

• The recommendation of the Peer Review Panel to retain the property in the Inventory is recommended for Council approval.

• The Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) adopted pursuant to cl.78 of TPS3 currently includes the above listing for 13 Smith Street, Claremont. Accordingly, no further updates are required to the Heritage Schedule.

Purpose For Council to consider the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel regarding the inclusion of one of the eight properties deferred from being listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory) on 5 August 2014.

Background Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 states that:


Page 86

(1) A local government shall compile and maintain an inventory of buildings within its district which in its opinion are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance.

(2) The inventory required by subsection (1) shall be compiled no later than 4 years from the commencement of this Act and shall be – (a) updated annually; and (b) reviewed every 4 years after compilation.

The Town created its first Municipal Inventory (MI) of locally significant heritage buildings and places in 1991 in accordance with (2) above. The MI has been updated regularly since 1991 and a comprehensive review commenced in 2011 which resulted in the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory). To afford the properties listed in the Inventory with protection under TPS3, and therefore enable development on these properties to be assessed under the provisions of TPS3 and Council Policy, the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) is required to be updated in accordance with cl.78 of TPS3. Cl.78 states that: 78. SCHEDULE OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS AND PLACES:

(1) The Council shall maintain a schedule of buildings, objects and places (“the Schedule”) which the Council considers to be an architectural, historical or townscape value.

(2) The Schedule shall be available for inspection by any member of the public on request.

(3) The Council shall include in the Schedule: (a) any building constructed prior to the year 1910 and which retains

substantially its original form and detail as seen from any public place;

(b) any building constructed during or after the year 1910 and which the Council considers to have high intrinsic architectural merit or to be an outstanding example of its kind or of historical significance;

(c) buildings, objects or places that the Council considers make a positive contribution to the townscape of the district.

(4) Every building, object or place which is included by the National Trust of Western Australia (WA) in either the Recorded or the Classified List or which is included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule.

(5) The Council may from time to time add to or delete from the Schedule any building, object or place.

(6) The Council shall, before including any building, object or place in the Schedule:


Page 87

(a) give to the owner of that building, object or place written notice that the Council proposes to include that building, object or place in the Schedule and specifying a date being not less than three (3) weeks after the notice is given by which submissions may be made to the Council by the owner;

(b) advertise notice of the Council’s intention in a newspaper circulating in the district and specifying the date by which submissions may be made to the Council by any person interested.

(7) The Council shall not include a building, object or place in the Schedule without first considering any submissions made within the time limit specified by the notice referred to in sub-clause (6) of this Clause.

Cl.79 of TPS3 provides the protection status for properties contained in the heritage Schedule as follows: 79 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND

PLACES: (1) Where any development involves an alteration to, or the destruction,

total or partial of a building, object or place which is: (a) entered in the Schedule;

(b) included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate;

(c) included in the National Heritage Register; The Council before determining that application may give notice thereof to the National Trust of Australia (WA) the Australian Heritage Commission and such other bodies or persons as the Council thinks fit.

(2) In determining an application referred to in sub Clause (1) of the Clause the Council shall have regard to any submission made to the Council with respect to the preservation of the building, object or place involved in that application.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting, 5 August 2014, Resolution 116/14: That Council: 1. Note the submissions received during the consultation period for the Draft

Municipal Inventory, adopt the recommendations as contained in the attached Submissions Schedule and adopt the Draft Municipal Inventory (minus the five places removed under delegated authority on 19 May 2014) as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 inclusive of the following modifications:

a) Remove 78 Bay View Terrace, Claremont subject to the submission of an archival record of the place to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont;

b) Remove the 76-78 Bay View Terrace Heritage Area whilst maintaining 76 Bay View Terrace, Claremont as a standalone place;


Page 88

c) Remove 11 (Lot.37) Rob Roy Street, Swanbourne subject to satisfaction of planning requirements;

d) Remove 9 Second Avenue, Claremont; e) Remove 11 Second Avenue, Claremont; f) Remove 13 Second Avenue, Claremont; g) Remove 114 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; h) Remove 116 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; i) Convert the proposed Bay View Terrace Heritage Area 1 to the Bay View

Terrace Commercial Heritage Precinct; j) Convert the proposed Claremont Crescent Shops Heritage Area to the

Swanbourne Station Commercial Heritage Precinct; and k) Convert the proposed Shenton Road Shops Heritage Area to the Shenton

Road Commercial Heritage Precinct. l) Refer back 13 Langsford Street, 16 Brown Street, 13 Smith Street, 24 Barnfield

Road, 3 Pennell Road, 3 Renown Avenue, 399 Stirling Highway and 378 Stirling Highway for further consideration.

2. Pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to remove all properties no longer listed in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to include all newly nominated properties contained in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 for the purposes of advertising the proposed additions to the Schedule.

4. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owners of the newly nominated buildings, objects or places in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

5. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and on conclusion of the consultation period, receives a report to consider any submissions received prior to Council adopting the final Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2014.

6. Advise all respondents who made a submission on the Draft Municipal Inventory of 1 - 5 above.

CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

This report has been prepared to address portion of part 1 l) of the Council’s resolution above. Ordinary Council Meeting, 4 November 2014, Resolution 178/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council


Page 89

1. Include 13 Langsford Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owner(s) of the newly nominated place in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

2. Remove 16 Brown Street, Claremont from the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, remove the property from the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 consider the final inclusion of 13 Langsford Street, Claremont on the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings following the consultation period referred to in 1 above.


Ordinary Council Meeting, 18 November 2014, Resolution 186/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council retain 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.


Ordinary Council Meeting, 18 November 2014, Resolution 188/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council retain 24 Barnfield Road, 378 Stirling Highway and 399 Stirling Highway, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.


Discussion A Peer Review Panel was established for the purpose of reviewing the recommendation for the eight properties that were deferred from Council’s resolution to adopt the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory). A Panel consisting of four members has been established to review each of the proposed listings in the Inventory. The Panel includes Associate Professor Patric de Villiers (Chairperson), Mr Phillip Griffiths (Member of the Heritage Council of Western Australia), Dr John Taylor (consultant engaged by the Town to review the detailed submissions received by the Town during the advertising period prior to the adoption of the Inventory) and a consultant engaged by the owner of subject properties. In this instance, however, the owner of 13 Smith Street did not engage a heritage consultant, preferring to represent herself at the session.


Page 90

Consistent with the MI Review and the Town’s consultant’s review of the detailed submissions, the Peer Review Panel is required to assess the property against the criteria set out in the State Heritage Office’s Criteria for the assessment of Local heritage Places and Areas: A Practical Guide to Identifying, Grading and Documenting Places and Areas in Local Government Inventories (see attached information). This is a working document for assessing the heritage of a place based on the heritage values provided in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, State Planning Policy 3.5 and Burra Charter 2004. On 1 December 2014 the Peer Review Panel reviewed the draft place record for the place, the submissions and officer’s recommendation for the properties at 13 Smith Street, Claremont. The process of review for the property included:

• Viewing of the subject site and surrounding streetscape

• Presentation of owner’s review of the property and recommendation

• Presentation of the Town’s Heritage Consultant’s review of the property and recommendation

• Presentation of further comments from the owner(s) of the property and

• Request for clarification or questions from the Panel and owner(s). The Panel having considered the above voted on a recommendation to be put forward for Council to consider in regard to the property. The following recommendation was made by the Peer Review Panel: 13 Smith Street It is recommended that this property should remain on the Municipal Heritage Inventory for the following reasons: • The main form, scale and distinguishing features of the dwelling are generally

intact.

• The dwelling constitutes a representative example of a modest timber framed residence.

• A Level C Management Category is appropriate.

• However, given that the Peer Review panel regard its heritage value at the lower end of Category C it is recommended that the Town review whether it is appropriate to retain the place in the Heritage List under the Town Planning Scheme.

It is noted that a number of related matters concerning covered parking on the site, existing out of alignment (and leaning) boundary fencing and cost of extending a heritage building were discussed relative to redevelopment options for the site. Although separate to the heritage listings covered in this report, the Planning Department advises that these matters appear to be resolvable with fence relocation and a sympathetically constructed carport to the side of the dwelling, without its removal. In addition, there is a multitude of alternative development options which


Page 91

could be considered for the site which are not necessarily cost prohibitive and can achieved the owner’s desired sustainable living objectives (e.g. – partial demotion and prefabricated extension linked by a passageway). It is also noted that Council’s decision in relation to the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (including the addition of places on the Heritage Schedule) is not open to review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Town Planning Scheme Schedule The adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory includes three management categories which are used for both Heritage Areas and standalone buildings and places. The categories are graded A, B or C as follows:

• Category A has been allocated to places listed on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places.

• Category B places are purely locally listed buildings of considerable heritage value.

• Category C places are also purely locally listed places with some heritage value.

Development of a place listed within A, B or C categories is subject to the provisions of TPS3 (cl.78 and 79). Development of those places listed in Category A must also be referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for approval as they are listed on the Heritage Council’s Register of Heritage Places. Technically the Inventory and the Schedule are two different lists however in Claremont’s history they have generally been the same list of buildings, objects and places. As detailed in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the Act), the Inventory is to contain buildings within the district of cultural heritage significance. Although the Act does not specifically mention places or objects, the Town’s Inventory is considered to be a more extensive list of buildings, places and objects of cultural heritage significance. This practice is not considered unusual among the planning and heritage professions and is advised by both the State Heritage Office and the Burra Charter. A listing in the Inventory itself does not accord the building, place or object with protection under the Town Planning Scheme until it is included in the Heritage Schedule. The property the subject of this Peer Review Panel Session is currently listed in the Heritage Schedule as an individual property, pursuant to cl.78(6) of TPS3. Should Council resolve to remove the property from the LG Inventory, it would be appropriate to remove it also from the Heritage Schedule – no advertising is required for this to occur. The property is presently recommended under the Draft MI as a Category B property. It is noted that the Inventory classifies approximately 480 places as Category B, which equates to 75% of the current listings. It is noted that the Panel’s recommendation for 13 Smith, Claremont includes a recommendation that the category be lowered to a C classification and that the Town review whether it is appropriate to retain the place in the Heritage Schedule under the Town Planning Scheme. It is noted that this matter was discussed at the Council Meeting on 18 November 2014 in relation to the review of the properties at 378 and


Page 92

399 Stirling Highway, Claremont. It is further noted that the Inventory classifies 125 places as Category C. As inclusion of these properties provides for improved protection status under TPS3, removal of the 125 properties from the Heritage Schedule would significantly reduce the heritage stock (by approximately 20%) within the Town and accordingly, may significantly alter the historic urban fabric of the Town. It is also noted that other local governments approach this in a variety of ways. Some, as presently undertaken in Claremont, include all Inventory properties in the Heritage Schedule, whereas other only include the higher rated categories. This matter has been discussed at length at previous Peer Review Panel sessions. Significantly, the Panel recognised that particular properties could be classified as having a Category C rating at the lower end. Accordingly, it may have a lower protection status when faced with redevelopment and options to record or preserve or recognise key architectural features in a new development may be realistic options for consideration. These matters have previously been identified as part of the review process. The report to Council on 19 November 2013 to endorse the Draft 2014 Municipal Inventory for advertising stated as follows: On completion and adoption of the MI review, the Town proposes to review its development controls through TPS3 and the heritage policies to ensure appropriate levels of control are afforded by the Scheme and strengthen the Town’s policy requirements, with particular reference to implementing appropriate measures for development in or adjacent to the identified heritage areas. Council Policy LIV124 Retention of Residential Heritage (LV124) provides guidelines for development of heritage places with particular reference to demolition controls, replacement buildings, conservation and restoration works and alterations and additions. Specific guidelines are provided for additions to dwellings listed on the Heritage Schedule. It is therefore appropriate that at the time of reviewing LIV124, that Council consider the options of dealing with Category C Heritage Places and Areas and specifically review the recognition of development which may have a lower end Category C listing or be contained within or adjacent to a Heritage Area and have a lower level (or related) contribution value. It is important to note also, that in relation to Amendment No. 125 to TPS3 regarding Council’s planning application requirements for single dwellings (in addition to the proposals contained in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2014), that controls on development through Council Policy are proposed to be limited and effectively restricted to RDC matters. Council’s controls though LIV124 will as a result be limited to heritage listed properties, hence it is considered important to maintain the registration on the Heritage Schedule. Accordingly, in reviewing the Peer Review Panel’s recommendation, it is concluded that it is inappropriate to remove the current listing for 13 Smith Street, from the TPS3 Heritage Schedule. Removal would potentially restrict the Towns capacity to guide future development of the property if an application was to be lodged compliant with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the RDC or other provisions of TPS3 (e.g. no policy provisions would apply to influence the design to recognise the heritage characteristics of the locality).


Page 93

Summary It is recommended that the Council support the recommendation from the Peer Review Panel established to review the Town’s recommendation for retention of 13 Smith Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Heritage Schedule under TPS3.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Tulloch THAT Council retain 13 Smith Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 as a Category ‘C’ listing and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.



Page 94

13.1.11 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW – CONSIDERATION OF 18 BINDARING PARADE AND 3 PENNELL ROAD, CLAREMONT

File Ref: DAB/00043 Attachments - Restricted: Property Place Records

Submissions Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe


Manager Planning Odhran O’Brien Heritage Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014 Enabling Legislation: Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • At its meeting held on 5 August 2014 Council resolved to adopt the Draft

Municipal Inventory as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory).

• The Council’s resolution included the deferral of a decision on eight properties to allow the owners to make further submissions in regards to the officer’s recommendation to retain or include their property in the Inventory.

• A Peer Review Panel was established to review the submissions and the officer’s recommendation regarding the retention or inclusion of the eight deferred properties.

• The owners of 18 Bindaring Parade, Claremont requested that the property be considered in the Town’s review process due to extenuating circumstances.

• A Peer Review Panel session was held on Friday 14 November 2014 to consider properties at 18 Bindaring Parade and 3 Pennell Road, Claremont.

• The recommendations of the Peer Review Panel to retain both properties in the Inventory are recommended for Council approval.

• No changes are required to the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) adopted pursuant to cl.78 of TPS3 as the subject properties are already listed in the Schedule.

Purpose For Council to consider the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel regarding the inclusion of one of the eight properties deferred from being listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory) on 5 August 2014 and consideration of the property at 3 Pennell Road, Claremont.

Background Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 states that:


Page 95

(1) A local government shall compile and maintain an inventory of buildings within its district which in its opinion are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance.

(2) The inventory required by subsection (1) shall be compiled no later than 4 years from the commencement of this Act and shall be – (a) updated annually; and (b) reviewed every 4 years after compilation.

The Town created its first Municipal Inventory (MI) of locally significant heritage buildings and places in 1991 in accordance with (2) above. The MI has been updated regularly since 1991 and a comprehensive review commenced in 2011 which resulted in the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory). To afford the properties listed in the Inventory with protection under TPS3, and therefore enable development on these properties to be assessed under the provisions of TPS3 and Council Policy, the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) is required to be updated in accordance with cl.78 of TPS3. Cl.78 states that: 78. SCHEDULE OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS AND PLACES:

(1) The Council shall maintain a schedule of buildings, objects and places (“the Schedule”) which the Council considers to be an architectural, historical or townscape value.

(2) The Schedule shall be available for inspection by any member of the public on request.

(3) The Council shall include in the Schedule: (a) any building constructed prior to the year 1910 and which retains

substantially its original form and detail as seen from any public place;

(b) any building constructed during or after the year 1910 and which the Council considers to have high intrinsic architectural merit or to be an outstanding example of its kind or of historical significance;

(c) buildings, objects or places that the Council considers make a positive contribution to the townscape of the district.

(4) Every building, object or place which is included by the National Trust of Western Australia (WA) in either the Recorded or the Classified List or which is included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule.

(5) The Council may from time to time add to or delete from the Schedule any building, object or place.

(6) The Council shall, before including any building, object or place in the Schedule:


Page 96

(a) give to the owner of that building, object or place written notice that the Council proposes to include that building, object or place in the Schedule and specifying a date being not less than three (3) weeks after the notice is given by which submissions may be made to the Council by the owner;

(b) advertise notice of the Council’s intention in a newspaper circulating in the district and specifying the date by which submissions may be made to the Council by any person interested.

(7) The Council shall not include a building, object or place in the Schedule without first considering any submissions made within the time limit specified by the notice referred to in sub-clause (6) of this Clause.

Cl.79 of TPS3 provides the protection status for properties contained in the heritage Schedule as follows: 79 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND

PLACES: (1) Where any development involves an alteration to, or the destruction,

total or partial of a building, object or place which is: (a) entered in the Schedule;

(b) included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate;

(c) included in the National Heritage Register; The Council before determining that application may give notice thereof to the National Trust of Australia (WA) the Australian Heritage Commission and such other bodies or persons as the Council thinks fit.

(2) In determining an application referred to in sub Clause (1) of the Clause the Council shall have regard to any submission made to the Council with respect to the preservation of the building, object or place involved in that application.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting, 5 August 2014, Resolution 116/14: That Council: 1. Note the submissions received during the consultation period for the Draft

Municipal Inventory, adopt the recommendations as contained in the attached Submissions Schedule and adopt the Draft Municipal Inventory (minus the five places removed under delegated authority on 19 May 2014) as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 inclusive of the following modifications:

a) Remove 78 Bay View Terrace, Claremont subject to the submission of an archival record of the place to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont;

b) Remove the 76-78 Bay View Terrace Heritage Area whilst maintaining 76 Bay View Terrace, Claremont as a standalone place;


Page 97

c) Remove 11 (Lot.37) Rob Roy Street, Swanbourne subject to satisfaction of planning requirements;

d) Remove 9 Second Avenue, Claremont; e) Remove 11 Second Avenue, Claremont; f) Remove 13 Second Avenue, Claremont; g) Remove 114 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; h) Remove 116 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; i) Convert the proposed Bay View Terrace Heritage Area 1 to the Bay View

Terrace Commercial Heritage Precinct; j) Convert the proposed Claremont Crescent Shops Heritage Area to the

Swanbourne Station Commercial Heritage Precinct; and k) Convert the proposed Shenton Road Shops Heritage Area to the Shenton

Road Commercial Heritage Precinct. l) Refer back 13 Langsford Street, 16 Brown Street, 13 Smith Street, 24 Barnfield

Road, 3 Pennell Road, 3 Renown Avenue, 399 Stirling Highway and 378 Stirling Highway for further consideration.

2. Pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to remove all properties no longer listed in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to include all newly nominated properties contained in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 for the purposes of advertising the proposed additions to the Schedule.

4. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owners of the newly nominated buildings, objects or places in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

5. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and on conclusion of the consultation period, receives a report to consider any submissions received prior to Council adopting the final Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2014.

6. Advise all respondents who made a submission on the Draft Municipal Inventory of 1 - 5 above.


This report has been prepared to address portion of part 1 l) of the Council’s resolution above. Ordinary Council Meeting, 4 November 2014, Resolution 178/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council


Page 98

1. Include 13 Langsford Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owner(s) of the newly nominated place in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

2. Remove 16 Brown Street, Claremont from the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, remove the property from the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 consider the final inclusion of 13 Langsford Street, Claremont on the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings following the consultation period referred to in 1 above.


Ordinary Council Meeting, 18 November 2014, Resolution 186/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council retain 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.


Ordinary Council Meeting, 18 November 2014, Resolution 188/14: Council partially addressed part 1 l as follows – That Council retain 24 Barnfield Road, 378 Stirling Highway and 399 Stirling Highway, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.


Discussion A Peer Review Panel was established for the purpose of reviewing the recommendation for the eight properties that were deferred from Council’s resolution to adopt the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory). A Panel consisting of four members has been established to review each of the proposed listings in the Inventory. The Panel includes Associate Professor Patric de Villiers (Chairperson), Mr Phillip Griffiths (Member of the Heritage Council of Western Australia), Dr John Taylor (consultant engaged by the Town to review the detailed submissions received by the Town during the advertising period prior to the adoption of the Inventory) and a consultant engaged by the owner of subject properties. Consistent with the MI Review and the Town’s consultant’s review of the detailed submissions, the Peer Review Panel is required to assess the property against the criteria set out in the State Heritage Office’s Criteria for the assessment of Local


Page 99

heritage Places and Areas: A Practical Guide to Identifying, Grading and Documenting Places and Areas in Local Government Inventories (see attached information). This is a working document for assessing the heritage of a place based on the heritage values provided in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, State Planning Policy 3.5 and Burra Charter 2004. On 14 November 2014 the Peer Review Panel reviewed the draft place record for the place, the submissions and officer’s recommendation for the properties at 18 Bindaring Parade, Claremont and 9 Pennell Road, Claremont. The process of review for each of the properties included:

• Viewing of the subject site and surrounding streetscape;

• Presentation of owner’s Heritage Consultant’s review of the property and recommendation;

• Presentation of the Town’s Heritage Consultant’s review of the property and recommendation;

• Presentation of any comments from the owner(s) of the property; and

• Request for clarification or questions from the Panel and owner(s). The Panel having considered the above voted on a recommendation to be put forward for Council to consider in regards to each individual property. The following recommendations were made by the Peer Review Panel: 18 Bindaring Parade, Claremont It is recommended that this property should remain on the Municipal Heritage Inventory for the following reasons:

• The place has intrinsic value as an example of a Federation Queen Anne residence which remains substantially intact.

• While the street has undergone substantial change the place continues to make some contribution to the streetscape.

• A Level B Management Category is appropriate. 3 Pennell Road, Claremont It is recommended that this property should remain on the Municipal Heritage Inventory for the following reasons:

• The fact that the street has undergone extensive change has meant that the streetscape value of the place has been substantially undermined.

• While the dwelling has been subject to some loss of detail the main distinguishing features are still intact.

• A Level C Management Category is appropriate.

• However, given that the Peer Review panel regard its heritage value at the lower end of Category C it is recommended that the Town review whether it is appropriate to retain the place in the Heritage List under the Town Planning Scheme.


Page 100

It is noted that related matters concerning limited ability for covered parking at 3 Pennell Road was discussed relative to future redevelopment options for the site. Although separate to the heritage listings covered in this report, the Planning Department advises that there appears sufficient space at the front of the dwelling (eastern side) to include a sympathetically designed carport without the removal of the dwelling. It is also noted that Council’s decision in relation to the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (including the addition of places on the Heritage Schedule) is not open to review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Town Planning Scheme Schedule The adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory includes three management categories which are used for both Heritage Areas and standalone buildings and places. The categories are graded A, B or C as follows:

• Category A has been allocated to places listed on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places.

• Category B places are purely locally listed buildings of considerable heritage value.

• Category C places are also purely locally listed places with some heritage value.

Development of a place listed within A, B or C categories is subject to the provisions of TPS3 (cl.78 and 79). Development of those places listed in Category A must also be referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for approval as they are listed on the Heritage Council’s Register of Heritage Places. Technically the Inventory and the Schedule are two different lists however in Claremont’s history they have generally been the same list of buildings, objects and places. As detailed in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the Inventory is to contain buildings within the district of cultural heritage significance. Although the Act does not specifically mention places or objects, the Town’s Inventory is considered to be a more extensive list of buildings, places and objects of cultural heritage significance. This practice is not considered unusual among the planning and heritage professions and is advised by both the State Heritage Office and the Burra Charter. A listing in the Inventory itself does not accord the building, place or object with protection under the Town Planning Scheme until it is included in the Heritage Schedule. The three properties the subject of this Peer Review Panel Session are currently listed in the Schedule. It is noted that the Panel’s recommendation for 3 Pennell Road, Claremont includes a recommendation that the Town review whether it is appropriate to retain the place in the Heritage Schedule under the Town Planning Scheme. It is noted that this matter was discussed at the Council Meeting on 18 November 2014 in relation to the review of the properties at 378 and 399 Stirling Highway, Claremont. It is further noted that the Inventory classifies 125 places as Category C. As inclusion of these properties provides for improved protection status under TPS3, removal of the 125 properties from the Heritage Schedule would significantly reduce the heritage stock (by


Page 101

approximately 20%) within the Town and accordingly, may significantly alter the historic urban fabric of the Town. It is also noted that other local governments approach this in a variety of ways. Some, as presently undertaken in Claremont, include all Inventory properties in the Heritage Schedule, whereas other only include the higher rated categories. This matter has been discussed at length at previous Peer Review Panel sessions. Significantly, the Panel recognised that particular properties could be classified as having a Category C rating at the lower end. Accordingly, it may have a lower protection status when faced with redevelopment and options to record or preserve or recognise key architectural features in a new development may be realistic options for consideration. These matters have previously been identified as part of the review process. The report to Council on 19 November 2013 to endorse the Draft 2014 Municipal Inventory for advertising stated as follows: On completion and adoption of the MI review, the Town proposes to review its development controls through TPS3 and the heritage policies to ensure appropriate levels of control are afforded by the Scheme and strengthen the Town’s policy requirements, with particular reference to implementing appropriate measures for development in or adjacent to the identified heritage areas. Council Policy LIV124 Retention of Residential Heritage (LV124) provides guidelines for development of heritage places with particular reference to demolition controls, replacement buildings, conservation and restoration works and alterations and additions. Specific guidelines are provided for additions to dwellings listed on the Heritage Schedule. It is therefore appropriate that at the time of reviewing LIV124, that Council consider the options of dealing with Category C Heritage Places and Areas and specifically review the recognition of development which may have a lower end Category C listing or be contained within or adjacent to a Heritage Area and have a lower level (or related) contribution value. It is important to note also, that in relation to Amendment No. 125 to TPS3 regarding Council’s planning application requirements for single dwellings (in addition to the proposals contained in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2014), that controls on development through Council Policy are proposed to be limited and effectively restricted to RDC matters. Council’s controls though LIV124 will as a result be limited to heritage listed properties, hence it is considered important to maintain these registrations on the Heritage Schedule. Accordingly, in reviewing the Peer Review Panel’s recommendation, it is concluded that it is inappropriate to remove the current listing for 3 Pennell Road from the TPS3 Heritage Schedule. Removal would potentially restrict the Towns capacity to guide future development of the property if an application was to be lodged compliant with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the RDC or other provisions of TPS3 (e.g. no policy provisions would apply to influence the design to recognise the heritage characteristics of the locality).

Summary It is recommended that the Council support the recommendation from the Peer Review Panel established to review the Town’s recommendation for inclusion or


Page 102

retention of 18 Bindaring Parade and 3 Pennell Road, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014. It is noted that these recommendations will not necessitate modifications to the Heritage Schedule in accordance with the provisions of TPS3.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Haynes THAT Council retain 18 Bindaring Parade and 3 Pennell Road, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.

CARRIED(202/14)

For the Motion: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Lorenz Goetze, Browne, Tulloch, Haynes and Mews. Against the Motion: Cr Wood.


Page 103

13.2 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

Items 13.2.1 to 13.2.3 were carried en bloc.

13.2.1 REVIEW OF POLICY MANUAL

File No: COM/00032 Attachments: Town of Claremont Policy Manual 2014 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Katie Bovell

Governance Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014

Purpose To present the current Policy Manual to Council for review.

Background A full review of the Policy Manual, including public consultation, was last completed in October 2010 resulting in; • 56 policies being modified to reflect current practices • 44 policies being deleted as they were no longer in use or relevant • 8 new policies being developed to guide and support current practice. Individual policies have been reviewed as required by Council on an ongoing basis and following the 2013 local government elections, the Manual was further reviewed and adopted on 10 December 2013. This review detailed further changes to 24 policies during the period comprising; • 6 deleted as they were no longer in use or relevant • 12 adopted to guide and support current practice • 3 reviewed to confirm current practices • 5 modified to reflect current practices.

Past Resolution Ordinary Council Meeting 10 December 2014, Resolution 360/13: That Council adopt the Policy Manual as attached.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (NO DISSENT)

Discussion Council annually review the current policy manual in its entirety and make changes as necessary. The Policy Manual is required to provide good governance and direction to the Town of Claremont and reflects the following amendments since the December 2013 review.


Page 104

Policy Change OCM Date Resolution

LV123: Retention of Residential Character Reviewed 16/09/2014 15/14

PE404: Vibrant Claremont – Community Support Program

Amended 18/02/2014 23/14

EN309: Shade Over Public Playgrounds Adopted 18/02/2014 26/14

EN307: Use of Reserve Amended 20/05/2014 77/14

EN305: Street Trees Amended 05/08/2014 112/14

LV127: Dogs in Public Places Adopted 05/08/2014 120/14

LV123: Retention of Residential Character Amended 16/09/2014 157/14

LG525: Advertising of Planning Applications Amended 07/10/2014 160/14

Existing policies proposed for review early next year with some being considered for extensive modification or revocation include;

• LV100: Aged Persons Dwellings • LV102: Underground Power • LV103; Former Swanbourne Primary School Site Detailed Area Plan • LV105: Telecommunications Facility • LV117: Front Fences • LV119: Applications to Strata Title Buildings • LV120: Minimum Standards of Residential Buildings for Approval of Issue of

Strata Plan Title • LV124: Retention of Residential Heritage • PS201: Licensed Premises within Town of Claremont. In addition, new policies currently being formulated include; • Parking • Bicycle parking concessions • Highly reflective roofs.

Financial and Staff Implications Nil.

Policy and Statutory Implications Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 stipulates that it is the role of Council to determine the Town’s policies.

Publicity Nil.


Page 105

Urgency The Town’s Policy Manual is an important document that outlines the overall direction of the Council. A full review of the manual annually ensures it remains relevant and continues to provide agreed and consistent direction.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Edwards That Council adopt the Policy Manual as attached.



Page 106

13.2.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 NOVEMBER 2014

File Ref: FIM/0062-02 Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity for period ending

30 November 2014 Infrastructure Assets – 2013-14 Schedule of Works

Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Author: Hitesh Hans Finance Manager

Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose The report presents the Monthly Financial Report (MFR) to the end of November 2014, provides a summary of the financial performance of Council’s operations for the period, and recommends the MFR be noted.

Background The MFR is presented in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Discussion The Financial Statements to 30 November 2014 represents five months of operation within the 2014-15 financial years, with the closing surplus of $9,911,865 comparing favourably against the budgeted surplus of $8,859,295.

As detailed below, the $1,054,146 variance is comprised of $446,868 including rates) increase in operating revenue over budget, $895,813 decrease in net operating expenditure against budget, $182,791 under the capital expenses, and $472,115 under in capital revenue.

Most of the variances relate to timing differences of works against budget and these are expected to align as the year progresses. No adverse trends have been identified.

Operating revenue including rates - $446,868 above budget (excluding non cash items)

• Fees & Charges - $168,004 above budget mainly due to increase in RAS parking fees ($97,000 – 70% of Parking Fees is given to community clubs as commissions), Planning and Development ($74,000) and Fines and Penalties ($58,000). However Aquatic Centre and Leasing income is under ($53,000) and ($44,000) due to timing.

• Interest Earning - $97,368 variance is due to timing and higher interest income derived from increase in investment holdings along with additional interest income received from rates instalments.


Page 107

• Reimbursements - $70,911 above the budget mainly due to reimbursement of insurance claims ($25,000), legal expenses ($21,000) on debt recovery, utility expenses of leased premises ($11,000) and other various reimbursements ($15,000).

• Operating Grants - $85,085 over the budget due to FAGS grant. Advice for Claremont’s proportion of FAGS grant was received after the budget was adopted. Budget for the FAGS grant will be amended during Mid Year Budget Review.

Operating expenditure - $664,171 below budget (excluding non cash items)

• Materials and Contracts - $688,096 under the budget mainly due to timing differences across all business units. The more significant variances were: o Infrastructure - $136,000 (parks, roads, drainage, street tree, verge

maintenance, plant operations and administration services. o Health & Waste Management - $173,000 under the budget due to

timing of invoices from contractors. o Planning services - $66,000 mainly due to timing of expenditure

towards various activities. o Aquatic Centre – ($26,000) over the budget due to repairs relating to

storm damage and this is offset by increase in insurance claims. o Expenditures are also under due to timing across - Administration

($44,000), Corporate Governance ($30,000), community development ($40,000), Museum ($21,000) and Ranger Services ($36,000).

• Employee costs - $247,231 under budget was due to timing of the superannuation ($75,000 – Nov 14 Super payments not processed), Recruitment, staff training, OHS ($33,000), workers Compensation Premium (16,000) and staff vacancies.

• Other expenses – ($29,127) is above budget due to grant refund to MRWA $38,000 processed ahead of the budget timing and increase in Royal Show parking commission $67,000 (offset by increasing in parking fees of $97,000) along with over allocation of overheads to capital projects ($80,000).

Capital income - $472,115 under budget

• $280,270 variance is due to timing, these relate to the contribution for redevelopment of Avion Way Project ($117,000) and MRWA grants ($163,000) for road projects.

• $33,727 is a timing variance relating to proceeds from sale of asset.

• ($782,120) of variance is as a result of transfer from reserve not processed. This is due to contractor invoices are still outstanding in relation to Number 1 Claremont.


Page 108

Capital expenditure – $182,791 over budget

• Infrastructure works are $516,765 above the budget with some projects experiencing timing variance along with permanent variance of $55,000 in relation to final settlement of Stirling Rd Underpass Project. Further detail is provided in Attachment 2 to this report.

• Land, building, plant and equipment expenditure are $682,871 under budget, most of which is due to timing of payment on construction and IT Equipment of No 1 Claremont. Note 10 of Attachment 1 provide a breakdown of the items.

• $16,685 variance on transfer to reserves is due to timing of interest income on Reserve Investments.

Cash holdings Current investment holdings are outside Council’s Investment Policy LG511 with 43% investment with NAB due to significant interest income benefit. The policy limits funds with one institution at 35% but the risk of investments with NAB was considered low given it has an excellent credit rating.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2014, Resolution 189/14:

That Council notes the Financial Statement of Activity for the periods 1 July 2014 to 31 October 2014.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY


Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995. Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Publicity N/A

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.


• Maintain long term financial stability and growth.

Urgency N/A


Page 109

Voting Requirements Simple majority of Council is required. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Edwards That Council notes the Financial Statement of Activity for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 November 2014.



Page 110

13.2.3 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1 TO 30 NOVEMBER 2014

File Ref: FIM00062 Attachments: Schedule of Payments 1 to 30 November 2014 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Edwin Kwan

Finance Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose For Council to note the payments made in November 2014.

Background Council has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the Municipal Fund or Trust Fund. The CEO is then required to prepare a list of accounts, for recording in the Minutes, detailing those payments made since the last list was presented.

Discussion Attached is the list of all accounts paid totalling $1,976,026.07 during the month of November 2014.

The attached schedule covers:

• Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 1,460,194.85 • Municipal Fund vouchers (39252-39273) $ 39,816.47 • Municipal Fund direct debits $ 383,031.01 • Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 92,983.74 • Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00 All invoices have been verified, and all payments have been duly authorised in accordance with Council’s procedures.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 18 November 2014, Resolution 189/14: THAT Council notes all payments made for October 2014 totalling $2,114,713.46 comprising;

The attached schedule covers:

• Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 1,626,351.74 • Municipal Fund vouchers (39232-39251) $ 25,655.05 • Municipal Fund direct debits $ 417,723.91 • Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 44,982.76 • Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00



Page 111

Financial and Staff Implication Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Regulations 12- 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. Town of Claremont Delegation Register Item 37.

Publicity N/A

Urgency N/A

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Edwards THAT Council notes all payments made for November 2014 totalling $1,976,026.07 comprising; Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 1,460,194.85 Municipal Fund vouchers (39252-39273) $ 39,816.47 Municipal Fund direct debits $ 383,031.01 Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 92,983.74 Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00



Page 112

13.2.4 2013-14 ANNUAL REPORT

File Ref: COM/00035 Attachments: Town of Claremont Annual Report 2013-14 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Hitesh Hans

Manager Finance Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose Report presents for adoption, the Annual Report for the Town of Claremont for the year ended 30 June 2014 incorporating the Annual Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report. The report also recommends the proposed date for the Electors’ General Meeting be confirmed.

Background Section 5.54 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that a local government accept its annual report for each financial year by 31 December of the year, or within two months of receipt of the Auditor’s Report.

The Independent Auditor’s Report was received on 19 November 2014 and, together with the Auditor’s Management Report and 2013-14 Annual Financial Report, was reviewed by Council’s Audit Committee at its meeting held on 28 November 2014.

Officer Recommendation & Audit Committee Resolution THAT the Audit Committee: 1. Notes the findings of the Independent Auditor’s Report, Auditor’s Management Report, and management’s responses to these findings; and 2. Recommends that Council adopt the audited Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2014. Council is also required to hold an Electors’ General Meeting to present the Annual Report within 56 days of accepting the Annual Report. Public notice of proposed Electors’ General Meeting and availability of the Annual Report is also required.

The 2013-14 Annual Report, as distributed, includes the statutory requirements as required under s. 5.53(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.

Discussion The 2013-14 Annual Report is provided as a separate attachment and contains the necessary statutory requirements including;


Page 113

• Mayor’s Report; • Chief Executive Officer’s Report; • Annual Financial Statements; and • Independent Auditor’s Report.

Copies of the Annual Report will be produced and will be made available at Council Offices, Claremont Community Hub, and online prior to the Electors’ General Meeting.

It is proposed that the Electors’ General Meeting be held at 6.00pm on Tuesday 16 December 2014.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 10 December 2013, Resolution 357/13:

THAT Council:

1. Adopts the Town of Claremont 2012-13 Annual Report incorporating the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2013; and

2. Hold the General Meeting of Electors be held on 16 December 2013.

Financial and Staff Implications As discussed with the body of the Annual Report.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995 - sections. 5.27,5.29,5.53,5.54,5.55 Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 - clauses. 36 -51 Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 - cl. 19(B)

Publicity Notice of the proposed Electors’ General Meeting was published in the local papers and on Council’s website on 2 December 2014.

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership



• Focus on improved customer service, communication and consultation.

• Maintain long term financial stability and growth.

Urgency Adoption of the 2013-14 Annual Report will enable the Town to conduct the Annual Electors’ General meeting.


Page 114

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. When moving the motion Councillor Haynes asked that it be placed on the record that the financial management of the Town has noticeably improved. Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Edwards THAT Council: 1. Adopts the Town of Claremont 2013-14 Annual Report incorporating the

financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2014; and 2. Hold the Annual Electors’ General Meeting on Tuesday 16 December 2014

at 6:00PM.



Page 115

13.2.5 CLAREMONT ON THE PARK - PROPOSED DAVIES ROAD CAR PARK UPGRADE, PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE

File Ref: LND/00091-01 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate Services Author: Brian Kavanagh

Manager Statutory Services Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose The report recommends the Town authorise the Chief Executive Officer to inform LandCorp the Town’s support to participate in a joint partnership arrangement with LandCorp to upgrade the unsealed car park on the corner of Davies Road and Shenton Road.

Background Following a meeting between the Town and LandCorp on the 20 October 2014, LandCorp has approached the Town with a proposal to locate a Western Power substation within the unsealed car park on the corner of Davies and Shenton Roads and is also seeking support from the Town to enter into a joint 50/50 partnership with LandCorp to upgrade and formalise the unsealed parking area.

Discussion The site has been identified in the Town’s Parking Strategy to be upgraded, controlled and managed by the Town. Town understands the site on the corner of Davies Road and Shenton Road is an A Class Reserve with the approved use being for car parking. The site is currently utilised for informal public parking on an unsealed surface which is highly likely to fail parking standards and safety requirements. The Claremont Tennis Club has a license to park vehicles at the site but not exclusive use of the area. The Town has been negotiating a new lease with the Claremont Tennis Club which includes removal of this licence area from a future lease. An OCM report is being prepared for Council consideration regarding a proposed new lease with the Claremont Tennis Club. The purpose of the report is seeking Council support for an equal partnership approach with LandCorp for the upgrading of the Davies Road car park. Preliminary cost estimates suggest that this upgrade will cost in the order of $180,000 (GST exclusive) exclusive of consultancy and management costs. LandCorp expects to award its final stage construction contract for Claremont on the Park on 15 December 2014, and there is an opportunity therefore to include the unsealed car park scope within that contract, which is likely to benefit from competitive rates and most certainly avoid separate site establishment and


Page 116

preliminaries costs compared to the Town progressing the works as a stand-alone project. A final design is being prepared and final construction, consultancy and management costs will be finalised in December /January and a report will be prepared for Council consideration.

Past Resolutions There are no Past Resolutions regarding this matter.

Financial and Staff Implications No provision has been made for this works in Council’s 2014-15 budget however the proposed upgrade meets the criteria for use of the Parking Reserve.

Policy and Statutory Implications

Publicity Nil

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

• Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

• Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

• Provide a responsible and well managed urban environment, with sustainable development outcomes.

Prosperity

Our businesses are thriving and integrated into the life of the Claremont community, and the town centre is known as a premier retail destination.

• Further develop and implement the principles of the Business Improvement District Policy to support local and new business.

• Assist in creating local employment opportunities through a strong local economy.

People

We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has a strong sense of belonging.

• Maintain, effectively manage and enhance the Town’s community facilities in response to a growing community.


Page 117

• Create opportunities for and access to social participation and inclusion in support of community health and well being.

Environment

We are a leader in responsibly managing the build and natural environment for the enjoyment of the community and continue to provide sustainable, leafy green parks, streets and outdoor spaces.

• Create opportunities for varied transport options that reduce carbon emissions and other impacts of a growing town.

Governance and Leadership


• Identify strategic partnerships that align with the Town’s vision.

Urgency LandCorp expects to award its final stage construction contract for Claremont on the Park on 15 December 2014, and there is an opportunity therefore to include the unsealed car park scope of works within that contract

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Goetze, seconded Browne That Council 1. Participate in a joint partnership arrangement with LandCorp to upgrade the

unsealed car park on the corner of Davies Road and Shenton Road. 2. The Town’s participation is subject to final cost of the upgrade being

established and a report being prepared for Council consideration. CARRIED(205/14)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 118

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.3.1 PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE OF AVION WAY - SINGLE LANE (SOUTH TO NORTH)

File Ref: RDS/00174 Attachments: Submissions Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther

Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Nick King

Manager Engineering Services Proposed Meeting Date: 9 December 2014

Purpose The report recommends for Council to permanently close one single lane carriageway of Avion Way (south to north), subject to the approval of Main Roads WA and the Minister of Transport, to support the modification of Avion Way, to become a single lane one-way carriageway (north to south).

Background At its meeting held on 4 November 2014, Council resolved to give notice in local newspapers of Council’s intention to permanently close one lane of Avion Way (south to north).

Discussion Appropriate notice advising of the proposed closure was published in newspapers circulating throughout the Town and the state on 11 November 2014, 14 November 2014 and 15 November 2014. Submissions closed 2 December 2014. A copy of the contents of the notice was sent to the Commissioner of Main Roads appointed under the Main Roads Act 1930 (section 3.50 (5) of the Local Government Act). Their response was received on 2 December 2014 regarding the process they will follow for the closure and conversion from two-way to one-way road. Notice of the proposed closure was forwarded to Government Utility Services, Emergency Services and the owner of Times Square. The Town has received a response from Water Corporation, ATCO Gas and WA Police advising they have no comments regarding the proposal. Following the expiry of the submission period, Council is now required to consider the proposal to close the road in the light of any submissions received. One submission was received from a member of the general public however the comments didn’t directly relate to the road closure and of a general nature regarding the Claremont town centre. As no objections were received, Council may now recommend to Main Roads WA and to the Minister of Transport to permanently close part of the road as proposed and convert from two-way to one-way road.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/mra1930106/


Page 119

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 4 November 2014, Resolution 179/14: That Council

1. Pursuant to Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, give notice of the proposal to permanently close one lane of Avion (south to north),

2. Publish a notice of Council’s intention in local newspapers inviting submissions and forward a copy of the notice to the Commissioner of Main Roads Western Australia,

3. Provide written notification to Government Utility Services, Emergency Services and the owner of Times Square, and

4. Receive a report following closure of the 21 day notice period to consider any submissions.

CARRIED


Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995, Section 3.50. Regulation 291 of the Road Traffic Code 2000

Publicity No further advertising is required by Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995.



• Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

• Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation and enjoyment.


Prosperity

Our businesses are thriving and integrated into the life of the Claremont community, and the town centre is known as a premier retail destination.

• Further develop and implement the principles of the Business Improvement District Policy to support local and new business.

• Reduce unnecessary barriers to new business and support the success of existing local businesses.

• Assist in creating local employment opportunities through a strong local economy.


Page 120

Urgency It is anticipated construction work along Avion Way will commence early January 2015. To ensure the proposed work schedule can be maintained, the road closure process if required to be completed as a matter of priority.

Voting Requirements Absolute majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Browne THAT Council recommends to Main Roads WA and the Minister of Transport to permanently close one single lane carriageway of Avion Way (south to north), to support the modification of Avion Way, to become a single lane one-way carriageway (north to south).pursuant to Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY(206/14)

For the Motion: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Wood, Goetze, Browne, Tulloch, and Lorenz. Against the Motion: Crs Haynes and Mews.


Page 121

13.3.2 USE OF ROAD RESERVE WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY JUDGE AVENUE, ASHTON AVENUE AND RAILWAY LINE FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF MATERIALS

File Ref: RDS/00257 Attachments: Aerial Map

Comments Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther

Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Saba Kirupananther

Executive Manager Infrastructure Proposed Meeting Date: 09 December 2014

Purpose For Council to consider a request from a contractor for Main Roads WA, to use the road reserve within the land bounded by Judge Avenue, Ashton Avenue and the railway line, for the storage of raw materials and site office. The contractor is constructing the section of Principal Shared Path (PSP) in the rail reserve between Loch Street station and Shenton Park station for a period of six months commencing 1 December 2014.

Background The contract to construct a section of the Perth to Fremantle PSP, between Loch Street station and Shenton Park station in the Nedlands Council area was recently awarded by Main Roads WA. The build is expected to take approximately six months and commences on 1 December 2014. The winning contractor has requested use of a section of the council control land for storage of materials and the site office. The contractor has confirmed the storage area will be fenced off, with shade cloth and silt traps to manage dust, together with a water truck on site to wet down stockpiles as required.

Discussion The requested land is a road reserve although is not used as a carriageway. The Department of Lands advise the road reserve is vested with the Council and confirm they have no objection should the Town allow the use of this road reserve for the storage of materials for road related works by the contractor to Main Roads WA. The completion of this section of PSP between Loch Street and Shenton Park stations will make available to cyclists and pedestrians the PSP from Perth to Grant Street without the need for any diversion. The remaining section from Grant Street to Fremantle will be completed in the next few years.


Page 122

The contractor has completed a letter drop to the nearby residents in Judge Avenue and contacted Royal Agricultural Society (RAS) as owners the remainder of the triangle area. Three residents have objected for the reasons of dust, noise and smell nuisance and aesthetic concern near a residential area. The RAS has no objection. As the storage area requested is for the PSP works and for a limited period with necessary precautions to reduce the impact for the residents, it is recommended for Council approval. It is further recommended the storage be shifted closer to the Ashton Avenue bridge to minimise impact to the residents in Judge Avenue and additional trees be planted, at the cost of the contractor, to give additional screening to the nearby residents.

Past Resolutions There are no past resolutions directly relevant to this application.

Financial and Staff Implications There is no cost to Council except some minor administrative expenses. The contractor could be requested to plant more trees. A reasonable monthly fee and bond money will be charged from the contractor.

Policy and Statutory Implications Land Administration Act 1957 Local Government Act 1995

Publicity Adjoining residents and RAS will be informed of the Council decision. An article in the Town Talk will be published in the event Council approves the use.




• Provide a responsible and well managed urban environment, with sustainable development outcomes.

Governance and Leadership


• Identify strategic partnerships that align with the Town’s vision.



Page 123

• Focus on improved customer service, communication and consultation.

• Provide responsive and responsible leadership.

Urgency The contractor is very keen for an early Council decision to use the area for the storage of materials and site office. The project started on 1 December 2014.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Haynes That Council; 1. Approves the use of road reserve in the area bounded by Judge Avenue,

Ashton Avenue and railway line, closer to the railway bridge, away from the residential area from 11 December 2014 for a period of six months;

2. Requests more trees, at the cost of the contractor, to provide additional screening to the nearby residents, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer;

3. Charges reasonable monthly fee and bond money from the contractor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer;

4. Informs the nearby residents in Judge Avenue and Royal Agricultural Society about the decision.

CARRIED(207/14)

For the Motion: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Wood, Goetze, Browne, Tulloch, Haynes and Mews. Against the Motion: Cr Lorenz.


Page 124

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON

The Mayor attended the Christmas Lights competition in the town centre and commended Amy Celisano on the initiative. The Mayor also attended the Carols in the Park and complemented staff on an outstanding event, giving special thanks to Liz Ledger, Maryanne Martino, Danielle Smith, and Amy Celisano. Cr Haynes announced that there had been a remarkable event at Lake Claremont with the sighting of five Little Bitterns, a rare and endangered bird species. Bird Life Australia usually list only twelve sightings of this species each year from Kununurra to the south west. The Mayor and councillors commended the CEO and staff on the achievements during the year and wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN NIL

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING NIL

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC NIL

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL Annual Electors’ General Meeting, Tuesday 16 December 2014 at 6:00PM. held at Town of Claremont Council Chambers, Number One Claremont, 308 Stirling Highway, Claremont. Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday 3 February 2015 at 7:00PM, held at Town of Claremont Council Chambers, Number One Claremont, 308 Stirling Highway, Claremont.

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

There being no further business, the presiding member declared the meeting closed at 08:32 PM.

Confirmed this ... .... ... ........ .... ... .... .... day of ... .... ....... .... . .... ...... 2014.

PRESIDING MEMBER

town of claremont ordinary council meeting minutes tuesday ...€¦ · 9/12/2014 · mr amar...

Documents