9.2 application details: applicant: owner: responsible ... daps/metro south-we… · accept that...

Meeting No.108 8 July 2016

Mr Rob Nicholson and Ms Stacey Towne returned to the meeting at 10:58am.

9.2 Property Location: Lot 100 (432-434) Safety Bay Rd, Safety Bay Application Details: 4 storey mixed use development Applicant: TPG Town Planning Urban Design & Heritage Owner: 434 Safety Bay Road Pty Ltd Responsible authority: City of Rockingham DoP File No: DP/12/00130

REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION Moved by: Cr Chris Elliott Seconded by: Cr Kelly McManus That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP application reference 12/00130 as detailed on

the DAP Form 2 dated 30 May 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve the DAP Application reference 12/00130 as detailed on the

DAP Form 2 dated 30th May 2016 and accompanying plans Ref: Stage 2 Site Plan (A1.01), Basement Floor Plan (A1.02), Ground Floor Plan (A1.03.1), Pool Area Ground Floor Plan (A1.03.2), Level 1 Plan (A1.04), Level 2 Plan (A1.05), Level 3 Plan (A1.06), Roof Plan (A1.07), Elevations (A3.01), Elevations (A3.02), Section (A4.01), in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions 1. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham

for the payment of a contribution towards the administration and community infrastructure items pursuant to clause 5.6.14 of the City of Rockingham Town Planning Scheme No.2, upon the commencement of development.

2. Earthworks over the site associated with the development must be

stabilised to prevent sand or dust blowing off the site, and appropriate measures shall be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City of Rockingham in the event that sand or dust is blown from the site.

3. A Landscaping Plan shall be prepared for the Malibu Road verge adjacent

to the development site, including the planting of street trees, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to applying for a Building Permit. Works on the approved Landscaping Plan must be undertaken prior to occupation and be maintained at all times.

4. The carpark must:

Mr Ian Birch Presiding Member, Metro South-West JDAP 8


(i) be designed for 137 car bays in accordance with Australian/New

Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking unless otherwise specified by this approval, prior to applying for a Building Permit.

(ii) include two car parking spaces dedicated to people with disability and shared spaces designed in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Car parking for people with disabilities;

(iii) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; and

(iv) have lighting installed in the basement, prior to applying for an occupancy permit.

5. Nine on-street car parking spaces shall be designed for short-term

parking and loading and unloading of commercial vehicles servicing the commercial tenancies (i.e. 2.6m wide) in accordance with AS 2890.5 —1993, Parking facilities, Part 5: On-street parking, prior applying for a Building Permit, and constructed prior to applying for an occupancy permit.

6. Forty-nine long term bicycle parking spaces and 8 short term bicycle

parking space must be designed in accordance with AS2890.3-1993, Parking facilities, Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities, prior to applying for a Building Permit. The bicycle parking facilities and end of trip facilities must be constructed prior to applying for an occupancy permit, and be maintained for the duration of the development.

7. Disused crossovers shall be removed and the verge, footpath, kerbing

and landscaping must be reinstated, prior to the occupation of the development.

8. Clothes drying facilities (excluding electric clothes dryers) shall be

screened from view of Malibu Road and Safety Bay Road. 9. Entries and window frontages of all Commercial tenancies shall not be

covered, closed or screened off (including by means of shutters, dark tinting, curtains, blinds or roller doors or similar), to ensure that a commercial, interactive frontage is available to the development from Malibu Road, at all times.

10. Street Awnings shall be provided to Malibu Road across the full width of

the proposed building at a minimum of 2.5m wide and minimum clearance of 3.2m above the footpath, with light being provided under the street awning.

11. All Multiple Dwellings are approved for both permanent and Short Stay

Accommodation. 12. The balconies of Units 11, 24 and 36 shall be designed with permanent

vertical screening to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level to

Mr Ian Birch Presiding Member, Metro South-West JDAP Page 19


prevent overlooking of adjacent survey strata lots (WAPC Ref: 66-12) within 7.5m of the balconies, prior to applying for a Building Permit.

13. All stormwater generated by the proposed development shall be

designed to be contained and disposed of on-site, and certified by a hydraulic engineer, prior to applying for a Building Permit, and shall be implemented as such in the development.

14. A Waste Management Plan shall be prepared and include the following

detail to the satisfaction of the City, prior to applying for a Building Permit: (i) the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas; (ii) the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be

placed in the bins; (iii) management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including

cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bon collection areas; and

(iv) frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan for the duration of the development.

15. An Acoustic Report which demonstrates that all mechanic services

associated with the proposed development and any other noise source, will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be approved by the City of Rockingham prior to applying for a Building permit.

16. All service areas and service related hardware, including antennae,

satellite dishes and air conditioning units, being suitably located away from the public view and/or screened, the details of which are to be provided to the City of Rockingham’s satisfaction, prior to applying for a Building permit.

17. The development must be designed to incorporate a rear service door

access for commercial tenancies Nos. 2 and 3 to access the service corridor, to facilitate direct access to the bin store.

18. A car parking space allocation plan being provided to the satisfaction of

the City of Rockingham, prior to applying for a Building Permit, which designates the allocation of the approved parking spaces to the various approved uses. Such plan shall apply for the duration of the development. The required residential visitor parking spaces shall be clearly delineated as such on-site in common ownership and available for use by bona-fide visitors of the occupants of the dwellings the subject of this approval for the duration of the development. All commercial car parking bays must also be delineated as such on-site and be available for customer and staff parking during all operating hours of the commercial tenancies.

19. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for a

period of 2 years from the date of approval. If the development is not substantially commenced within the 2 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.



Advice Notes (a) The approval relates to the details provided in the application; to

undertake the development in a different manner to that stated in the application, a new application for Development Approval must be submitted to the City of Rockingham.

(b) With respect to condition No.3, the applicant should liaise with the City

of Rockingham’s Parks Services to confirm requirements for the upgrading of the street setback area and provision of on-street parking along Malibu Road.

(c) The applicant is advised that exhaust facilities associated with any

future proposed restaurant must be provided in accordance with Australian Standard AS1668.2 – 2002. The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings, Part 2: Ventilation design for indoor air containment control (excluding requirements for the health aspects of tobacco smoke exposure) and be fitted with “state of the art” filtration and odour suppression devices.

(d) A separate approved from the City of Rockingham’s Health Services is

required under the Food Act 2008 and Food Safety Standards, should any food premises be proposed to occupy the commercial tenancies. The applicant should liaise with the City’s Health Services in this regard.

(e) In relation to Condition No.15 the Final Acoustic Report must

include the following information: - noise sources compared with the assigned noise levels as stated

in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, when the noise is received at the nearest ‘noise sensitive premises’ and surrounding residential area;

- tonality, modulation and impulsiveness; - confirm the implementation of noise attenuation measures.

(f) A Sign Permit under the City of Rockingham Signs, Hoardings and Bill

Posting By-law must be obtained for any advertising associated with the development, including signage painted on the building; the applicant should liaise with the City’s Building Services in this regard.

(g) The applicant is reminded of the need to obtain approval from the

Executive Director of Public Health at the Department of Health prior to the installation of the pools and spa; contact the City of Rockingham’s Health Services for more information.

(h) The applicant is reminded of the need to obtain approval for the

encroachments over the street under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960; contact the City’s Building Services for more information.

(i) In relation to condition 6, the bicycle parking shall be designed with the

following:



- The doorway to the basement bicycle compound shall have a

minimum width of 1.5m; and - Bicycle parking spaces in the Malibu Road verge shall be setback at

least 0.6m from the on-street car parking spaces. (j) The applicant is encouraged to consider the inclusion of an electrical

outlet to charge and park gophers within the carpark basement. The Report Recommendation/Primary Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9.3 Property Location: Lot 9002 Kwinana Beach Road and Lot 1003

Patterson Road, Kwinana Beach Application Details: Proposed General Industry – Bitumen

Storage and Distribution Facility Applicant: TPG Town Planning Urban Design & Heritage

(on behalf of development operator Puma Energy)

Owner: WA Land Authority – LandCorp Responsible authority: City of Kwinana DoP File No: DAP/14/00677

REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION Moved by: Mr Rob Nicholson Seconded by: Cr Dennis Wood That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to:

1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/14/00677 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 18 May 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/14/00677 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 18 May 2016 and accompanying plans 6167-L-0001-DA9, 6167-A-0001-DA2, 6167-L-0003-DA5, 6167-L-0004-DA6, 6167-L-0005-DA5, 6167-Y-0001-DA in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kwinana Town Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved General Industry – Bitumen Storage and Distribution Facility and Fuel Depot on Lot 9002 Kwinana Beach Road and Lot 1003 Patterson Road, Kwinana Beach, subject to the conditions and advice notes of the 18 August 2015 approval.

The Report Recommendation/Primary Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



9.4 Property Location: Part Lot 9002 Port Road, Kwinana Beach Application Details: Proposed General Industry – Bitumen Storage,

Processing and Distribution Facility Applicant: GHD Pty Ltd (on behalf of SAMI Bitumen

Technologies Pty Ltd) Owner: WA Land Authority – LandCorp Responsible authority: City of Kwinana DoP File No: DAP/15/00924

REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION Moved by: Cr Dennis Wood Seconded by: Mr Rob Nicholson That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to:

1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00924 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 17 May 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011; and

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00924 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 17 May 2016 and accompanying plans CIV – 001 – Rev E, LAY – 045 – Rev A, CIV – 002 – Rev C, LAY – 028 – Rev B, and LAY – 022 – Rev C in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kwinana Town Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed minor amendment to the approved General Industry – Bitumen Storage, Processing and Distribution Facility on Part Lot 9002 Port Road, Kwinana Beach, subject to the conditions and advice notes of the 13 January 2016 approval.

The Report Recommendation/Primary Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Appeals to the State Administrative Tribunal

Nil

11. General Business / Meeting Close

The Presiding Member reminded the meeting that in accordance with Standing Order 7.3 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached to make comment. There being no further business, the Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 11:12am.


Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Application Details: Seven Storey Multiple Dwelling Development (51 Multiple Dwellings) and two storey health studio (gymnasium)

Property Location: No. 11 (Lot 306) McCabe Street, North Fremantle

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP Applicant: TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and

Heritage Owner: Taskers Living Pty Ltd LG Reference: DAP002/16 Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals Department of Planning File No: DAP/16/1053 Report Date: 3 August 2016 Application Receipt Date: 18 May 2016 Application Process Days: 90 days Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans dated 18 May 2016

2. Schedule of submissions 3. Site visit photos

Recommendation: That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DP/16/1053 and accompanying plans dated 18 May 2016, SK1.01, SK2.01-11, SK3.01-04, in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the following reasons: 1. The discretionary additional height sought is inconsistent with the City of

Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of New Buildings clause 4.1.5 for area D2 that requires “distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design”.

2. The development is inconsistent with clauses 67 (g) and (m) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, in that the building height proposed is not in accordance with an applicable Local Planning Policy for the site.

Page 1

Background: Property Address: No. 11 (Lot 806) McCabe Street, North

Fremantle Zoning MRS: Urban LPS: Development Area Use Class: N/A Strategy Policy: Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle Development Scheme: City of Fremantle – Local Planning Scheme No.

4 – McCabe Street Structure Plan Lot Size: Lot 806: 3062m² Existing Land Use: N/A - Vacant Value of Development: $30,000,000 The subject site consists of one lot; Lot 806 McCabe Street, North Fremantle (‘the site’). The subject site currently contains residential sales offices, relocatable buildings and associated landscaping. The subject site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) and exists in the portion of McCabe Street bound by Stirling Highway to the west, and Edwards Parade, Mosman Park, to the east. The subject site is also subject to the following classifications;

• Zoned ‘Development Area (DA18)’ pursuant to LPS4 and subject to the McCabe Street Structure Plan;

• Contained within the North Fremantle Heritage Area but is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List. The subject site also falls within the ‘Rocky Bay’ Aboriginal Heritage Area; and,

• The subject site is noted as being adjacent to high voltage transmission lines located on McCabe Street.

A summary of the relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows;

• On 3 March 2009, the SAT set aside a decision made by the City on 25 June 2008 to refuse the Structure Plan for the subject site and approved the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan outlines a maximum wall height of 47.50m AHD and a maximum ridge height of 52.00m AHD. The Structure Plan contemplates a ridged roof design, as opposed to a flat or skillion style roof with higher wall or gable ends;

• On 9 June 2010, the City granted planning approval for ‘Residential Grouped and Multiple Dwelling Development’ (DA0087/10). This application consisted of the construction of ninety-five (95) multiple dwellings across four buildings and eight (8) grouped dwellings in an additional building at the land. A further variation to this approval increasing the number of multiple dwellings from 95 to 96 and making minor modifications to common areas and on-site parking was approved by the City on 13 April 2011 (VA0009/11). Condition 14 of the original approval (DA0087/10) required that the land be amalgamated into one lot;

Page 2

• On 9 June 2012, planning approval DA0087/10 and VA0009/11, being the original and subsequently modified approval for the redevelopment of the land expired;

• On 25 October 2012, the City approved an application for ‘Six Storey (Two Basement), 51 Apartment Multiple Dwelling Development’ at the subject site (DA0417/12). This proposal broadly reflected that approved as part of DA0087/10 and VA0009/11;

• At its meeting of 15 May 2013, the City granted planning approval for modifications to DA0417/12 that included modifications to the external height of the proposal (DA0176/13); and,

• The application forms part of the staged development of the subject site. The first stage of the proposal, being the 6 storey multiple dwelling development was approved through DA0417/12 (and subsequently DA0176/13). Two further applications DA0448/13 (8 Grouped Dwellings) and DA0449/13 (21 multiple dwellings), represent the second and third stages of the proposal. The most recent previous application, being DAPV50003/14 (26 multiple dwellings) represented the fourth stage of the development. This current application (DAP002/16) represents the fifth and final stage, as shown on the development plans in the south-east corner of the subject site.

Details: outline of development application The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Health Studio (Gymnasium) and Seven Storey (51 Unit) Multiple Dwelling Development (see Attachment 1 – Development Plans dated 18 May 2016) at the site including;

• A seven (7) storey multiple dwelling building containing 49 multiple dwellings and an additional basement level containing vehicle parking;

• A two storey health studio and 2 multiple dwellings; • Associated landscaping and a swimming pool.

Legislation & policy: The application has been assessed against the following legislative documents:

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for development on the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 9 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (they replace Part 10 of Scheme).

Legislation The following provisions of LPS4 (or Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs 2015)) are considered relevant in the assessment of the planning application;

• Clause 27 (P&D Regs 2015) – Effect of structure plan; • Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications; • Clause 2.3 – Relationship of Local Planning Policies to Scheme; • Clause 67 (P&D Regs) – Matters to be considered by local government;

and

Page 3

• Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee. State Government Policies There are no State Government policies relevant to the assessment of the application. Structure Plan The applicable Structure Plan for the site is the 9-15 McCabe Street Structure Plan. In accordance with clause 28 (2) of the P&D Regs 2015, this Structure Plan is considered to be approved by the Commission:

For the purposes of subclause (1), a structure plan that was approved before the day referred to in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 regulation 2(b) (commencement day) is to be taken to have been approved on commencement day.

Local Policies The proposed development is subject to the following Local Planning Policies, adopted under LPS4;

• Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area – Height of New Buildings; and,

• Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Requirements. • Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee and Principles of

Design. Consultation: Public Consultation The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. In accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposal, the application was advertised as a ‘Significant Application’ and due to discretions being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 July 2016, the City had received 24 submissions including 20 objections. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

• Vehicle traffic; Concern is raised in regards to the vehicle traffic the proposal will generate once the site is fully developed, and the degree of traffic congestion at present along the surrounding road network.

• Parking; there is insufficient visitor parking located on site to service not only visitors to the apartments, but additionally tradesmen and those servicing units.

• Design; the design proposed is not considered to be of ‘design excellence’ and as such the additional height proposed cannot be supported.

• Building height; the height proposed is excessive, especially considering the height of the building that has been approved at 9 McCabe Street. The proposal would be out of scale with the surrounding area.

Page 4

• Vehicle access; the access point proposed to be used for the site is particularly dangerous and such development of this scale will exacerbate these concerns even further. The blind corner is a significant hazard to those using the site for ingress and egress and this development could potentially lead to further traffic delays and accidents.

• Overshadowing; the proposed development would have an unreasonable impact on the degree of sunlight afforded to adjacent properties, especially morning sunlight and the impact this development would have on the current building at 9 McCabe Street to the west of the subject site.

• Views; the proposal would impinge and obscure river views from a number of apartments currently situated at 9 McCabe Street.

Refer to Attachment 2 for a schedule of submissions. Infrastructure and Project Delivery (internal referral) The application was referred internally to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department for comment. The following comments were provided by the City’s Parks and Gardens department:

Please supply verge landscaping plan and detail including planting plan and set out.

It has been confirmed with the City’s Infrastructure team that they have no comments to make regarding the proposal. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) (Internal referral) The proposal, at a pre-lodgement stage, was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee at its meeting of 11 April 2016. The following recommendations were made; “CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER

• There has been no attempt to demonstrate how the project fits into the broader context.

• The Committee requested contextual information about adjoining buildings together with site sections to understand the relationship between the proposed development and other approved buildings on site. Site sections should include one across McCabe Street to indicate the relationship of the proposed building to those across the road.

CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY The above issues did not arise during the presentation. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM

• The blank stone wall facing the street does not facilitate a high quality public realm interface.

Page 5

OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

• Bathroom doors that open onto living areas need further consideration. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES

• When considered in isolation, the proposed use of materials appears appropriate however it is not understood how these materials relate to those of approved buildings on site.

GENERAL COMMENTS It is understood that the McCabe Street height policy allows a development with a maximum height of 25 metres subject to the following: “(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (b) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.” While the committee was not in a position to make an assessment of the project against criteria a) and c), in relation to criteria b) that requires distinctive architecture befitting its location, exceptional design and meeting the highest possible standard of good design, there was not enough information provided to make this assessment. While it is acknowledged that additional information in the form of coloured elevations and 3D perspectives were provided at the meeting and went some way towards demonstrating a high quality design approach, there was not sufficient contextual information to make a determination. On this basis it is recommended that further information be provided to the Committee no later than 1 week before the next appropriate DAC meeting. It is noted however that the internalised bedrooms are not supported in the strongest terms and they are not considered to contribute to nor be “exceptional design”. It is also understood from a statutory planning perspective that the proposed development is 27m at its highest point which exceeds the 25m discretion allowed for in the height policy. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

• Apart from the internalised bedrooms, in general, the apartment planning is supported, particularly the dual aspect apartments.

• When considered in isolation, the exterior design was judged to be of a good standard.

Page 6

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

• See comments above. RECOMMENDATION The several internalised bedrooms are not supported and cannot be considered ‘exceptional design’. Whether the development is distinctive architecture or meets at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4 is unclear until further contextual information is provided.” The application was subsequently presented at a second DAC meeting on 18 July 2016, after the applicant provided further detail regarding the contextual detail of the application as part of the formal submission. The following comments were raised from the DAC at this meeting: “It is acknowledged that photos have been provided to provide a contextual explanation of the external architectural design as requested by the Committee. It was not clear to the panel however, how the context had informed the external architectural design response, beyond matching the colours and materials used in an earlier stage of the development. In relation to the McCabe St frontage, concerns were raised regarding the lack of articulation and variation in the facade design. Overall the proposal is not considered to be “exceptional” as required by the planning policy. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Committee how the architecture of the proposal achieves a distinctive and high quality outcome. Factors such as unimpeded occupant access to views and expensive building materials do not constitute exceptional design. The most significant concern that the Committee holds is the high number of internalised bedrooms. The Committee has consistently raised this as a concern and the applicant has made no attempt to resolve this issue. To gain the additional height sought the planning policy states that: “The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4.” The Committee reiterates its previous comments that the numerous internalised bedrooms are not supported and they are not considered to contribute to nor to constitute “exceptional design”. Occupant amenity in habitable spaces (with direct access to daylight, fresh air, outlook) is considered fundamental to achieving good design quality in residential development. As discussed, there are many alternative design approaches that could be contemplated to resolve this planning issue such as multiple circulation cores or shallower apartment layouts. The Committee’s role is to offer advice on design quality not what is acceptable to the market. Given the longevity of apartment buildings, the DAC must take the long view regarding achieving an appropriate standard of accommodation, that will house a multitude of occupants over its life. Changing demographics and future housing pressure will mean that your McCabe St apartments will likely be occupied by families at some point, with children

Page 7

then occupying these internal bedrooms. If investors purchase these apartments and then rent them, these internal bedrooms may well be permanently occupied, sooner. Both state and national moves to prohibit internalised bedrooms are currently underway and it would be remiss for the Committee to ignore the important lessons learnt in other jurisdictions, and the growing local concern around such arrangements. Internalised bedrooms are proscribed (prohibited) in other states and will be soon in WA.” Given that the applicant has not changed the layout of the internalised bedrooms, the recommendation from the DAC has remained consistent with the previous comment provided at the 11 April 2016 meeting in that the application cannot be considered to constitute ‘exceptional design’ as required by Local Planning Policy 3.11 for the additional discretionary height sought. This recommendation and its application to the planning assessment are discussed in further detail below. Planning assessment: The subject land is zoned ‘Development Area’ and is not given a density coding. As a result, the assessment of the proposed development is largely provided for in the Structure Plan. Clause 27 (1) of P&D Regs 2015 requires that;

1) A decision-maker for an application for development approval or subdivision approval in an area that is covered by a structure plan that has been approved by the Commission is to have due regard to, but is not bound by, the structure plan when deciding the application.

Consideration of the development is therefore made against the Structure Plan, however it is noted that the decision maker is only required to have due regard to the provisions and content of the document. Building location & form The design context for the proposed development has been broadly set by decisions at earlier stages of the planning process, notably the approval of a structure plan for the site by the State Administrative Tribunal in March 2009. The structure plan included details of the location and orientation of new buildings within the site and their overall massing including maximum heights. Subsequent development applications have proposed building forms in general conformity with the content of the approved structure plan as is required under clause 6.2.3.2 of LPS4, which has subsequently been superseded by clause 27 (1) of the P&D Regs 2015. These previous applications were not considered by the DAC as the committee was only established after the original planning approvals were granted. Building Height The application proposes a maximum building height of 24.75m as measured from 31 AHD (the approved natural ground level in the structure plan). In assessing the proposed building height, due regard is given to the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of new buildings. The following is an excerpt from LPP 3.11, with specific reference to the subject site:

Page 8

In the part designated zone D2 on the policy map fronting McCabe Street at 9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, a development with a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent.

b) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and

c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

In considering the above criteria, the applicant has provided evidence of equivalent rating to the five star Green Star rating. This documentation is deemed to be satisfactory in achieving compliance with point a) of the above clause. Notwithstanding this, a condition of approval is included in the alternative recommendation for approval so as to ensure that the applicant implements this rating at an appropriate standard. In relation to b), the proposed building is not considered to be of distinctive architecture and exceptional design, due to the comments provided by the City’s DAC. Specifically, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the façade design is distinctive architecture and the layout of the 19 internalised bedrooms are not considered to be of exceptional design and therefore the application, in the view of the DAC, is not deemed to meet the principles of good design having due regard to clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4. With respect to c), Local Planning Policy 3.11 was drafted based on the McCabe Street Height Study dated May 2008. In simple terms provided that the envelope of the building seeking the additional discretionary height is located within the purple hatched area for D2 (see yellow circle bellow for clarity), then the proposal does not encroach upon the view corridors outlined in the May 2008 study. The proposed building subject to this planning application is located wholly within the relevant area of the policy and therefore satisfied criteria c).

Page 9

The adopted Structure Plan for DA18 provides a maximum external wall height for development within the footprint of ‘Apartment 2’ at 47.5m AHD and maximum roof height at 52m AHD. At the same time, in the location that the development is proposed (zone D2), LPP3.11 permits a maximum building height of 17m from natural ground level, with permissibility to increase the height to 25m subject to meeting criteria as discussed previously. The table below outlines the permitted (as per the adopted Structure Plan), currently proposed AHD levels of the external wall height and maximum roof ridge height. Height Requirements for ‘Apartment 2’ as demarcated on 9-15 McCabe Street Structure Plan Element Structure Plan

Requirement Current Proposal Variation to

Structure Plan Maximum Wall 47.50m AHD 51.10m AHD 3.60m AHD Maximum Roof 52.00m AHD 55.75m AHD 3.75m AHD Discretionary decisions relating to the variation to height for DA 18 have previously been supported in the past by City officers. However, these decisions have been made without the amended version of the City’s LPP 3.11, which includes more specific provisions relating to the prerequisites in attaining a greater building height. Furthermore, the level of discretion being proposed against the structure plan in this instance is deemed to be considerable, given that the variation would effectively support an additional storey from what is outlined in the structure plan. In this regard, the variation is, arguably, not generally consistent with the content of the structure plan. Having regard to LPP 3.11 and clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015, it is considered that the building height in this instance cannot be supported, given the comments provided by the City’s DAC. As the design is not deemed to meet part b) in reference

Page 10

to zone D2 of clause 4.1.5 of LPP 3.11, a recommendation to award the additional discretionary building height of 25m, cannot be provided as the proposal is required to fulfil all of the criteria outlined in the policy. On this basis, the application is recommend for refusal as per clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015, which is as follows:

In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application —

(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area; It is recognised that a previous SAT s.31 reconsideration for No.84-104/9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle resulted in the deletion of a condition in the approval for DP/31/00843 (5 storey apartment building) which, by removing the condition, permitted internalised bedrooms for the development. Since that time Local Planning Policy 3.11 has been adopted by Council which requires distinctive architecture and exceptional design. For the reasons detailed above the proposed development does not demonstrate either distinctive architecture or exceptional design. Plot Ratio Area The plot ratio area proposed for this application is 2.4 (7440.56m²/3062m²) and, while the outlined plot ratio area for the Structure Plan is 1:1.5, the plot ratio area in this application is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

• The development of the building is at a bulk and scale which is comparable to what is provided for in the local planning framework. Having regard to the structure plan that encompasses the site, it is considered that the proposed plot ratio area of the development would be generally consistent with the overall built form that is outlined for this component of the structure plan.

It is noted that the plot ratio area approved in the previous Taskers developments has ranged from less than 1:1.5 to approximately 1:1.8. Lot Boundary Setbacks In assessing the proposed lot boundary setbacks, the building envelope proposed is required to be generally consistent with the content of the structure plan relating to ‘Apartment 2’. The layout of the proposed seven storey apartment building is generally consistent with the building envelope of the ‘Apartment 2’ building in the Structure Plan, apart from the setbacks provided to balconies on the eastern elevation. The structure plan displays a setback of approximately 3 metres from the eastern elevation of the ‘Apartment 2’ building to the adjoining lot boundary at 15 McCabe Street. The Structure Plan outlines that the desired density of the subject site ought to be equivalent to R80; despite the fact that no density coding is directly applicable under the scheme maps of LPS4. On the basis of the R80 coding, it is noted that under the R-Codes, the deemed-to-comply lot boundary setback is 4 metres as per Table 5. The lot boundary setback proposed between 2.0m (open balcony) and 3.5m (solid wall) are not considered to be a significant departure from the both the Structure Plan and the R-Codes, and the impacts of building bulk and overshadowing are deemed to be negligible.

Page 11

Given that the adjoining eastern site at 15 McCabe Street currently does not have a Structure Plan that encompasses this particular site, it is considered that the development potential of this property is uncertain. Further, the potential for a future structure plan for this site to allow for, or entertain, boundary walls on the western elevation should also be considered. To this end, a condition is provided in the alternative recommendation so as to ensure that a notification on the certificate(s) of title is included, informing future residents on the eastern elevation that their balconies may be partially enclosed by potential development occurring on the eastern adjoining property (15 McCabe Street). Vehicle Parking Required Provided Residential 69.5 101 (31.5 surplus) Visitors 12.75 3 (9.75 deficit) TOTAL 82 (82.25) 104 (21.76 bay surplus) The vehicle parking provision is compliant in respect to the designated allocation provided for the residential apartments (multiple dwellings); however the visitor bays are seeking discretion of 10 vehicle bays. The vehicle bay described as No. “Visitors 4’ is not included in the vehicle parking calculation as this bay does not provide a manoeuvring space in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1. The vehicle parking discretion is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

• There is on-street parking available along McCabe Street further to the north-east, with 24 bays on-street bays provided at this particular location (approx. 100m walking distance). This is considered to account for some of the shortfall represented in the visitor parking calculation.

• There is already visitor parking (16 vehicle bays in the central visitors car park) that has been approved through previous multiple dwelling developments and has been assessed as communal visitor parking to the McCabe Street Structure Plan area. In this regard, it is considered that visitors could utilise these bays on a reciprocal basis.

• While the site is situated at a greater distance than 250m from a high frequency bus route, there is access to bus routes along Stirling Highway to the west, which is approximately 266m from the subject site.

The parking requirement for the Health Studio land use has not been assessed as this particular use is considered to be subservient to the predominant residential (multiple dwelling) use of the development. That is, it is considered unlikely that people using the gym will come from outside the Taskers development. Bicycle Parking Required Provided 22 8 (14 deficit) The bicycle parking requirement is 22, whereas only 8 have been proposed. This discretion is considered to be supportable, given there is visitor bicycle parking provided at other multiple dwellings developments approved in the structure plan area.

Page 12

Site Works The application proposes a maximum of 3.6m (from 31 AHD to 27.4AHD) of excavation for a minor portion at the rear of the site. This level of site works is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

• The development is considered to respond to the natural features of the site, as the finished floor level of the ground floor is taken at approximately the natural ground level (NGL) that that was approved at the structure plan stage (31 AHD). In this regard, the development only requires a relatively minor proportion of excavation, predominantly at the rear of the site to make the development more level.

• The finished levels respect the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and the adjoining properties. Further, given that the bulk of the development is situated at the front of the subject site, the site works are not considered to impact on the appearance of the natural ground level as viewed from the street.

Visual Privacy On the basis of the R80 code, the proposal is considered to meet all of the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• All major openings and raised outdoor living areas to boundaries of adjoining residential properties (including the internal separation between the proposed development and other residential developments on the subject site) meet the cone-of-vision setback requirement of the R-Codes; or

• The elevations where a lesser setback is sought address non-residential premises at No. 15 McCabe Street and in those instances, the visual privacy provisions do not apply.

Sustainable Building Design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star (or equivalent) using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia rating tool pursuant to Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Building Design (‘LPP2.13’). In addition to this requirement, it is noted that LPP 3.11 requires a 5 star Green Star rating, which is considered to effectively address the requirements of LPP 2.13. Given this, a condition of approval is provided in the alternative recommendation requiring that the applicant implements the equivalent rating under the alternative tool so as to address both of the aforementioned policy requirements. Vehicle traffic No comments were provided by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposal. It is noted that a previous report submitted by Shawmac Pty Ltd accompanied the Structure Plan and has been referred to in the assessment of vehicle traffic emanating from proposed developments within the McCabe Street Structure Plan area. This particular document is considered to be of relevance to the proposal, as the document considers development of a comparable form to what is proposed in this application. The recommendation from the report is that under this scenario (comparable bulk

Page 13

and scale), the level of service (LOS) to the McCabe Street/Stirling Highway intersection would remain at C, which was considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, a more recent traffic study undertaken by Cardno Pty Ltd outlined that an alteration to McCabe Place, which proposes the extension of this particular road, would improve the traffic congestion on McCabe Street. Conclusion: The application seeks planning approval for the development of a seven storey multiple dwelling development (51 multiple dwellings) and health studio building at the subject site. The proposal is summarised as follows;

• The subject site is zoned ‘Development Area (DA18) pursuant to LPS4 and is subject to the adopted Structure Plan;

• In accordance with clause 6.2.3.2 of LPS4, the proposal is required to be generally in accordance with the Structure Plan;

• The proposal is generally consistent with the Structure Plan in terms of building position, scale, density, and vehicle traffic;

• However, the proposal is not considered to meet the applicable provisions relating to building height contained within the Structure Plan and LPP 3.11.

The proposal was presented to the DAC pre and post planning application (April 2016 and July 2016), with the DAC noting that the proposal could not be considered to be ‘distinctive architecture or design excellence’ due to the applicant failing to demonstrate how the architecture of the proposal achieves a distinctive and high quality outcome and the 19 internalised bedrooms proposed. To this end, the application is not considered to meet the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 and, as such, is recommended for refusal in accordance with clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015. In the event that JDAP are supportive of the proposal, an alternative recommendation for conditional approval is provided below: Alternative Recommendation: Approve DAP Application reference DP/16/1053 and accompanying plans dated 18 May 2016, SK1.01, SK2.01-11, SK3.01-04, in accordance with Clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 18 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the vehicle parking bay described as ‘Visitors 4’ on the approved plans is hereby deleted and does not form part of this approval.

3. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 5 star green

star standard as per the discretionary criteria of Local Planning Policy 3.11 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building

Page 14

9.2 application details: applicant: owner: responsible ... daps/metro south-we… · accept that...

Documents