minutes of planning and development committee - 9 october 2018 · planning and development...

Planning and Development Committee

9 October 2018

Minutes

To: The Mayor and Councillors

Here within the Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee

meeting of the City of Stirling held Tuesday 9 October 2018 in the City

of Stirling Parmelia Room, 25 Cedric Street, Stirling.

Stuart Jardine PSM | Chief Executive Officer

Our Vision, Mission and Values

Vision

The City of Stirling will be a place where people choose to live, work, visit and invest. We will

have safe and thriving neighbourhoods with a range of housing, employment and

recreational opportunities. We will engage with our diverse community to help shape our

future into the City of Stirling – City of Choice.

Mission

To serve the City’s diverse community through delivering efficient, responsive and

sustainable services

Values

The City of Stirling’s core values are:

Integrity

Community Participation

Accountability

Respect

Environment

Diversity

Disclaimer

Members of the public should note that in any discussion regarding any planning or other

application that any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or officer of

the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as

notice of approval from the City. No action should be taken on any item discussed at a

Council meeting prior to written advice on the resolution of the Council being received.

Any plans or documents contained in this document may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1998, as amended) and the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to the reproduction.

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2018

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

1. OFFICIAL OPENING .................................................................................................. 4

2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES............................................................................. 4

3. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 4

4. MEMORANDUM OF OUTSTANDING BUSINESS ..................................................... 5

5. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST .................................................................................. 7

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ................................................................................. 7

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................ 7

8. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS ........................................... 8

CP1 LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 AMENDMENT NO.102 - REZONING OF VARIOUS LOTS IN THE FLORA TERRACE LOCAL CENTRE - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING ................................................... 8

DS1 LOT 901, HOUSE NUMBER 40, HUTTON STREET, OSBORNE PARK - RECREATION PRIVATE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS .................. 43

CP2 LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 6.7 PARKING AND ACCESS - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE .................................................................................................. 60

9. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .................................................................... 91

DS2 ESTABLISHMENT OF A DESIGN REVIEW PANEL - MEMBER APPOINTMENT ............................................................................................ 92

10. CLOSURE ................................................................................................................ 97


4

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF TUESDAY 9 OCTOBER 2018 HELD IN CITY OF STIRLING PARMELIA ROOM, 25

CEDRIC STREET, STIRLING

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the Planning and Development Committee meeting open at 6.00pm.

2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES

ATTENDANCE

Presiding Member Councillor Giovanni Italiano JP

Deputy Presiding Member Councillor Stephanie Proud JP

Members Councillor David Boothman JP Councillor Joe Ferrante

Councillor Andrew Guilfoyle (deputy for Councillor Karlo Perkov) Councillor Mark Irwin Councillor David Lagan

Observers Councillor Suzanne Migdale Councillor Bianca Sandri Councillor Adam Spagnolo

Employees Chief Executive Officer - Stuart Jardine PSM Acting Director Planning and Development - Greg Bowering Manager City Planning - Fraser Henderson Manager Governance - Jamie Blanchard Coordinator City Planning - Schemes and Policies - Neil Maul Coordinator Planning Approvals - Austin Donaghey Senior Planning Officer - Chris Fudge Governance Officer - Regan Clyde Governance Officer - Jaclyn Farrow

Public 7

Press 0

APOLOGIES

Councillor Karlo Perkov.

3. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Councillor Keith Sargent (granted a leave of absence for the period 14 September 2018 to 15 October 2018 inclusive). Councillor Karen Caddy (granted a leave of absence for the period 25 September 2018 to 2 November 2018 inclusive).


Item 4.1 - Attachment 1 - Memorandum of Outstanding Business 5

4. MEMORANDUM OF OUTSTANDING BUSINESS

Item Resolution

Meeting

Presented/Item

Council

Resolution

Responsible

Officer Status

1. Endorsement of Tuart Hill Local Centre –

Urban Design Strategy

“3. That the City UNDERTAKES a 15% design

involving local businesses and traders in a

review process, and REPORTS back to

Council and that the process includes

investigation of the following:-

a. Formalising a “U” turn at Lawley

Street to allow access to the eastern

side of the centre; and

b. The possibility of a trial period and /

or staging of new or changed access

arrangements.”

13 September

2016

Item Number

10.2/CP1

Council

Resolution

0916/013

Manager City

Planning

On Thursday 20 September 2018 , the Mayor,

Acting Chief Executive Officer and Manager City

Planning met with the Minister for Transport;

Planning; Lands, the MLA for Balcatta, the MLA

for Mount Lawley and a representative of Main

Roads WA. At this meeting, the Tuart Hill Centre

was discussed, including the conflicting

objectives of Main Roads WA and the City’s

plan to improve the area to facilitate economic

development and residential intensification. It

was agreed at that meeting that a further

workshop should be held between officers and

Main Roads representatives to try to reach

agreement on the various improvements

proposed to Wanneroo Road in the City’s Plan

for Tuart Hill. The further workshop is

anticipated to be held in early 2019 and will be

in the context of discussion of future Planning

for Wanneroo Road, given that it is identified as

an Activity Corridor in the State’s Planning

Framework.


Item 4.1 - Attachment 1 - Memorandum of Outstanding Business 6

Item Resolution

Meeting

Presented/Item

Council

Resolution

Responsible

Officer Status

2. Local Planning Scheme No.3 – Modifications

to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and

Access (To Introduce Parking Requirements

for Short Stay Accommodation) – Outcomes

of Advertising

“2. That Council REVIEWS Local Planning

Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access in 12

months to evaluate the suitability of the

parking arrangements.”

20 February

2018

Item Number

11.1

Council

Resolution

Number

0218/007

Manager City

Planning

It is anticipated that a review of the Local

Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access to

evaluate the suitability of the parking

arrangements for Short Stay Accommodation

will be presented to the Planning and

Development Committee meeting to be held in

April 2019.


7

5. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Councillor Suzanne Migdale disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item DS1 as the agent of the owner is an acquaintance. Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item DS2 as applicants are known to her business.

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Councillor Irwin, seconded Councillor Lagan

That the Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee of 11 September 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record of proceedings. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil.

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

The Presiding Member, Councillor Giovanni Italiano, made the following announcement:- “It is my pleasure to formally welcome Mr Jamie Blanchard to this evening’s meeting. Jamie is the City’s new Manager of Governance. Please join me in a round of applause. Thank you.”


Item CP1 8

8. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS

R Blake addressed the Committee regarding Item CP1, and spoke against the recommendation.

CP1 LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 AMENDMENT NO.102 - REZONING OF VARIOUS LOTS IN THE FLORA TERRACE LOCAL CENTRE - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING

Report Information

Location: Various lots in the Flora Terrace Local Centre

Applicant: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: Manager City Planning

Business Unit: City Planning

Ward: Coastal

Suburb: North Beach

Authority/Discretion

Definition

☐ Advocacy when Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.

☐ Executive the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

☒ Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. It is also when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.

☐ Quasi-Judicial when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

☐ Information Purposes

includes items provided to Council for information purposes only, that do not require a decision of Council (i.e. - for 'noting').


Item CP1 9

Moved Councillor Irwin, seconded Councillor Proud

1. That pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council ADOPTS Amendment No.102 to Local Planning Scheme No.3 in a modified form as shown in Attachment 1.

2. That AUTHORITY be given to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix

the Common Seal to Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 documents, and that the Amendment be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Transport, Planning and Lands for determination.

The motion was put and declared LOST (2/5). For: Councillors Guilfoyle and Proud. Against: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Irwin, Italiano and Lagan.

This item will be presented to the 16 October 2018 Council meeting for further consideration.

Recommendation

1. That pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council ADOPTS Amendment No.102 to Local Planning Scheme No.3 in a modified form as shown in Attachment 1.

2. That AUTHORITY be given to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 documents, and that the Amendment be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Transport, Planning and Lands for determination.

Report Purpose

To consider the outcomes of advertising of Local Planning Scheme No.3 Scheme Amendment No.102 to rezone:-

Lot 15, House Number 118, Flora Terrace, North Beach from ‘Business’ to ‘Local Centre’;

Lot 35, Strata Lots 1 and 2, House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach from ‘Residential R20’ to ‘Special Use – Local Centre’; and

Lot 50, House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach from ‘Civic’ to ‘Local Centre’.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Local Planning Scheme No.3 - Scheme Amendment No.102 Documentation (for adoption) ⇩

Attachment 2 - Schedule of Submissions ⇩

Available for viewing at meeting

Nil


Item CP1 10

Background

The Flora Terrace Local Centre, located in the suburb of North Beach, provides a hub for both the immediate and wider community. It is located approximately 17kms northwest of the Perth Central Business District, 3kms northwest of the Karrinyup Regional Centre, 150m east of the Indian Ocean (West Coast Drive) and 350m west of the Star Swamp Regional Reserve. Flora Terrace has undergone a transformation over the past 20 years and the centre now has a diversity of land uses. However, as the centre continues to intensify and attract more residents and visitors, concern has emerged around increased traffic and pedestrian conflicts, and a shortage of available car parking. As a result of these issues, and particularly in response to concerns expressed about a lack of parking, the City held a Vision Workshop, Design Workshop and Community Open Day to consult with the community to better understand community concerns. This community engagement process contributed to the options recommended in the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study, which Council considered at its meeting held 14 November 2017. At this meeting, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 1117/012) as follows:-

“1. That Council ENDORSES the recommendations of the Flora Terrace Local

Centre Parking and Urban Design Study as shown in Attachment 1. 2. That consideration BE GIVEN in the 2018/2019 budget process for appropriate

funding to implement Option 1 (Short Term Upgrades) of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study.

3. That pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council INITIATES

Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 as shown in Attachment 2. 4. That pursuant to Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council RESOLVES that, in its opinion, Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 is a Standard Amendment.”

Resolution 1 was addressed when Council resolved to initiate Scheme Amendment No.102, which puts in place the framework to facilitate the long term redevelopment of the centre which was recommended in the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. In relation to Resolution 2, funding is not yet in place to implement the Short Term Upgrades recommended in the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. The Engineering Design Business Unit has identified infrastructure upgrades that will provide additional car parking, improve pedestrian movement around the centre, improve traffic circulation and improve the streetscape of the area. Where possible, upgrades will be undertaken where these can be accommodated within existing budgets, until such time as the necessary budget allocations are made. The location of the subject lots, aerial photograph and the surrounding zoning under LPS3 are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 below:-


Item CP1 11

Figure 1 - Location Plan

Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph


Item CP1 12

Figure 3 - Zoning Map

Consultation/Communication Implications

In recent years, the City has consulted extensively with the community around Flora Terrace, in relation to the following:- 1. Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study Prior to the initiation of Scheme Amendment No.102, the City undertook a series of community consultation exercises in 2016 and 2017 as part of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. A Vision Workshop was held on 3 December 2016 which provided the first opportunity for the community to review the consultant’s analysis of the area, and enabled discussion on the key issues and opportunities for the precinct. A Design Workshop was held on 25 February 2017 and reported on options developed from the Vision Workshop. A Community Open Day was held on 29 April 2017 and provided an opportunity for members of the community to view a series of concept plans for the future of the centre. The outcomes of the community consultation contributed to the final options recommended in the Study, one of which was the rezoning of the three lots subject of Scheme Amendment No.102.


Item CP1 13

2. Scheme Amendment No.102 Advertising of Scheme Amendment No.102 was undertaken for a period of 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure. Advertising commenced on 27 February 2018 and concluded on 10 April 2018. An advertisement was placed in local community newspapers on 27 February 2018 and 6 March 2018. Three signs were erected on the road verges abutting each of the lots, and advertisements were also placed on the City’s website and on notice boards in the City’s Administration Centre. In addition to this, the City also held an Information Evening on 22 March 2018 during the advertising period, where the City’s officers were present to provide clarification on Scheme Amendment No.102 to attendees. A total of 469 letters regarding the advertising of Scheme Amendment No.102 were mailed to owners and occupiers of properties within 200m of the site. Additionally, the City wrote to 23 government agencies and public authorities. At the conclusion of the advertising period, 34 submissions were received – six from government agencies and 28 from owners and residents. This represents a response rate of 6% from owners and residents, and a response rate of 7% overall. A summary of the relative location of the submissions received in regards to Scheme Amendment No.102 is outlined in Table 1 below:-

TABLE 1 - SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED - RELATIVE LOCATION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED WITHIN 200M RADIUS OF

PROPOSED SITE

OUTSIDE 200M RADIUS OF

PROPOSED SITE

ALL SUBMISSIONS

SUPPORT 2.94% 2.94% 5.88%

OBJECT 67.65% 0% 67.65%

OTHER (Not stated / No opinion /

Conditional) 8.82% 17.65% 26.47%

Of the 28 submissions received from owners and residents, the City received one submission in support, three submissions providing comments and 23 submissions objecting to the Scheme Amendment, from submitters who live or own property within 200m of the subject lots proposed to be rezoned. One additional submission in support of the Scheme Amendment was received from a submitter residing outside the 200m radius of the subject lots. Of the three lots proposed to be rezoned, the owners of the ‘Residential’ zoned site (House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach) objected to the Scheme Amendment. The owner of the ‘Business’ zoned site (House Number 118, Flora Terrace, North Beach) supported the Scheme Amendment, and the City owns the ‘Civic’ zoned site (House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach).


Item CP1 14

The issues raised during the advertising of Scheme Amendment No.102 were mainly related to building heights, parking and traffic concerns. A summary of the issues raised, and the Officer responses to those comments, is outlined in Attachment 2 to this report. In addition to the above submissions, the City also received two valid petitions - the first petition opposed the Scheme Amendment, and the second petition opposed specifically the rezoning of House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach (North Beach Community Centre) from ‘Civic’ to ‘Local Centre’. A third petition, which was in support of the Scheme Amendment, was also received. However, the petition was considered invalid as it did not contain the details of an individual contact point as required by the City of Stirling’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009. Details of the petition are included in this report for information. First petition

The first petition opposed the rezoning of the following lots:-

House Number 118, Flora Terrace, North Beach from ‘Business’ to ‘Local Centre’; and

House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach from ‘Residential R20’ to ‘Special Use – Local Centre’.

This petition stated:-

“We the undersigned hereby express our objection to the current proposal for the rezoning of North Beach Flora Terrace from Business to Local Centre and Residential to Special Use – Local Centre and Civic to local Centre as presented in its current form in Local Planning Scheme No.3 – Amendment No.102”.

It should be noted that while this petition contained the names of 41 electors, only two of the electors provided their signatures on the petition. As the City’s Petition Information Sheet requires a petition to “contain the names, addresses and signatures of the electors”, the City could only count the two electors who had provided their signatures as part of the petition. Second petition

The second petition opposed only the rezoning of House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach (North Beach Community Centre) from ‘Civic’ to ‘Local Centre’, and stated:-

“We the undersigned oppose the proposed rezoning of Lot 50 – House 20 Castle Street North Beach from “Civic” to “Local Centre” due to the impact on the mainly residential area in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning area, from a safety and noise aspect with the increased traffic flow entering and exiting onto Castle Street and Samuel Way and from the impact of “high rise” buildings on the residential neighbourhood.”

While this petition contained the signatures of 67 signatories, only 57 of these were counted as part of the petition, as some of the signatories do not reside within the City of Stirling. The City’s Petition Information Sheet states that a petition must “be made by electors of the district”.


Item CP1 15

Third petition (invalid petition)

The third petition, which was considered invalid as it did not contain the details of an individual contact point as required by the City of Stirling’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009, contained 40 signatures (with only 18 of these considered valid signatures). This petition supported the Scheme Amendment, and stated:-

“We, the undersigned, as electors of the City of Stirling, wish to advise the Council of the City of Stirling that we acknowledge the efforts of the City to address the car parking and urban design issues facing the Flora Terrace Centre.

We believe that Amendment 102 will support redevelopment of the area and will help to create the right environment to support local businesses and to provide important amenities for the people who live in the area. We ask that Council adopt the amendment as it has been advertised.”

Of the 40 signatures, only 18 were considered verified because some of the signatories did not provide a valid residential address or did not reside within the City of Stirling (which are requirements for a signature to be considered as verified). Despite containing verified signatures, the third petition could not, overall, be treated as a valid petition as the document did not contain the details of an individual contact point as required by the City of Stirling’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009, which states that “a petition must state the name of the person upon whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given”. The email address that was provided with the submission was also incorrect, and a number of contact attempts from both the Mayoral Office and the Governance Business Unit via phone and email to obtain the lead petitioner’s details were unsuccessful. As such, the City is unable to include the third petition as a valid petition. 3. Flora Terrace Feasibility Study The City also conducted extensive consultation as part of the Flora Terrace Feasibility Study, which looked at the feasibility of how the existing North Beach Community Centre site, in conjunction with the adjoining properties, could be redeveloped to provide additional parking. The Study was carried out in consultation with the community through a value capture workshop on 19 May 2018, where the community was provided the opportunity to vote on the preferred redevelopment options for those lots. A community open day was also held on 15 September 2018, where the outcomes of the value capture workshop were presented to the community.

Comment

The submissions received raised various planning concerns, relating mainly to building heights, parking and traffic issues. The submissions also raised concerns relating to noise, safety, privacy, community well-being and the provision of community facilities. Building Heights

Concerns were raised during public advertising of the Scheme Amendment regarding the potential issues that could be caused by new developments in the area and the lack of height restrictions for the proposed developments.


Item CP1 16

Should the subject sites be rezoned to ‘Local Centre’, all developments on those sites will be assessed as per the requirements in the City’s local Planning Policy 4.2 Mixed Use and Commercial Centre Design Guidelines, which states that “new buildings shall generally be between two and three storeys”. Having spoken to those who object to the proposed rezoning because of the height of what may be built, it is clear that some members of the local community have lost trust in the Metropolitan North West Joint Development Assessment Panel to consider the impacts of developments on the community. Parking

Concerns were also raised regarding the potential parking issues that may be caused by rezoning the proposed lots. This Scheme Amendment has its origins in community concerns about the level of new residential development occurring in the centre parking problems. The amount of parking available in the area has partly resulted from the retail area of the centre being developed at a time when parking rates were less than those that would be required today. In order to improve parking in the area, the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study recommended a number of ways to provide additional car parking. Firstly, improvements to how public car parking is provided in the area are being examined, and whether it is possible to provide an additional 10 public car parking spaces in the area. The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit is considering what short term parking improvements can be undertaken within its existing budget allocation. As part of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study the City also considered the introduction of timed parking restrictions throughout the precinct to enable existing car parking to be used in a more efficient manner. Secondly, the only other way to address the historical shortfall in parking is to redevelop the shops and community centre site and provide car parking at contemporary ratios. To this end, as part of the Flora Terrace Feasibility Study the City has used a community engagement process to investigate the feasibility of how the existing community centre site and adjoining retail properties, could be redeveloped. The redevelopment of these sites would provide additional parking. The Feasibility Study was carried out in consultation with the community through a workshop and an open day, where three development options were presented to the community. The community was generally supportive of mid-level (3 Storey) redevelopment on the sites. The additional parking would result primarily from new development providing parking at current rates. This would result in an additional amount of parking. While this work is an informing exercise, the outcomes have supported the proposed rezoning. Traffic

Concerns were also raised regarding the potential traffic issues that may be caused by the proposed rezonings, particularly in regards to the additional traffic movements and congestion.


Item CP1 17

The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit has advised that:-

Officers are not aware of any particular traffic congestion or traffic safety issues in this area.

Latest counts showed that Flora Terrace (north of Malcolm Street) carries 2,127 vehicles per day and as a Local Distributor Road, this is within its capacity (7,000 vehicles per day).

Latest counts for Castle Road (east of Samuel Way) are from 2015 and at the time the road carried 275 vehicles per day, which is within its capacity of 3,000 vehicles per day.

Objections to the rezoning of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach The City received submissions from the owners of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach opposing the rezoning. When the City’s officers recommended rezoning this property, it was on the grounds that doing so would help to facilitate redevelopment of a lot that had frontage to Flora Terrace. However, this rezoning does not have to occur to deliver the outcomes sought by the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. The City’s officers recommend that the rezoning of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach not proceed. Flora Terrace Feasibility Study - Community Open Day The Flora Terrace Feasibility Study Community Open Day was held on 15 September 2018. The purpose of the Open Day was to present to the community the medium and high-yield scenarios and three delivery options for the redevelopment of three lots within the Flora Terrace Local Centre:-

Lot 53, House Number 109, Flora Terrace, North Beach (privately owned land).

Lot 6, House Number 113, Flora Terrace, North Beach (privately owned land).

Lot 50, House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach (Council owned land). The redevelopment plans also showed how additional public parking could be provided on a combined development site if the existing community centre and the adjoining sites were redeveloped. In addition to this, a concept plan showing how additional public parking could be provided in the area in the short term was presented to the community. The Flora Terrace Feasibility Study looked at whether it was possible to provide additional car bays on site, at no cost to the ratepayers, in a way that retained the existing community centre and offices. The Feasibility Study found that an additional 26 car bays on site could be achieved, if the combined development site was redeveloped. The following three delivery options were presented to the community during the Open Day:-

Option 1 (no redevelopment on the subject sites).

Option 2 (which proposed a less intensive development of three storeys).

Option 3 (which proposed a more intensive development of five storeys).


Item CP1 18

Overall, the community was supportive of redevelopment on the subject sites, with Option 2 being the most favoured option (as indicated during the value management process held at the Feasibility Study Workshop on 19 May 2018). The feedback provided by the community at the Flora Terrace Feasibility Study Community Open Day is detailed below:-

A belief that redeveloping the combined development site may worsen car parking in the area, unless there is a significant creation of public parking bays.

The lack of a public piazza providing a link between Apex Park and Flora Terrace is a lost opportunity to develop a unique space for the benefit of the community.

Lack of clear community support for additional building heights in the area, and that building should be limited to three storeys (including basement).

The community was supportive of redevelopment on the subject sites, with comments relating to limiting building heights and provision of adequate car parking made during the consultation exercises. This supports the proposal to rezone the community centre site from ‘Civic’ to ‘Local Centre’. Options The following options are available to Council. Option 1 – Not adopt Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 This option involves retaining the existing zonings of the subject lots. The costs and benefits of this option are outlined below:- Costs

Lost opportunity to change the zoning within the local centre to support its ongoing vibrancy and vitality.

Lost opportunity to change the zoning within the local centre to allow more flexible use of the City’s land assets to support the centre development into the future and provide a longer term option for managing parking in the centre.

Benefits

House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach would retain their current ‘Residential (R20)’ zoning, as requested by the owners of those properties.

This option is not supported as it would not allow opportunities to improve the centre and facilitate development to support the vibrancy and vitality of the centre. Option 2 – Adopt Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 (as advertised) This option involves rezoning the three lots to ‘Local Centre’. The costs and benefits of this option are outlined below:-


Item CP1 19

Costs

Cost to undertake Scheme Amendment process.

Does not address the concerns of the owners of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach.

Benefits

Facilitates the potential redevelopment of the lots within the south-eastern section of the Study area.

Provides longer term potential for additional public and private parking within the local centre.

Facilitates additional land use opportunities within the local centre. This option is not recommended as the City received submissions from the owners of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach objecting to the rezoning of their properties. After further consideration, the City’s officers are of the view that the exclusion of this site from the Scheme Amendment will not have a negative impact on the implementation of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study, or on the redevelopment of the Flora Terrace Local Centre. Option 3 – Adopt Local Planning Scheme No.3 Amendment No.102 in a modified form This option involves rezoning only House Number 118, Flora Terrace, North Beach from ‘Business’ to ‘Local Centre’ and House Number 20, Castle Street, North Beach from ‘Civic’ to ‘Local Centre’. Costs

Cost to undertake Scheme Amendment process.

Lost opportunity to change the zoning of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach from ‘Residential R20’ to ‘Special Use – Local Centre’ to allow more flexible use of the land in conjunction with the adjacent lot.

Benefits

House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach would retain their current ‘Residential (R20)’ zoning, as requested by the owners.

Still allows for some potential redevelopment on the two lots that are rezoned, while reducing impact on the neighbouring properties adjoining House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach.

Facilitate some additional land use opportunities within the Flora Terrace Local Centre.

Provides some longer term potential for additional public and private parking within the local centre.

This option is recommended as it will allow for the implementation of the recommendations of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. The rezoning will support the vibrancy and vitality of the centre by changing the current zoning. Rezoning the land owned by the City will provide more flexible use for the site into the future to support the development of the local centre, the potential redevelopment of the City’s asset and longer term options for public parking.


Item CP1 20

Implementation Implications Should Council resolve to adopt Scheme Amendment No.102, development on the subject sites will be as per the requirements for a Local Centre zone.

Policy and Legislative Implications

Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, together with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, details procedures for amending an existing Town Planning Scheme. Following Council’s resolution on 14 November 2017 to initiate LPS3 Amendment No.102, advertising commenced on 27 February 2018 and was carried out in accordance with the above requirements. Advertising concluded on 10 April 2018. As Scheme Amendment No.102 has been advertised for public comment, and submissions received, Clause 50(2) and (3) of Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 apply, which state:-

(2) The local government –

(a) must consider all submissions in relation to a standard amendment to a local planning scheme lodged with the local government within the submission period; and

(b) may, at the discretion of the local government, consider submissions in relation to the amendment lodged after the end of the submission period but before the end of the consideration period.

(3) Before the end of the consideration period for a standard amendment to a local

planning scheme, or a later date approved by the Commission, the local government must pass a resolution -

(a) to support the amendment without modification; or (b) to support the amendment with proposed modifications to address issues

raised in the submissions; or (c) not to support the amendment.

Clause 50(1) of Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 requires the local government to consider all submissions received in relation to a Standard Scheme Amendment within 60 days of the end of the submission period. The submission period for Scheme Amendment No.102 closed on 10 April 2018. However, due to the issues that were raised in the submissions received during the advertising period, the City’s officers considered it necessary to hold off presenting the outcomes of advertising report to Council until the Flora Terrace Feasibility Study workshop and Open Day had been held. The Flora Terrace Feasibility Study workshop was held on 19 May 2018, and the Open Day was held on 15 September 2018. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 require a local government to forward the Scheme Amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) within 21 days of passing a resolution on a Scheme Amendment.


Item CP1 21

Financial Implications

All costs associated with the processing of Scheme Amendment No.102 are being met by the City. The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit has advised that the provision of short term public parking improvements recommended in the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study may be undertaken using existing budgets. However the reconfiguration of parking along Flora Terrace, including the provision of new and wider footpaths will be subject to Council funding, which will be sought in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Strategic Implications

Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods Objective 1.1: A Strong Sense of Place

Sustainability Implications

The following tables outline the applicable sustainability issues for this proposal:-

ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Energy consumption The rezoning identified in the Scheme Amendment will allow for long-term redevelopment in the Flora Terrace Local Centre, which in turn will improve the vibrancy and vitality of the local centre, and will provide local shops and services, reducing the need for local residents to travel.


Item CP1 22

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community services The rezoning of the land on which the City’s existing community centre is located may allow for the joint redevelopment of the community centre in conjunction with adjoining private lots in the long-term. This could ultimately facilitate a new community centre on the site as part of a mixed use development.

Amenity The rezoning of the ‘Civic’ zoned site could, in the long-term, potentially facilitate the provision of a new community centre, public square and arcade link to Apex Park, all of which would provide a significant contribution to the amenity of the Flora Terrace Local Centre. Concerns were also raised during the public advertising of the Scheme Amendment that the redevelopment of the subject sites could potentially negatively affect the amenity of the area.

Transport and access The rezoning of these sites could, in the long-term, potentially contribute to the significant improvement in the traffic and access arrangements within the local centre.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Job creation The proposed rezonings will expand the boundaries of the Flora Terrace Local Centre, creating additional local employment opportunities.

Conclusion

Scheme Amendment No.102, as advertised, proposed to rezone three lots in the Flora Terrace Local Centre from various zonings to ‘Local Centre’ in order to implement the recommendations of the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. The Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure, and the City’s officers’ responses to those submissions are detailed in this report. When the City’s officers recommended the rezoning of House Numbers 21 and 21A, Malcolm Street, North Beach it was on the grounds that doing so would help to facilitate redevelopment of a lot that had frontage to Flora Terrace. However, this rezoning does not have to occur to deliver the outcomes sought by the Flora Terrace Local Centre Parking and Urban Design Study. The recommended modified Scheme Amendment No.102 will still assist in supporting the vitality of the Flora Terrace Local Centre. It is recommended that Scheme Amendment No.102 be adopted in a modified form (as shown in Attachment 1) and forwarded to the WAPC and the Minister for Planning for determination.


Item CP1 - Attachment 1 - Local Planning Scheme No.3 - Scheme Amendment No.102 Documentation (for adoption) 23


Item CP1 - Attachment 2 - Schedule of Submissions 26


Item DS1 43

Councillor Suzanne Migdale disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item DS1 as the agent of the owner is an acquaintance.

DS1 LOT 901, HOUSE NUMBER 40, HUTTON STREET, OSBORNE PARK - RECREATION PRIVATE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

Report Information

Location: Lot 901, House Number 40, Hutton Street, Osborne Park

Applicant: Vespoli Construction

DA Reference: DA18/0516

Reporting Officer: Manager Development Services

Business Unit: Development Services

Ward: Osbourne

Suburb: Osborne Park


Definition



☐ Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. It is also when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.

☒ Quasi-Judicial when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.




Item DS1 44

Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Irwin

That pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the application for Recreation Private at Lot 901, House Number 40, Hutton Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-

a. The development is to comply in all respects with the attached approved plans, as dated, marked and stamped, together with any requirements and annotations detailed thereon by the City. The plans approved as part of this application form part of the planning approval issued;

b. The premises is to be limited to a maximum capacity of 175 people on site (150 patrons and 25 staff members) at any one time, to the satisfaction of the City;

c. Prior to the commencement of the approved use, 72 car parking bays and related access ways as shown on the approved plans shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS2890.1:2004;

d. Prior to occupancy or use of the development, all off street parking to be available onsite during business hours for all customers and staff;

e. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways;

f. Directional signage shall be located at the entry to the site directing patrons to access car parking at the rear or side of the site prior to the commencement of the development;

g. Prior to the occupation of the development, a minimum of 16 bicycle bays are to be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City. All bicycle parking facilities are to comply with Australian Standard AS2890.3:2015;

h. All required verge works and reinstatements shall be in accordance with the City’s standards and specifications, and completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the occupation of the development;

i. Prior to the occupation or use of the development, any redundant crossover/s shall be removed and the kerbing and road verge reinstated at the owners cost in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access;

j. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas shall be constructed of brick paving, drained and maintained in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access prior to the occupation of the development. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative finish to the satisfaction of the City;

k. New semi-mountable kerb type 2 and a minimum 1.8m wide concrete path are to be installed along the road frontage of the development in accordance with the City’s Specification Crossovers to the satisfaction of the City;

l. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any other property or road reserve;


Item DS1 45

m. No walls, letterboxes, fences or other structures above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 1.5m of where:- i. vehicular access points adjoin the site; or

ii. driveway meets a public street; or

iii. two streets intersect; or

iv. driveway meets a right of way; or

unless further approval of Council is obtained;

n. Boundary wall/s shall not exceed the height shown on the approved plans. Prior to occupation, the external finish of the boundary wall/s shall be finished externally to the same standard as the rest of the development, to the satisfaction of the City;

o. All signage is to be in strict accordance with the City's Local Planning Policy 6.1 - Advertising Signs, unless further development approval is obtained from the City;

p. External lighting shall be positioned so as not to adversely affect the amenity of the locality in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZ 4282-1997;

q. A Site Management Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to commencement of works. The Site Management Plan shall address dust, noise, waste management, storage of materials, traffic and site safety/security. The Site Management Plan is to be complied with for the duration of the construction of the development;

r. All landscaped areas are to be planted, reticulated and mulched in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the development and maintained in accordance with the City's Local Planning Policy 6.6 – Landscaping; and

s. Prior to occupation of the development, 13 advanced trees must be planted on site in the area indicated on the approved plan and be thereafter maintained. The tree/s must be provided with a minimum 9m2 of soil space and a minimum dimension of 2m at ground level free of intrusions.

The motion was put and declared LOST (3/4). For: Councillors Guilfoyle, Irwin and Proud. Against: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Italiano and Lagan.

During the debate, Councillor David Lagan foreshadowed the following motion. Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Ferrante

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL

1. That pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the application for Recreation Private at Lot 901, House Number 40, Hutton Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-


Item DS1 46







g. Prior to the occupation of the development, a minimum of eight bicycle bays are to be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City. All bicycle parking facilities are to comply with Australian Standard AS2890.3:2015;







Item DS1 47

m. No walls, letterboxes, fences or other structures above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 1.5m of where:-

i. vehicular access points adjoin the site; or











2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, a cash-in-lieu contribution for 52 car parking bays be waived for this application (DA18/0475).

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil.


Item DS1 48

Recommendation

1. That pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the application for Recreation Private at Lot 901, House Number 40, Hutton Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-







g. Prior to the occupation of the development, a minimum of eight bicycle bays are to be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City. All bicycle parking facilities are to comply with Australian Standard AS2890.3:2015;






Item DS1 49


m. No walls, letterboxes, fences or other structures above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 1.5m of where:-

i. vehicular access points adjoin the site; or











2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, a cash-in-lieu contribution for 52 car parking bays be waived for this application (DA18/0475).

Report Purpose

To consider a development application for a Recreation Private land use and associated works at Lot 901, House Number 40, Hutton Street, Osborne Park. The application requires the consideration of Council as it includes an onsite car parking shortfall of 52 bays.


Item DS1 50

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Plans

Attachment 2 - Policy Implications and Assessment

Attachment 3 - Applicant Justification and Transport Impact Statement

Attachment 4 - Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Planning Control Area 110 Determination

Attachment 5 - Photographs of site and surrounding area


Nil

Description of Development

Site Area: 3,632m2

Nearest Cross Street: Hector Street West

Location Plan


Item DS1 51

Aerial Photograph

Principal Statutory Provisions

Use Table

Zoning

MRS Industrial

LPS3 Industry

Use

Class Recreation – Private

Type A – Not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with Clause 9.4.

Development Standards Please refer to Attachment 2 for the applicable Development Standards.


Item DS1 52

Background

The subject site is zoned ‘Industrial’ under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS) and ‘Industry’ under the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3).The subject site abuts Hutton Street to the north and Hector Street West to the east. The site is affected by the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC’s) Planning Control Area 110, which includes a requirement for road widening. The subject site historically has comprised of six single industrial warehouse units, which were approved circa 1966. Planning Approval for the refurbishment of the six industrial units and associated parking was issued 23 March 2017 (DA16/2614 refers); as well as an amended proposal issued by the City of Stirling on 2 November 2017(DA17/0996 refers). The six warehouses have since been demolished and the site is now vacant. The subject application proposes a new recreation centre to house an Indoor Trampoline Centre. The proposed building comprises a ground floor, two separate mezzanine levels and an undercroft area plus car parking, lobby and services. The Indoor Trampoline Centre consists of interconnected trampolines with cushion airbags to land on and padding for protection, providing recreation and exercise for adults and children. The facility has been designed to accommodate a maximum of 150 participants plus 25 staff, and will operate Monday to Friday, 10.00am - 9.00pm, and Saturday and Sunday, 9.00am - 9.00pm. The site is subject to Planning Control Area 110 and Road Widening under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (Figure 1 refers). The purpose of the Planning Control Area is to allow for a wider regional road reservation to upgrade Hutton Street in response to an expected increase of road traffic demand within the Osborne Park / Herdsman / Glendalough area. The Planning Control Area ensures that no development occurs on this land which might prejudice this purpose until it may be reserved for regional roads in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. As part of this application, the WAPC has provided approval for the use of the Planning Control Area for parking (Attachment 4 refers). The application proposes 72 car parking bays to be provided on site; the proposed development results in a parking shortfall of 52 bays. The parking variation is therefore required to be considered by Council. The parking requirements are provided within Attachment 2 of this report.


Item DS1 53

Figure 1 – Metropolitan Regional Scheme Road Widening (blue) and PCA 110 (yellow)

Assessment

An assessment of the proposal which requires Council to exercise discretion is contained within Attachment 2.


The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure. No submissions were received by the conclusion of advertising.

Applicant’s Justification

Please refer to Attachment 3.

Comment

The relevant matters to be considered by Council when determining this development application are:-

Vehicle Parking;

Landscaping; and

Sewerage Disposal System.


Item DS1 54

Vehicle Parking The application proposes 72 car parking bays in lieu of the required 124 car parking bays, resulting in a shortfall of 52 car parking bays. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage provided external referral comments pertaining to the proposed 32 car bays within the Planning Control Area 110. The Department approved the proposed bays within the Planning Control Area (Attachment 4 refers). Variations to the parking requirements under Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access are required to be considered against the objectives of the policy. Specifically, the proposed development is to be assessed in accordance with the following objectives:-

To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities;

To ensure safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists;

To ensure that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur;

To ensure that car parking does not have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of an area; and

To ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative forms of transport and is detrimental to urban design and Centre character.

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Parking Policy as follows:-

To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities; The previous industrial units have been in operation since the late 1960s. The most recent development application (DA17/0996 refers) approved 36 parking bays on site. Based on the Sports Hall car parking ratio in accordance within Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access, the proposed development requires a total of 138 bays to be provided on site. Following applicable concessions, a total of 124 bays are required to be provided on site. The proposed development therefore results in an overall parking shortfall of 52 bays. The Applicant’s Transport Impact Statement (Attachment 3 refers), provides an analysis of how the Indoor Trampoline Centre will operate, including the number of patrons and vehicles visiting the site, by analysing the data from an Indoor Trampoline Centre already in operation in Cannington. The data was collected over a two week period between 23 July 2018 and 5 August 2018. The data captured a total of 6,665 patrons, of whom 45% booked online, with 30% taken as phone bookings and 25% taken as walk-ins. The data also illustrated that 95% of patrons visited for one hour or less, with approximately 5% of patrons staying between one hour and two hours, and less than 1% staying between two and three hours. The patron data was then cross-analysed with bookings generated to demonstrate that for the 6,665 patrons there was a total of 2,041 bookings. Almost 90% of these bookings arrived in groups, with only 10.35% (690 patrons) attending as single visitors.


Item DS1 55

In addition to this, the Cannington Indoor Trampoline Centre website also states that bookings are strongly recommended at weekends and during holiday periods as availability can sell out quickly and walk-ins will be turned away if capacity is reached. Based on the two week sales data, specifically the number of patrons and total number of bookings, approximately 3.26 people would require one parking bay.

Demand for Parking Bays: 150 patrons / 3.26 = 46 bays + 25 staff bays = 71 bays. Based on the above demand calculation, if the Indoor Trampoline Centre is 100% occupied (with 150 patrons and 25 staff), the anticipated total parking demand is calculated at 71 car parking bays, depending on the travel mode of patrons. The information provided indicates that 72 parking bays on site is sufficient parking for the operational needs of the site.

To ensure safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists;

The application proposes 72 car parking bays and new access ways on site, which have been reviewed and supported by the City’s Engineering officers. Additionally, the proposal includes the provision of eight bicycle bays thereby ensuring safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

To ensure that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur; The peak operation period has been identified as midday Saturday, with mid-week being forecast at 50% capacity from 5.00pm - 8.00pm with all other times being significantly lower. The applicant’s justification identifies that a maximum of 25 persons will be employed to work on site. The proposed parking facilities are deemed adequate in meeting the parking demand for the proposed use. The City’s Community Safety Business Unit identified that no parking infringements have been issued in the immediate location in the last 12 months and confirmed there are no on-street parking bays available in the vicinity of the subject site. However, concerns were raised regarding the potential future impact the parking shortfall will have on the locality should the proposal not operate as set out in the applicant’s Transport Impact Statement. Officers are satisfied that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur, as the City’s Engineering officers support the applicant’s Transport Impact Statement (Attachment 3 refers) and there are no current parking issues in the immediate locality of the subject site as confirmed by the City’s Community Safety Business Unit.

To ensure that car parking does not have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of an area;

The provision of both external and proposed undercroft car parking ensures that parking areas will not dominate the use of the site. 40 of the 72 bays shall be provided as undercroft parking. The street frontages of the site will be landscaped to soften the visual impact of the external car parking and access ways on the streetscape, and the existing extensive informal crossover arrangements shall be formalised via the installation of two crossovers (one from Hutton Street and one from Hector Street West) and kerbing. Overall, the development shall enhance the character and amenity of the area.


Item DS1 56

Accordingly, the City’s officers are satisfied that shortfall of car parking bays will not have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area.

To ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative forms of transport and is detrimental to urban design and Centre character.

The proposed parking arrangements shall achieve a suitable balance whereby the anticipated demands of the facility, based on modelling of an existing Indoor Trampoline Centre, are satisfied and alternative forms of transport are encouraged (including cycling via the provision of end of journey facilities). Strictly applying the Sports Hall car parking ratio of one bay per 20m² Gross Floor Area would require an excessive number of car bays relative to the needs of the facility, and hence would be inconsistent with the overarching objectives of Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access. Cash-in-Lieu Clause 5.8 of LPS3 outlines that cash-in-lieu of parking can be considered where non-residential developments are unable to meet the Scheme’s parking requirement. It is considered appropriate that the cash-in-lieu requirement be waived, in this instance, on the basis that the proposal is unlikely to result in a major parking problem for the locality. Landscaping The proposed development has been assessed against the City’s Local Planning Policy 6.6 - Landscaping. The application proposes a variation to the required 10% landscaping for the site in accordance with Local Planning Policy 6.6 - Landscaping. 307m² is proposed in lieu of the required 363.2m² landscaped area. Landscaping proposed within the verge area is not included in this calculation, as it is outside of the subject site. Variations to the development standards contained within the Landscaping Policy are required to be considered against the policy objectives, as follows:-

a) To promote improved landscaping provision and design;

b) To improve the visual appeal of development, screen service areas and provide a buffer to boundaries;

c) To provide shade and ‘green relief’ in built up areas; and

d) To promote more environmentally sustainable landscaping. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Landscaping Policy as follows:-

a) To promote improved landscaping provision and design; The proposed landscaping is located within the front setback to both street frontages of the site providing an attractive setting as viewed from the streetscape. Local Planning Policy 6.11 – Trees and Development, requires eight advanced trees throughout the site. The development proposes 13 advanced trees along the street frontages, with additional hedging and low planting. The proposed species have been verified by the City’s Landscape Architect and will create varying heights and interest through the proposed design.


Item DS1 57

b) To improve the visual appeal of development, screen service areas and provide a buffer to boundaries;

The existing site provided no landscaped areas, resulting in the proposed 307m² of landscaping representing a significant improvement in the visual appeal of the site. Additionally the landscaping acts as a buffer between the car parking, boundaries and streetscape.

c) To provide shade and ‘green relief’ in built up areas; and The proposed landscaping provides shade for the car park as well as the adjacent footpath, providing an attractive setting as viewed from both street frontages. The proposed verge treatment, while not included in the on-site landscaping calculation, provides additional green relief for the site and surrounding area.

d) To promote more environmentally sustainable landscaping. The species selected are drought resistant, and the landscaping includes a self-watering reticulation system which will reduce the water consumption on site. Sewerage Disposal System The subject site is not connected to mains sewerage and therefore the proposal is required to provide an onsite sewerage disposal system. As part of the assessment, comments from the City’s Environmental Health Business Unit were sought. Concerns were raised in regards to the size and capacity of the proposed disposal system, as no standard approved system is available for the volume of effluent that would be generated by the development. The City’s concerns were raised with the applicant who liaised directly with the Department of Health as the determining authority. Amended plans were submitted proposing a larger unit in an amended location. The City’s Environmental Health Business Unit confirmed that in accordance with the Draft Government Sewerage Policy 2016, due to the proposed disposal system generating a volume greater than 450 litres per day, the final approval will need to be approved by the Department of Health through an ‘Application to Construct or Install an Apparatus for the Treatment of Sewage’. Additionally it was noted that the size of the system may affect the maximum accommodation of patrons permitted within the premises.


Should Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant may have the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Please refer to Attachment 2 for all Policy and Legislative matters relevant to the application.


Nil.


Item DS1 58


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods

Objective 1.6: Active and Vibrant City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Transport and access

The proposal will increase vehicle and bicycle parking available on site. This ensures the development does not result in a parking problem and encourages alternate uses of transportation.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Job creation

The proposal will create both long and short term jobs throughout the construction and operation of the development.

Conclusion

The proposed Recreation Private land use and associated works meets the objectives of LPS3 and the applicable Local Planning Policies. Whilst the proposal results in a parking shortfall when measured against the parking standards of LPS3 (Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access), the applicant has demonstrated that sufficient parking can be provided to meet the demand generated by the activity. Approval of the development will result in a high standard of development being provided on site, which will have a positive impact on the amenity of the locality. The proposed development is therefore supported, subject to compliance with the relevant conditions, and it is recommended that the 52 car parking bay short fall be supported.


59

Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Ferrante That Item DS2 - Establishment of a Design Review Panel - Member Appointment be DEFERRED for consideration under Item 9 - Matters Behind Closed Doors in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(b) and (e)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-

(b) the personal affairs of any person; and (e)(iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil. The report can be found on page 92 of these minutes.


Item CP2 60

Councillor Adam Spagnolo left the meeting at 7.00pm during consideration of Item CP2.

CP2 LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 6.7 PARKING AND ACCESS - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Manager City Planning

Business Unit: City Planning

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: Not Applicable


Definition



☒ Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. It is also when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.




Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Ferrante


1. That in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council AMENDS ‘Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access’ (for the purpose of public advertising), as shown in Attachment 1.

2. That Council NOTES that a further report will be presented that will investigate options for providing additional on-street parking in selected Local Centres.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0).

For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil.


Item CP2 61

Recommendation

1. That in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council AMENDS ‘Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access’ (for the purpose of public advertising), as shown in Attachment 1.

2. That Council NOTES that a further report will be presented that will investigate options for providing additional on-street parking in selected Local Centres.

Report Purpose

To consider amending (for the purpose of public advertising) Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Local Planning Policy 6.7 Parking and Access - For Council Adoption ⇩


Nil Background The City’s requirements for parking associated with development are contained in Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access, which came into effect when Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) was gazetted in August 2010. No comprehensive review of the requirements of Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access have been undertaken since this time, and for this reason, the City’s officers have undertaken a review of the policy requirements, with a particular emphasis on ensuring that an appropriate amount of car parking is provided in the City’s Local Centres. As a result, modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access are recommended, for which Council approval to advertise is sought. The importance of Local Centres in Place Activation In recent times, increased emphasis has been given to ‘place activation’, which is an action contained in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 15-16 to 18-19. Local Planning Policies can impact on the success of Local Centres, and the role they play in creating places where people want to go to and meet. Local Planning Polices can enable (or stifle) the success of the centre, and efforts at place activation. The City’s parking requirements have been identified as one area where planning policy can support and enable place activation, and by matching parking requirements to parking demand (one of the key changes to the Parking and Access Policy), place activation can be promoted and supported. The review of the Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access strikes a balance between encouraging and supporting place activation and ensuring adequate car parking is provided which does not impact on surrounding areas.


Item CP2 62

The City’s current approach to parking for centres is to provide standard rates for different land uses. This approach has a number of issues. Many of the City’s Local Centres are located in established suburban locations, and were developed at a time when car ownership was significantly less than it is today. As a consequence, these centres may have limited amounts of car parking, and there is limited opportunity to provide additional car parking. Requiring these centres to meet current parking requirements can impede their ability to meet the objectives of the zone, and achieve their intended purpose, as it can be difficult for development to be approved or to proceed, because of the amount of parking that is required or available. It is not feasible to continue to provide additional parking around all of the City’s Local Centres; neither is this a sustainable solution in the long term. A popular and thriving Local Centre will attract visitors, some of whom may use cars to get to the centre, which may result in perceived parking problems. Conversely, many of the City’s Local Centres have underutilised car parking areas, due to vacant tenancies or lack of trading activity. A key intent of the review of the Parking and Access Policy is to put in place a framework that allows for investment in poorly performing centres to be able to happen easily, where possible without the need for development approval (because of parking requirements). Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access applies to all development in the City. Draft Local Planning Strategy The draft Local Planning Strategy (adopted by Council at its meeting held 18 September 2018) outlines the need to achieve a sustainable transport system in the City over the next 50 years. The City’s vision includes limiting car dependency by locating people in Centres and along Corridors, and by having an improved public transport system. In order to achieve this transformation the City will need to manage the amount of car parking to ensure that it matches the road capacity and support alternative transport infrastructure. This will deliver a sustainable transport system that enables the community to efficiently and effectively move around the network. The proposed modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access will assist the City in achieving its vision by moving towards a more sustainable transport network. The Local Planning Strategy establishes a centre hierarchy; proposing that the existing ‘Local Centre’ classification be split to also include a ‘Neighbourhood Centre’, reflecting the different roles of existing centres. The recommended changes to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access reflect this approach.

Comment

The purpose of reviewing Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access was to understand car parking provision and utilisation in the City’s Local Centres, and to do this, a number of surveys were undertaken in 2014 and 2016 to determine car parking utilisation in the City’s centres. Key findings of those surveys were that:-


Item CP2 63

A one size fits all range of car parking rates for different uses (e.g. retail or office) would result in over supply in some areas and potentially, under supply in others;

Providing different car parking rates for 30 or 40 different land uses in centres, particularly mixed use centres, is overly complex;

The rate of car parking for land uses such as retail and commercial varies considerably and does not provide an accurate estimate of parking needs in different locations;

The minimum level of car parking required in the town planning scheme is generally (but not always) too high;

The amount of cash-in-lieu of parking is often too high (and considered unreasonable) because it is based on minimum levels of parking that are themselves too high;

There is significant variation between the rate of parking demand for Local Centres, as some centres trade more successfully than others;

People stay a much shorter time at small centres and therefore the amount of parking required for this type of centre can be reduced; and

Centres trading poorly could be permitted to expand with lower levels of parking and centres trading well may need additional parking.

A further parking survey was completed in early 2018, which allowed the City’s officers to review these key findings and eliminate gaps in the survey data already obtained. The survey included centres where the City receives complaints about car parking. Recommended Modifications As a result of the review, modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access are recommended as shown in Attachment 1, with the main changes detailed below:-

Introducing of new standards for parking in ‘Local Centres’ (based on utilisation surveys);

Including a clause allowing on street parking to be included in parking assessment for land uses located in Local Centres;

Amending the Alfresco parking requirement so that an alfresco area up to 29m2 is excluded from parking requirement calculations;

Amending the requirements for ‘Educational Establishment’ to include staff car parking to bring ratios in line with the Western Australian Local Government Association Guidelines 2015;

Amending the requirements for ‘Hospital’ to include staff car parking;

Amending the requirements for ‘Place of Worship’ to reflect recent State Administrative Tribunal ruling;

Amending the ‘Recreation Private’ parking requirement by introducing sub categories of ‘Gymnasium’ and ‘Class Studio’;

Including a parking ratio for ‘Small Bars’ and grouping ‘Small Bar’ with similar land uses; and

Providing quantifiable criteria for assessing development that relies on reciprocal car parking arrangements.

A number of administrative changes are also recommended to provide clarity and to simplify the policy requirements.


Item CP2 64

These changes are explained below.

Simplified parking requirements within ‘Local Centres’

Following a review of parking provision and utilisation rates in the City’s Local Centres, it is recommended to include a new Table in Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access to prescribe new ratios based on parking need. These rates are shown in Figure 1 below. The recommended parking requirements reflect the peak period car parking demand for uses within that local centre. Basing parking requirements on the parking utilisation and availability for a centre will provide more effective and responsive parking ratios. The recommended modifications are considered an innovative approach to car parking requirements. To ensure that requirements remain appropriate, an annual ‘rolling review’ of car parking utilisation of the City’s Local Centres will be undertaken. This yearly review will also include centres where the City has received complaints about parking issues. The need to ensure parking demand is met must also be balanced against the need to ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur. The majority of the ratios recommended do not significantly reduce the number of bays required. Peak parking periods are catered for as the ratios are based on peak period utilisation of existing parking. The recommended modifications do not increase requirements for Local Centres with high utilisation, and in these centres, a base parking requirement slightly higher than that of a ‘shop’ use will apply to all tenancies – irrespective of actual use. Retaining the existing car parking ratios within the City’s Local Centres will result in a missed opportunity to streamline the planning process through removing the need for development approval (as a result of parking requirements). The parking surveys identify that Local Centres in the City have variable utilisation rates and therefore, have different car parking requirements. A popular and thriving centre with busy, well utilised car parking areas may mean it is difficult to find a parking spot, but it is simply not feasible to expand car parking areas to cater for peak parking demand. Most of the City’s centres simply have no area available to provide additional car parking. Additionally, Council has been reluctant to impose conditions of development approval requiring cash-in-lieu of parking where on site car parking requirements were not met. For these reasons, proposed Local Centre parking ratios have been developed that reflect specific Local Centre conditions and trading performance. These are set out in Figure 1. As there is no way to predict how successful a centre may be, these ratios will be able to be changed by modifying Table 1 in the Policy, should subsequent survey results show this is necessary. Should a centre that was trading poorly become successful, this might result in a development approval being required in the future because parking ratios have changed. If this happens, Council will need to exercise its discretion in approving development at that centre.

Use of on street areas to satisfy parking requirements in Centres

The current parking policy framework requires development to provide all car parking on site, as the use of parking bays around the centre, or being able to park on the road, does not count towards meeting the parking policy requirements.


Item CP2 65

As many centres were developed when car use was much lower than it is today, there is limited ability to extend existing car parking areas. The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit has advised there is nothing to prevent someone parking on the road outside a centre when using the centre, as long as there are no parking restrictions in place. Consequently, it is recommended that development in Local, Neighbourhood and District Centres be able to include adjacent on street parking in car parking requirements. This will bring Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access in line with a number of Local Development Plans adopted by Council, where on street parking is allowed to count towards parking requirements for a development.

Figure 1: Proposed Local Centre Car Parking Ratios


Item CP2 66

Alfresco area requirements

The role that alfresco areas play in creating places where people want to meet is recognised, and alfresco uses are a feature of successful, vibrant local centres. Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access requires one parking bay to be provided per 14m2 of alfresco area. This requirement is considered to be a deterrent to creating places where people want to be, and overly restrictive.

For this reason, it is recommended that Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access be amended so that alfresco areas in Local and Neighbourhood Centres do not need to provide car parking for alfresco areas.

Additionally, in the rest of the City, it is recommended that alfresco areas with an area less than 30m2 are not required to provide additional parking (unless addressed separately by a Local Development Plan or Local Planning Policy).

At a Councillor Workshop held to present the draft policy (discussed further in this report), there appears to be appetite amongst those present to remove car parking requirements for alfresco areas. The City’s officers acknowledge that this is a policy position that Council may wish to take – however the City’s officers are concerned that there may be parking consequences if this were to occur. Should this occur, the City’s Community Safety Business Unit would need to deal with any complaints received.

Education Establishment Requirements

In reviewing Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access, the City’s Community Safety Business Unit advised that many of the City’s schools experience car parking issues, and that the City’s parking requirements contribute to these issues. Although consistent with many other local governments, the City’s car parking ratio for ‘Education Establishments’ is significantly lower than the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) Guidelines 2015 recommend. The differences are shown in the table below:

City of Stirling WALGA

Pre-primary 1 bay per staff member 14 bays per 100 students (or 3.5 bays per 25 students)

Primary 1.25 bays per 25 students

Secondary 3 bays per 25 students 7 bays per 100 students (or 1.75 bays per 25 students)

Tertiary / Technical 1.25 bays per classroom, plus one bay per 3.5 students

It is recommended that car parking requirements for Primary Schools be increased to reflect the WALGA Guidelines, which acknowledge that younger children are more likely to be driven to and from school. The WALGA ratios are recommended in conjunction with the City’s existing staff car parking being required at a rate of one bay per staff member for all ‘Educational Establishments’.

However, in recommending these changes, the City’s officers acknowledge that responsibility for issuing development approval for development on most of the City’s school sites lies with the State Government, as the City is only responsible for determining private school development applications.

Additionally, as the management of traffic parking, particularly through the use of ‘Kiss and Ride’ facilities can better alleviate parking and traffic management issues, it is recommended that a provision be included that requires new educational developments to provide a ‘Kiss and Ride’ facility to the satisfaction of the City.


Item CP2 67

Hospital Car Parking Requirements

The current car parking ratio for the ‘Hospital’ land use is one bay per bed. Comments received from the Community Safety Business Unit are that this ratio was inadequate for a recent hospital approved in Mount Lawley. A review of other local governments’ planning schemes has revealed that the City’s car parking requirements for Hospitals is significantly lower in comparison. In light of this review, it is recommended that the car parking requirements for Hospitals be increased to require one bay per three beds and one bay per staff member.

Place of Worship

The State Administrative Tribunal recently considered an application against the refusal of the City to issue development approval for a Place of Worship in the City. The main consideration in that application related to on-site car parking requirements. Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access requires car parking for a Place of Worship to be provided at the rate of one bay per 4m2 of public floorspace, and one bay per staff member. The City’s car parking ratio has been reviewed in light of the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. The City’s officers recommend that the City’s ratio be amended to require one bay per four seats, and one bay per staff member, which reflect the ratios commonly used by other local governments.

Recreation Private Uses

Local Planning Scheme No.3 defines ‘Recreation Private’ as a ‘premise used for indoor or outdoor leisure, recreation or sport which are not usually open to the public without charge’. This land use definition covers a range of recreational activities, and Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access provides seven different distinct ‘Recreation Private’ uses, with their own parking standards. Development proposals for this type of activity usually require determination by Council, as they invariably involve a car parking shortfall due to car parking requirements. One of the uses, the one that most commonly required the approval of Council due to a parking shortfall was ‘Health Studio’. This use typically falls into two categories – gymnasiums and classes (for example Pilates or Yoga). The review found that the parking requirements for these categories varied, with ‘classes’ having a much higher car parking requirement than ‘gymnasiums’ (particularly the type that operate 24 hours a day). A number of premises with approved ‘gymnasiums’ were visited, with no parking problems evident at the sites, despite a technical parking shortfall. The existing parking requirements are recommended to be changed by reducing the requirements for ‘gymnasiums’, and introducing a new requirement for ‘Exercise Class’ of one bay per four persons accommodated.

Small Bar

Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access does contain a parking requirement for a ‘Small Bar’ land use. For this reason, the Parking and Access policy requires development applications for this use to be referred to Council, so that Council can determine the appropriate ratio.


Item CP2 68

It is recommended that Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access be modified to include a parking ratio for a ‘Small Bar’, and that this use be grouped with similar land uses (including Restaurant, Reception Centre and Fast Food Outlet). The reason for this is that ‘Small Bars’ share similar characteristics to a ‘Restaurant’, and many of the development applications that the City receives for ‘Small Bars’ are associated with a ‘Restaurant’ use. Because of these characteristics, a consistent parking ratio will simplify and streamline the development application process. It is further recommended that a parking ratio of 1 bay per 10m2 of public floorspace apply to all of these uses (instead of 1 bay per 7m2 gross floor area). This ratio will also simplify and streamline the development application process. The recommended requirement only applies to ‘Small Bars’ outside Local Centres. All development within the Local Centres identified in Figure 1 are subject to parking ratios contained in Figure 1.

Provide measurable criteria to aid in assessing proposals that propose reciprocal car parking

The reciprocal parking provisions of Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access do not contain quantifiable criteria for assessing proposals that rely on reciprocal parking arrangements. For this reason, and to aid assessment, it is recommended that the following quantifiable criteria be included into the policy:-

Up to 90% of the parking requirements can be reciprocal where the operating times of existing and proposed uses do not overlap by more than 30 minutes.

If more than 50% of the parking requirement is provided by reciprocal parking, not more than 50% of the operating times of both uses can overlap.

These criteria have been chosen as a 30 minute transitional period between the two uses allows user groups sufficient time to leave and enter the parking area without causing parking issues. The limitation on 50% of operating times being able to overlap is based on the assumption that all users will not attend a use at the beginning or end of an operating time period; rather, the user rates will be spread over the entire operating times. The proposed criteria outlined above are similar to some local governments in the Perth Metropolitan Region.

Additional Modifications

Further administrative amendments of a minor nature are recommended which are detailed in Attachment 1. These amendments update Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access to ensure it remains in line with State policies and strategies. Cash in Lieu of car parking No changes to how the cash-in-lieu requirements of Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access are proposed. Where, in the City’s officer’s opinion, a development proposes a car parking shortfall, and cash-in-lieu of providing the parking is considered appropriate, the development application will be referred to Council for determination.


Item CP2 69

Centres with existing car parking issues The City’s Community Safety Business Unit has advised that the following are Local Centres where complaints are regularly received that there is insufficient car parking available, which is causing impacts for the surrounding areas:-

Brighton Road and Calais;

Brighton and Gildercliffe;

Calais and Ewen;

The corner of Walcott and Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley; and

The Inglewood area in the immediate vicinity of Sixth Avenue; also Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Avenues.

For this reason, it is recommended that the City reviews opportunities around these centres to determine if there are any opportunities to provide additional parking, and the form which that parking may take. Undertaking this work will require a budget allocation to be provided in the 2019/2020 financial year. Councillor Parking Workshop On 3 September 2018 a Councillor Workshop was held to discuss the proposed modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access, and address any issues. During that workshop, the following suggestions and questions were raised:- Existing buildings (character) do not attract additional parking unless the addition is in excess of 100m2 The City’s officers recognise the difficulties that can arise in providing car parking for developments in character buildings in the City’s Heritage Protection Area. The majority of the existing character buildings are located along Beaufort Street, which, through the Local Development Plan for the area, has reduced car parking requirements due to a number of factors, including the inability to provide additional on-site car parking in these areas. There are other commercial uses located in the Heritage Protection Area which are outside Beaufort Street. These properties have similar constraints to providing on site car parking, but serve an important community function, such as small local shops or restaurants. The ability to undertake a small addition to an existing character building without the need to provide additional car parking will help existing businesses in the Heritage Protection Area to expand in a modest way without regulatory burden. For this reason, it is recommended that non-residential properties in the Heritage Protection Area that propose additions up to 100m2 of floorspace not require any additional car parking. Testing of Proposed Ratios Councillors queried whether City officers had tested proposed new ratios for Local Centres. The recommended policy requirements were tested against development approvals for a wide range of local centres to determine what the outcomes would be. In this testing the City’s officers noted that many uses had been granted concessions to on-site car parking requirements, and that centres where there was a high demand for parking were constrained in their ability to provide additional car parking.


Item CP2 70

This testing led the City’s officers to the view that the proposed parking ratios for different centres were appropriate, noting that the recommended ratios are lower than those currently in place. Traffic Modelling Councillors queried whether the City models traffic to establish the on-flow issues when the City processes Scheme Amendments. The City’s officers sometimes require traffic modelling to be undertaken as part of the assessment of Scheme Amendments, depending on how much traffic might be generated, and the response during public consultation. This type of modelling has been requested by the City when considering a number of recent Scheme Amendments, such as the Dianella Industrial Area and the land on Beach Road opposite the Warwick Shopping Centre. This modelling has proved useful in demonstrating that additional traffic generated by a Scheme Amendment is within the carrying capacity of local roads. This type of modelling can also identify where infrastructure upgrades would be necessary because of a Scheme Amendment. The City’s officers are of the view that it would be difficult to adopt this sort of approach to parking requirements, as the demand for parking can largely be driven by the popularity of an individual tenancy. Alfresco area parking During the Councillor Workshop, there appeared to be support to remove the requirement for car parking for alfresco areas. The City’s officers, as part of other work being undertaken, are looking to exempt alfresco areas (up to a certain size) from having to provide car parking so that the City can further ‘place activation’ and make better places for residents. This reflects the requirements of the adopted Beaufort Street Local Development Plan, which does not require any car parking for alfresco areas. While this is appropriate along Beaufort Street (due to the detailed planning that has been undertaken in this area) at this stage, it is the City’s officer’s view that exempting all alfresco areas in the City, irrespective of size, from requiring any parking might have significant parking consequences, particularly as many alfresco areas are large. For this reason the City’s officers do not recommend all alfresco parking is exempt from the need to provide any car parking, but that alfresco areas up to 30m2 should be exempt. Gross Floor Area versus Net Lettable Area. Councillors questioned the method of calculating floor area for parking requirements. The City has historically used gross floor area (GFA) as a mechanism for assessing car parking requirements following a request to do so by the Department of Planning. The City’s officers note that many adjacent local governments use NLA (net lettable area) to determine car parking requirements, and this may be an appropriate way of calculating car parking requirements in those areas.


Item CP2 71

However, because of the age of many of the City’s centres, it is usually difficult to obtain accurate plans of commercial tenancies. If the City were to move to a method of assessment based on NLA, this would require applicants to prepare more detailed plans than are currently required, possibly increasing costs and resulting in increased timeframes at a time that the City is looking to simplify the assessment process. For these reasons, the City’s officers do not recommend a change to this method of assessment, but acknowledge that this is a policy decision that Council may want to take. Additional Requirements for Inglewood and Mirrabooka Councillors queried why the Inglewood and Mirrabooka areas are not included. Council has previously adopted parking requirements for each of these areas, and therefore no further changes are recommended. Implications of Undercroft Parking During the Councillor Workshop, a Councillor queried whether it would be appropriate that developments that propose undercroft car parking areas should have a lower car parking requirement, because of the costs of providing undercroft parking. The City’s officers do not support this policy approach, as granting parking concessions to the car parking requirements for larger developments may result in parking impacts on the surrounding area. The current approach that allows a decision maker such as Council (or the Metropolitan North West Joint Development Assessment Panel) to consider the appropriateness of parking shortfalls on a case by case basis is a preferred approach. Options The following Options are available to Council:- Option 1 – Not initiate modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access This option retains the current car parking requirements of Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access. The costs and benefits of this option are as follows:- Costs

The current car parking requirements may be an impediment to investment.

The lengthy development assessment processing timeframes will continue for Change of Use applications involving car parking shortfalls where there is unlikely to be a parking problem as a result of approval.

This option does not address the findings of parking studies carried out throughout the City.

Benefits

No further use of the City’s resources will be required to implement changes to Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access.

This option is not supported as it does not address the initial reason for the Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access review, which was to develop a strategy to systematically and proactively address parking issues associated with development and investment in Neighbourhood Centres and Local Centres.


Item CP2 72

Option 2 – Initiate amendments to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access

This option involves modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access as identified in Attachment 1.

Costs

This option will have some resource implications to process the recommended changes.

Benefits

An innovative approach to parking requirements that matches requirements to parking availability.

A streamlined development assessment process whereby complying with car parking requirements will not be the trigger for a development approval being required.

It is intended that this option will facilitate investment in the City’s Local and Neighbourhood Centres.

This option is supported as it will assist in stimulating economic growth around Local and Neighbourhood Centres and allows the policy to be modified in line with the evolving needs of the City’s Business Units.

Implementation Considerations

The review of Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access included extensive consultation with other Business Units including Development Services, Community Safety and Engineering Design.

The proposed modifications are aimed at matching car parking provision to demand, and is anticipated to streamline the planning process, and for centres with ample car parking, remove the need for a development approval to be submitted.

The recommended annual review of car parking will ensure that an appropriate amount of parking is required as centres evolve.


If Council resolves to advertise the modification to Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access, consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure.

The modified Policy is required to be advertised for 28 days in the local newspapers for two consecutive weeks, and relevant community groups and public authorities are to be advised. A notification will also be placed on the City’s website and on the noticeboard in the City’s administration building for the duration of the advertising period. All Councillors will also be notified of the advertisement of the Policy via the Councillors’ Portal.

If Council resolves to advertise the recommended modifications to Local Planning Policy 6.7 - Parking and Access, consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure.


Item CP2 73


If a local government proposes to amend an existing local planning policy, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 states that:-

‘(1)… the local government must…advertise the proposed policy as follows – (a) publish a notice of the proposed policy in a newspaper circulating in the

Scheme area, giving details of- (i) the subject and nature of the proposed policy: and (ii) the objective of the proposed policy; and (iii) where the proposed policy may be inspected; and (iv) to whom, in what form and during what period submissions in relation

the proposed policy may be made;…’ The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, states that ‘the period for making submissions in relation to a local planning policy must be not less than a period of 21 days.’ After this period, Council must make a resolution to proceed with the policy amendments with or without modifications, or not proceed with the policy modifications at all.


All costs associated with the proposed Amendment will be borne by the City Planning Business Unit’s 2018/2019 budget. All costs associated with the continuous rolling review of Local Centres’ parking ratios and surveys will be borne by the City Planning Business Unit, subject to future budget allocations being made. The costs associated with the investigation into on street parking provision at Local Centres will be borne by the City Planning Business Unit.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods Objective 1.6: Active and Vibrant City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Greenhouse emissions The proposed modifications support a more efficient transport framework and make efficient use of land.

Energy consumption The proposed modifications will assist the City in promoting less car use over time.


Item CP2 74

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community services The proposal has the ability to promote access to services locally by ensuring local centre parking ratios are attainable and competitive with other Local Governments.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

a. Job creation Proposed modifications will promote economic development within centres, and in turn promote local job growth.

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The proposal should encourage a diverse range of businesses into local centres.

Conclusion

A comprehensive review of Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access has been undertaken, as Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access has been operation since LPS3 was gazetted in August 2010. A number of modifications to the Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access are recommended, based on survey data and research, with emphasis placed on making it easier for development to occur in poorly trading centres, streamlining the process and matching car parking requirements to demand. A number of other modifications are recommended to improve the clarity of the Policy and to reflect concerns of the City’s Business Units. It is recommended that Council approves the advertising of modifications to ‘Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access’, as shown in Attachment 1.


Item CP2 - Attachment 1 - Local Planning Policy 6.7 Parking and Access - For Council Adoption 75


91

9. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Moved Councillor Boothman, seconded Councillor Ferrante That Item DS2 – Establishment of a Design Review Panel – Member Appointment be CONSIDERED Behind Closed Doors in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(b) and (e)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-

(b) the personal affairs of any person; and

(e)(iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil. At 7.01pm the meeting was closed to the public and all employees who were not required left the meeting prior to consideration of Item DS2.


Item DS2 92

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item DS2 as applicants are known to her business. Councillor Adam Spagnolo returned to the meeting at 7.09pm during consideration of Item DS2.

DS2 ESTABLISHMENT OF A DESIGN REVIEW PANEL - MEMBER APPOINTMENT

Report Information

Location: City Wide


DA Reference: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: A/Director Planning and Development

Business Unit: Development Services

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition


☒ Executive the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

☐ Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. It is also when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.





Item DS2 93

Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Irwin


1. That Council ENDORSES a change to the Design Review Panel Terms of Reference to increase membership of the panel from 10 to 15 members.

2. That Council ENDORSES the recommended nominees for the Design Review Panel totalling 15 members, including a Chair and Deputy Chair (as per confidential Attachment 1) until 31 October 2021.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (6/1). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano and Proud. Against: Councillor Lagan.

Recommendation

1. That Council ENDORSES a change to the Design Review Panel Terms of Reference to increase membership of the panel from 10 to 15 members.

2. That Council ENDORSES the recommended nominees for the Design Review Panel totalling 15 members, including a Chair and Deputy Chair (as per confidential Attachment 1) until 31 October 2021.

Report Purpose

To seek Council’s endorsement of panel membership for the establishment of a Design Review Panel, and to amend the Terms of Reference to increase the number of specialists to be appointed from 10 to 15 members.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Evaluation Matrix of Nominees (previously circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)

Attachment 2 - Panel Member Resumes (previously circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)

Attachment 3 - Nominee Resumes (previously circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)


Nil


Item DS2 94

Background At its meeting held 20 March 2018, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0318/031) as follows:-

“1. That Council ENDORSES the establishment of a Design Review Panel in accordance with Option 2 of this report.

2. That Council ENDORSES the Terms of Reference as shown in Attachment 1

with the following changes:-

a. DELETE the following sentences under sub-heading 5 – ‘Membership Expertise’ on page 2:-

“The Panel shall have at least five members with the final number of panel members.

A Design Review Panel meeting shall comprise a maximum of five members with a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and three other panel members.

A Design Review Panel meeting may not proceed unless a quorum comprising a minimum of three members is present.

The Panel will be multi-disciplinary. Members will have appropriate qualifications and substantial experience in one or more of the following nominated areas:- • Architecture • Heritage • Landscape Architecture • Planning • Sustainability and Environmental Design • Urban Design”

b. INSERT the following sentences under sub-heading 5 – ‘Membership

Expertise’ on page 2:-

“The Panel will be multi-disciplinary. Council shall appoint a maximum of 10 members to ensure appropriate expertise can be obtained. Members will have appropriate qualifications and substantial experience in one or more of the following nominated areas:- • Architecture • Heritage • Landscape Architecture • Planning • Sustainability and Environmental Design • Urban Design

A Design Review Panel meeting shall comprise a maximum of 5 members with a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and three other panel members.

A Design Review Panel meeting may not proceed unless a quorum comprising a minimum of three members is present.”


Item DS2 95

3. That Council CONSIDERS the inclusion of a budget allocation of $130,000 to enable implementation of a Design Review Panel in the 2018/2019 financial year subject to operating savings being identified in the draft budget to support this initiative.”

As a result of Council’s resolution on 20 March 2018, an Expression of Interest was publically advertised seeking suitably qualified members to join the Design Review Panel. The Expression of Interest was open from 24 July 2018 and concluded on 24 August 2018.

Comment

At the close of the Expression of Interest advertising period, a total of 89 submissions were received; the submissions are broken down by profession as follows:-

Architecture – 31

Heritage – 4

Landscape Architecture – 18

Planning – 10

Sustainability and Environmental Design – 1

Urban Design – 11

Engineering – 7

Other – 7

The CVs of the recommended panel member nominations and an evaluation scoring matrix for all nominees received has been provided to Councillors under separate confidential cover.

Specialist diversity across a range of professions is sought. Given the strength of the Expression of Interest response, it is recommended to Council that the Design Review Panel membership be expanded to a total of 15 members; this would enable greater flexibility in the scheduling of Design Review Panel meetings and would ensure a broad range of panel expertise is obtained.

Design Review Panel meetings will comprise five members. However a greater pool of members from which to draw from will maximise attendance. In this regard, the Design Review Panel Terms of Reference are required to be amended.


An advertisement was placed in the local community newspaper on 24 July 2018 and an advertisement ran on Facebook between 24 July and 24 August 2018. In addition, advertisements were placed on the City’s website, the City’s Digi Screen, the Stirling Business E-newsletter and Stirling Scoop between 24 July and 24 August 2018. A message promoting the Design Review Panel was also placed on the City’s telephone hold message during this period.


Draft State Planning Policy 7- Design of the Built Environment currently advocates for the establishment of a Design Review Panel. This may become a mandatory requirement upon gazettal of State Planning Policy 7 – Design of the Built Environment.

Design Review Panels have no decision making power and can only provide advice to the City and Council.


Item DS2 96


Expansion of the number of members from 10 to 15 has no financial impact, as member fees are based on meeting attendance. The Design Review Panel is funded for this financial year.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods

Objective 1.1: A Strong Sense of Place

Objective 1.2: Housing Choice

Objective 1.3: Beautiful Streetscapes and Open Spaces



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Sustainability

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community Good design creates quality places that foster strong communities.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Built Form High quality built form improves the economic performance of places and attracts investment.

Conclusion

Nominations were called for panel membership for the Design Review Panel, closing on 24 August 2018. It is recommended that Council endorses the recommended nominees for the Design Review Panel, totalling 15 members, including a Chair and Deputy Chair. It is recommended that the Design Review Panel Terms of Reference be amended to increase membership of the panel from 10 to 15 members.

Good design can help avoid or minimise impacts on the environment.

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

9 OCTOBER 2018

97

Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Ferrante

That the Meeting be REOPENED to the public. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Guilfoyle, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan and Proud. Against: Nil.

At 7.12pm the meeting was reopened to the public. As no members of the public returned to the meeting, the resolution passed behind closed doors was not read out by the Presiding Member.

10. CLOSURE

The Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 7.13pm. These minutes were confirmed as a true and correct record of proceedings on:- ………/…………/ 2018 SIGNED:- Councillor Name: …………………………………….. _____________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER