notice of ordinary meeting of the council

of 175 /175
MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 23 May 2017 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 May 2017 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments to deliver improved cost effective services; To strive to meet the needs of our communities through strong community consultation, engagement and collaboration; To embrace the principles of sustainability in our decision making to balance the needs of both current and future generations through environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity; To continually improve our services through planning, adaptability and careful management of risks. VALUES In everything we do, we will seek to adhere to a set of values that guides our attitudes and behaviours: Friendly and Helpful Teamwork Creativity Integrity. ABOUT OUR LOGO The swan is representative of our state of Western Australia, and particularly of our very own Lake Monger. The graceful arc of the swan’s neck, integrated with the letter “C” is distinctive in its representation of the Town of Cambridge. The swan is centred in a diamond shape that symbolises prosperity. The upper green triangle denotes our beautiful parks with the peak representing Reabold Hill. The lower blue triangle represents our ocean and lakes. On a broader scale, the colours of blue and green represent strength and reliability. The logo is contemporary in design whilst maintaining a classical appeal.

Author: others

Post on 17-Apr-2022

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

COUNCIL AGENDAMAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 23 May 2017 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 May 2017 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments
to deliver improved cost effective services; To strive to meet the needs of our communities through strong community consultation, engagement
and collaboration; To embrace the principles of sustainability in our decision making to balance the needs of both current
and future generations through environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity; To continually improve our services through planning, adaptability and careful management of risks. VALUES In everything we do, we will seek to adhere to a set of values that guides our attitudes and behaviours: Friendly and Helpful Teamwork Creativity Integrity. ABOUT OUR LOGO The swan is representative of our state of Western Australia, and particularly of our very own Lake Monger. The graceful arc of the swan’s neck, integrated with the letter “C” is distinctive in its representation of the Town of Cambridge. The swan is centred in a diamond shape that symbolises prosperity. The upper green triangle denotes our beautiful parks with the peak representing Reabold Hill. The lower blue triangle represents our ocean and lakes. On a broader scale, the colours of blue and green represent strength and reliability. The logo is contemporary in design whilst maintaining a classical appeal.
BUSINESS
7. Confirmation of Minutes
9. Committee Reports
Development Committee 16 May 2017 Community and Resources Committee 15 May 2017
10. Council Reports
11. Urgent Business
12.1 12.2 12.3
Mayor Shannon - Funds for Gallipoli Remembered: The Book Mayor Shannon - Transparency Initiatives Mayor Shannon - Developer Contact with Planning Staff
13. Confidential Reports
13.1 77 McCourt Street - Offer to Purchase 31 Square Metres 13.2 Land Acquisition: City Beach
14. Closure
Disclaimer
Visitors are reminded that mobile phones should be turned off during Council meetings
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 1
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions Taken on Notice at 26 April 2017 Council Meeting Rebecca Faugno, 70 Tate Street West Leederville Question 1 What is the current number of residential dwellings in West Leederville? Response As of the 2011 Census there were a total of 1775 private dwellings in West Leederville. Since then approximately 320 dwellings have been constructed as part of multi-dwelling developments (inclusive of dwellings currently under construction) resulting in approximately 2095 dwellings. New data from the 2016 census will be released on the 27th June 2017. Question 2 What is the number of additional dwellings for the Town as a whole under each of Scenarios A, B and C presented to the public to guide consultation for the LPS? Response As yet there has been no detailed analysis of dwelling yields, however the Town's consultants confirm that each of the Scenarios provide the opportunity to achieve the remaining 3371 dwellings required to achieve the Town's dwelling target. Question 3 What is the number of additional dwellings in West Leederville anticipated under each of Scenarios A, B and C? Response This level of assessment has not occurred in preparing the scenarios. In preparing the more detailed yield analysis for a preferred scenario in due course, there will be more detail based on site analysis. Question 4 Of the three scenarios presented to the public to guide consultation for the LPS, two (Scenarios A and B) envisage no density changes to City Beach and the third (Scenario C) only minimal change. All scenarios envisage the bulk of additional residential density being allocated to West Leederville. a. What are the reasons for allocating such a significant portion of the increased density to
West Leederville? b. What are the reasons for no or very limited residential density changes to City Beach? Response Scenarios A and B do not impact City Beach as they are headed District Centres and Corridor Growth respectively. City Beach has neither a district centre nor identified transit corridor. Additionally, the Scenarios have no formal status at this time and the community has been asked to provide feedback on them.
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 2
Question 5 Was one of the reasons taken into account for allocating no or minimal change in density to City Beach the previous strong opposition to Amendment 31? Response No. Scenario C includes some proposals such as development in or around local centres in City Beach, corner lot subdivision and development opportunity sites in City Beach. Question 6 The Local Planning Strategy and Strategic Community Plan – Interim Report on Community Engagement (Agenda Item 10.1 for meeting on 26 April 2017) describes a LPS as “a high level strategic planning document that sets a long-term (10 to 20 year) planning framework for the whole local government area” (emphasis added). This definition is based on the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (WA). If a LPS is to provide a 10-20 year framework, why do the scenarios presented for consultation seek to fully incorporate a 2050 (ie 33 years away) target? Response To date, Draft Perth and [email protected] guides the Town in progressing its draft Local Planning Strategy. While the dwelling target is a long-term aim, the Town will be required to demonstrate its plans contribute towards achieving this long-term target. Question 7 Is the Perth and Peel @3.5 million document still only in draft form? Response Yes. Question 8 If so, in light of the current draft target having been created during the boom, which has now ended; and the recent change in state government, (a) will the Town seek to confirm with the state government the final population target for the
Town of Cambridge before proceeding with a draft LPS? (b) will the Town seek to present a view to the state government that it is now appropriate
that the draft Town of Cambridge target in Perth & Peel @2050 be revised down? (c) will the Town seek confirmation from the state government of key planning matters
including future infrastructure, transport and schools for the Town anticipated by 2050? If so will the Town do this before proceeding with a draft LPS and/or before adopting a LPS?
Response To date, Draft Perth and [email protected] guides the Town in progressing its draft Local Planning Strategy. While the dwelling target is a long-term aim, the Town will be required to demonstrate its plans contribute towards achieving this long-term target. The Local Planning Strategy sets a framework which will be reviewed in accordance with changes in State Government direction over time and over the course of implementation.
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 3
With regard to future infrastructure, transport and schools, the planning framework under the LPS needs to be in place to give support to future improvements in these areas. Question 9 According to the Town of Cambridge’s Local Planning Strategy Project Plan (DV16.58), (the Project Plan), Part 3.2 ‘Format and Content of LPS’, ”the consultant brief will outline those topics which require a high level of attention…” (emphasis added) and ‘[t]he extent of detail for each section will, however, be worked through with the consultant and TPSRSC in more detail and will depend on how the project progresses and the outcomes of consultation.’ a. Did the Town provide a ‘consultant brief’ or briefs (in writing, or verbally eg through discussion or through a series of meetings) as anticipated in the Project Plan? b. If so, how can I access a copy of any and all such briefs? c. If not, why not, given the Town’s Project Plan clearly anticipates the creation of such a brief? Response The consultant brief refers to the Request for Tender to undertake preparation of the LPS which is available upon request. Question 10 Why did the LPS scenarios presented for public consultation purposes not include a scenario involving little or no additional density for West Leederville? Response West Leederville meets key planning and locational criteria for additional dwellings reflecting Council decisions to date including the adoption of the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan. Scenario B illustrates a lesser amount of additional development in West Leederville compared to Scenario A or C. Question 11 According to the Project Plan, the objectives of the Project include to ‘appropriately reflect the values and attitudes of community members, stakeholders and Council.’ Is the Town satisfied that this can be achieved when community consultation to date has been based solely around three scenarios, all of which, in the case of West Leederville residents, provided no opportunity to comment on an option with little or no additional density for West Leederville? Response These matters will be considered by Council when it receives a report on this phase of community engagement. The Town has asked for what is both liked or disliked about each scenario to inform the draft Local Planning Strategy as opposed to asking for the community to choose a preferred scenario. Question 12 Why does the list of stakeholders in Part 7 of the Project Plan not include the Department of Education? (I note for example that the Department of Transport, EPA, Heritage Council and Department of Water are all included). In the Council’s view, is the Department of Education a relevant stakeholder? If so, at what point or points during the LPS process has the Department of Education been, or will it be, consulted?
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 4
Response The Department of Education is regarded as a relevant stakeholder and the Town has sought and obtained feedback from the Department on the project. Question 13 Part 3.1 of the Local Planning Strategy Project Plan DV16.58 refers to a working LPS (DV10.44) (Working LPS) adopted by Council in 2010 to ‘provide a framework for the future development of an LPS’. Please kindly make a copy of the Working LPS publically available; or if already available, please advise where it can be accessed. Response The Working LPS can be found as an Attachment to the Minutes of the May 2010 Council meeting. Referhttp://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/7cc83d52-b1e4-4da6-98a8- 9d7600b44829/DV10.44%20Local%20Planning%20Strategy%20Progress%20Report.pdf?stre amFile=true Question 14 In analysing survey results on the scenarios released for comment, will common principles be applied uniformly across all areas of the Town? For example, if residents in all wards indicate that they do not want increased density in residential streets, will that principle be applied to all suburbs within the Town or will the principle be limited to the context of the particular scenario in relation to which the comment was made? (For example, many City Beach residents reject Scenario C on the basis that they do not support increased density in quiet residential streets. Many West Leederville residents share that view. Will such a comment in relation to Scenario C be applied consistently in the analysis to also mitigate against increased residential density in quiet streets in West Leederville in Scenarios A and B or otherwise?) Response These matters will be considered by Council when it receives a report on this phase of community engagement. Question 15 In response to a question at the March Council meeting, Ms Lavery advised that matters including heritage will be considered later on in the LPS process, and that the Town’s heritage listing process has not yet been completed. However, Holyrood Street is already heritage-listed (among numerous other sites in West Leederville, including the Catholic Education Centre precinct, Leederville Town Hall and former Leederville Fire Stations (4 McCourt St, 65 Kimberley St.)) That being the case, why has existing heritage listing not been taken into account in proposing density changes to West Leederville? Why is Holyrood St included in the ‘red’ zone under the scenarios issued for public consultation? Response At this stage the Scenario plans are intended to illustrate general concepts rather than specific proposals, also it is not intended that Scenarios would over-ride general planning constraints such as heritage listing.
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 5
Celia Dufall, 13 Alexander Street, Wembley Question 1 Firstly let me acknowledge the effort the Town has gone to to seek community feedback and improvements to ensure the best outcome and that the plan reflects the wishes of the community the Council serves. It would appear to me that from the majority qualitative suggestions that one clear opportunity for improvement is to focus develop on the southern side of Cambridge. Does the Council agree that to ignore this very clear improvement would undermine the very objective of seeking community improvements and suggestions? And secondly does the council feel that good governance would require this commendable recommendation be given due consideration given that it might better represent the interests of its community? Amendment 33 Response This is broadly consistent with Council's decision in adopting the Wembley Activity Centre Plan which proposes an RAC-0 zoning along Salvado Road, although 2 of the 3 Anchor sites identified are on the north side of Cambridge Street. This position regarding the anchor sites has been broadly supported by the community and Council in development of the Centre Plan. At this stage, there is no decision on the Local Planning Strategy, however should there be a decision that affects adopted Centre Plans then this would necessitate review of those at a future time. Question 2 Given the Local Planning Strategy is underway, and if community feedback is seriously considered, there is a strong probability that the WACP will need to be updated to reflect new and better planning strategies more in line with community interests (noting that this was a process that was recommended by the consultants). Would the Council therefore acknowledge it is premature to progress Amendment 33 prior to finalising the WACP? Response Amendment 33 precedes and would be unaffected by the Local Planning Strategy. Statutory processes under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) must be followed with regard to Scheme Amendment 33. Question 3 I refer to the Development Committee meeting on 11 April and discussions around proposed modifications to A33, where it was evident that there is limited precedence and no confidence that the Minister will approve the modifications. Can the Town and Council outline what other strategies can be used to limit the risk of development outside the proposed modifications? Does Council acknowledge it is a high risk strategy to progress A33 given the uncertainty around the Ministers approval of the proposed modifications? Response The measures taken by the Town to introduce development standards into Amendment 33, revisions to the Wembley Precinct Policy, requirement for a Local Development Plan for the site and also reflecting the Wembley Activity Centre Plan all serve to limit any risk of development being approved outside these adopted standards and have been subject to legal review and vetting.
COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 6
Question 4 In the Community Survey Outcomes Report only 46% of respondents agreed with a stepped approach and 7 storey limit for the site. This would not appear to be sufficient to support a 7 storey building on this site, particularly when reference is given to the previous height survey undertaken by the Town. The report noted that Council adopted a seven storey height limit based on 'the outcomes of community engagement from the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan (which) generally indicated overall support for a maximum building height of 7 storeys'? Does Council agree that this statement is misleading? Does the Council acknowledge that a 7 storey height limit does not reflect community feedback and on this basis would Council now reconsider the height limit for this site? Response In the responses to the same survey question, 34% of respondents disagreed with the stepped approach and 7 storey height limit and the remaining 20% responded with either neutral, It Depends or Don't Know. Council carefully considered the matter in its adoption of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Any change of position is a matter for Council. Question 5 With reference to feedback received on Amendment 33, I note that the car park zonings currently in place exist historically as protection to the adjacent residents after residential land was used illegally against its zoning by the owners of the land at the time. Why wasn't this disclosed in the Town's report and can the report be updated to include this fact? Does Council feel that this fact should have been considered prior to now? Response This is a claim made in a submission received on the Amendment and is not a comment verified by the Town. Question 6 I note that Counsellor Carr is agent for a property adjacent to the site to be rezoned. Given the likelihood he will received remuneration from the sale of this property, would this suffice as being seen as a conflict of interest? Response This is a matter for Cr Carr. Question 7 Has any counsellor met with the owners of the site (Chew Lan Sim, Nam Hui Teo and Adrian Min Yan Lee) and if so, can they disclose when these meetings took place and what was discussed. Response This is a matter for individual Elected Members.
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 i
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
7. REPORTS
DV17.54 Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Nine Multiple Dwellings - Amended Plans 3
DV17.55 Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Upper Level Roof Garden and Privacy Screens and Obscure Screening to Playroom - Retrospective Application 9
DV17.56 Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Display Home 13 DV17.57 Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Landscaping,
Terraces and Cover to Roof Access Hatch 17 DV17.58 Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road, Floreat - Ancillary Dwelling and Store 21 DV17.59 Lot 78 (No. 148) Tower Street, West Leederville - Single Storey Additions
and Alterations to Single Dwelling 25 DV17.60 Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee Meeting Notes - May
2017 31 DV17.61 Lake Monger Community Garden Occupation Licence Extension May 2017 33 DV17.62 Fees and Charges - 2017 - 2018 - Planning and Development 37 DV17.63 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for April 2017 41 DV17.64 Buildings Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - April 2017 43
8. CLOSURE
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017.
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING
The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 pm.
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.02 pm 7.03 pm
Observers: Cr Jane Powell Officers: Marlaine LAvery, Director Planning and Development Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.03 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
Item DV17.54 Carlo Famiano, on behalf of applicant Item DV17.57 James Balfour, on behalf of applicant Item DV17.58 Francis Kwa, applicant Item DV17.59 Erica Smith, neighbour Kukame McKenzie, applicant
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 2
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 11 April 2017 as contained in the April 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Item DV17.54 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.63 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Cr Bradley - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.64 - Mayor Shannon - Impartiality Interest
7. REPORTS
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 3
DV17.54 LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - NINE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - AMENDED PLANS
SUMMARY:
At its meeting held on 1 March 2017, Council approved a two storey, nine multiple dwelling development at No. 263 Cambridge Street, Wembley. On 19 April 2017, amended plans were submitted by the applicant showing an increase in the finished floor of Units 1 and 2 at the front of the development, to accommodate the level of the Water Corporation sewerage line within Hallifax Lane. The amended plans also propose the installation of a flat (concealed) roof over the balconies of Units 4, 5, 8 and 9 to improve the amenity of the dwellings for future occupants. The amendments are considered acceptable and satisfy the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements and/or design principles of the R-Codes apart from the solid roof cover for the front upper floor Units 4 and 5. The amended plans are recommended for approval, however, the condition imposed on the original approval requiring the balconies of Units 4 and 5 to be unroofed remains.
BACKGROUND:
Application: 0346DA-2016.01 Owner: S and T Marsala Applicant: Germano Designs Zoning: Residential R40/60 Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘D’ – discretionary: the use is not permitted unless the
Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval Land area: 921 m² The original proposal was submitted on 15 September 2016 and advertised to the owners of the adjoining properties. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration and the neighbouring property owners, the applicant revised the plans. The revised plans showed lower boundary wall heights, lower finished floor levels for the front dwellings and modifications to the street elevation. The revised plans, received on 24 November 2016, were considered by Council at its meeting held on 20 December 2016. The Council decided to defer the application to the Development Committee meeting for further consideration. Amended plans were subsequently submitted on 17 January 2017 and conditionally approved by the Council at its meeting held on 1 March 2017. The land is dual coded R40/60. The Wembley Precinct Planning Policy specifies that within the R40/60 area, development to R60 standards will only be permitted if the development involves the amalgamation of two or more lots (resulting in a minimum lot area of 1200m2) or, the lot is already 1200m2. The R Code applied to this property, which is 921m2, is therefore Residential R40.
DETAILS:
Development description • The site is located in the Wembley Precinct of the Town and faces Cambridge Street. In
the vicinity is a mix of original bungalows, multiple dwelling complexes and some more recent single and two storey grouped housing developments. Of particular note is a two
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 4
storey, 8 multiple dwelling development currently under construction at No. 253 Cambridge Street which was approved by Council in February 2016. This development is similar in appearance to the proposed development.
• The site slopes up from front to rear approximately 1.7 metres. Hallifax Lane abuts the rear boundary.
• The proposed development is mainly to the west side of the lot, with ground floor boundary walls along the west side boundary and the driveway from Hallifax Lane along the east side boundary.
• Four dwellings front Cambridge Street, two on the ground floor and two above. In the front setback area, the ground floor dwellings have landscaped courtyards with open style fencing and a shared middle gatehouse, and the upper floor dwellings have open style balconies.
• The remaining five (one ground floor and four upper floor) dwellings, stores, bin store, car and bicycle bays are behind the front four dwellings. All nine dwellings comprise two bedrooms. 12 car bays are provided, 9 resident bays and 3 visitor bays, which satisfy the R-Code requirements.
• The amended plans show: o the open roofed balconies of Units 4 and 5 (front) and Units 8 and 9 (rear) modified
to have a flat (concealed) roof to improve the amenity of the balconies for future occupants; and
o the finished floor level of Units 4 and 5 increased by 4 brick courses (0.344 m) and the level of four car bays and two stores increased by 1 or 3 courses (0.086 m or 0.258 m) to ensure satisfactory fall to the existing level of the sewerage line within Hallifax Lane.
• With regard to the roofing of the balconies, there are no issues with including a roof over
the balconies of Units 8 and 9 located at the rear of the development. Roofing over the balconies of front Units 4 and 5 require a variation to the Town’s Streetscape Policy which is further discussed below.
• The increase in finished floor level of Units 4 and 5 has resulted in a wall height increase to approximately 6.1 and 6.2 metres above natural ground level for the front portions of Units 4 and 5. This is a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Town’s Building Height Policy but is supported as the variation is minor and unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the adjoining properties to the east and west. To the west is a large multiple dwelling development with an open front garden and blank two storey wall facing the subject site. To the east is a single storey grouped dwelling development. The proposed east side wall will abut the front (garage) and middle portion of the front grouped dwelling.
• Whilst the finished floor levels have increased, the plans show that the boundary walls
along the western side boundary for the ground floor Unit 2 and two stores have not increased in height from natural ground level.
Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the amendments which is attached to this agenda.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 5
Assessment against the design principles Street setback (clause 3.1.1 of Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape and clause 6.1.3 Street setback of the R- Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Min 6.0 metres for the upper floor
Amended plans: Units 4 and 5 roofed balconies set back 3.14 to 3.185 metres
Design principles (clause 6.1.3 P3 of the R-Codes): Buildings are set back from street boundaries (primary and secondary) an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape; • provide articulation of the building on the primary and secondary streets; • allow for minor projections that add interest and reflect the character of the street without
impacting on the appearance of bulk over the site; • are appropriate to its location, respecting the adjoining development and existing
streetscape; and • facilitate the provision of weather protection where appropriate. In the R40 zone, the minimum front setback specified in the Town’s Streetscape Policy is 4.0 metres for a ground floor and 6.0 metres for an upper floor. The amended plans show a setback of 3.14 to 3.185 metres to the roofed upper floor balconies of Units 4 and 5. Balconies were previously shown on the approved plans, however the balconies were unroofed and therefore classified as minor incursions, permitted in the street setback area. It is noted that the approved plans showed an upper floor variation of 5.65 metres to the dwellings (beyond the open balconies) in lieu of the 6.0 metre deemed-to-comply requirement. The intent of the increased upper floor setback requirement (compared to the ground floor) in West Leederville and Wembley is to reduce the impact of large and bulky developments that detract from the established streetscape. With regard to the design principles, allowing a roof over the balconies will increase the bulk of the balconies, which are already prominent due to their feature brickwork. This is unlikely to contribute to the desired streetscape. It is noted that the flat roof will be partly concealed behind the feature wall, and therefore a vergola, which would provide some weather protection but also access to northern sunlight in winter, would be acceptable. The plans for the multiple dwelling development under construction at No. 253 Cambridge Street show vergolas for their upper floor units facing Cambridge Street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed solid roof over the front balconies will increase the bulk of the development on the streetscape and will not therefore, contribute to the desired streetscape. Condition (iii) requiring Units 4 and 5 to have unroofed balconies therefore remains. No amendments are proposed to the conditions imposed by the Council at its meeting held on 1 March 2017.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 6
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013- 2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of applicant's justification Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV17.54 Lot 777(No.263) `Cambridge Street Wembley - Nine Multiple Dwellings. I declare that I own a unit at 269 Cambridge Street, Wembley and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." It was noted that the applicant, during his deputation, advised that he was satisfied with clause (iii) of the Administration Recommendation relating to the balcony area of Units 4 and 5 to maintain an open style roof. He also advised that he would be willing to accept a Vergola in place of a solid roof structure to the balcony area of Units 4 and 5. However, to achieve this outcome, condition 3 would need to be amended.
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the amended plans application for nine multiple dwellings submitted by Germano Designs at Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 19 April 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to
be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and to the satisfaction of the Town;
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 7
(ii) the dividing fence along the western side boundary, behind the front setback line, to be masonry and to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to match the boundary walls prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;
(iii) the portion of the Unit 4 and Unit 5 balconies within the front setback area to be
open style, without a roof, and with the balustrade facing the street and along the eastern and western sides to remain clear glass and no higher than 1.2 metres;
(iv) the infill panels of the fencing and gates in the front setback area to have a surface
with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (v) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan to include a tree in each
courtyard fronting Cambridge Street and to be installed and reticulated prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;
(vi) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (vii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside No. 263 Cambridge Street to be removed
and the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;
(viii) the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas to be designed and provided in
accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended). A traffic engineer to provide advice stating that design of the car park and the car park once completed, is in accordance with AS2890.1;
(ix) all vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved
plan to be sealed, kerbed and drained to Town's specifications, and the parking bays being line marked and maintained in good repair, prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;
(x) the three designated visitor car parking bays to be clearly delineated
(marked/signed), available for use for the life of the development and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;
(xi) a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces to be sign posted, designed and
provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;
(xii) the preparation of a Waste Management Plan detailing the number and size of
general waste and recycling bins, storage method and collection details. The plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and to satisfy the requirements of the Town's Infrastructure Services;
(xiii) the implementation of, and adherence to, the approved Waste Management Plan; (xiv) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit or a Demolition
Permit, or the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:- (a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security;
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 8
(c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating hours;
(d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated
matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town;
(xv) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied
with at all times during development; (xvi) the visual privacy screens on the east side of Unit 4’s balcony and the west side of
Unit 5’s balcony to be removed; (xvii) the visual privacy screens for the balconies of Unit 6 and Unit 7 to be designed to
restrict views to the neighbouring property to the east in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings;
(xviii) the size of the tree in each courtyard fronting Cambridge Street as shown on the
approved plan shall be a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter;
(xix) a guard rail to be installed in accordance with the approved plans to protect the
landscaping and fencing along the eastern side boundary from reversing vehicles; (xx) the lighting to the balconies to be at a lux level to not have a detrimental impact on
the adjacent landowner, to the satisfaction of the Town.
Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:-
1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property
boundaries, the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.
2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.
3. A protective fence to be installed around the street tree within the affected building development area. This protective fencing is to be maintained in good order at all times.
Carried 5/0
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 9
DV17.55 LOT 334 (NO. 110) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - UPPER LEVEL ROOF GARDEN AND PRIVACY SCREENS AND OBSCURE SCREENING TO PLAYROOM - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for amendments to the upper level of the two storey dwelling currently under construction. The plans show access from the ensuite to a roof terrace and additional obscure screening to the roof terrace and playroom windows to ensure privacy to the adjoining property to the south. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to lot boundary setbacks and, accordingly, is recommended for approval.
BACKGROUND:
Application: 0056DA-2017 Owner: Mr MJ Spreadborough and Ms D Pfaff Applicant: Wright Feldhusen Architects Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 902 m2
The Council approved the application for the two storey dwelling at its meeting on 23 September 2014 (Item DV4.125). A building permit was subsequently issued in October 2015 and the dwelling is currently under construction. The Town became aware that changes to the approved plans were under construction and an application for retrospective approval for these changes was made in February 2017 which were advertised to the adjoining landowner for comment. Amended plans were received in April 2017 to clarify the type of screening proposed around the roofed garden. DETAILS:
Development description • The site is to the southern end of Branksome Gardens within the City Beach precinct.
The property is surrounded by single residential dwellings. • A two storey dwelling is currently under construction. • The site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary
with most of the natural slope being at the front of the existing dwelling before levelling out for the rear half of the lot.
• The dwelling has predominantly brick and rendered facades. There is a feature Colorbond metal clad wall at the rear of the dwelling previously approved by Council.
• The original proposal had an unroofed deck on the top level with the top of the balustrade at the maximum building height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 10
• The dwelling originally had an ensuite to the master bedroom with highlight and obscure glass windows facing the southern boundary. The dwelling has been constructed with this ensuite having a door out onto the flat roof section of the ground floor to act as a roofed garden area. A privacy screen is proposed around this area which results in a setback variation to the southern boundary.
• Additional screening to the playroom window is also proposed to increase privacy to the southern property.
Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the side setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being No. 112 Branksome Gardens. A submission was received objecting on the basis of increased building bulk. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Min 1.8 metres 1.5 - 1.8 metres
Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and
adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living
areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for
adjoining properties is not restricted; and positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.
A small section of what was previously the flat roof of the ground floor is proposed to be enclosed with a 1.65 metre high privacy screen to make a roofed garden area adjacent to the upper storey ensuite. The addition of a screen around the roofed garden results in the setback calculations for the upper storey changing. Based on the length of wall including the roofed garden and master bedroom length of wall, a 1.8 metre setback is required. It is noted, however, that this setback requirement is based on the maximum height of the master bedroom and not the lower section of roofed garden. It could therefore be argued that the required setback is actually within a
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 11
range of 1.5 metres to 1.8 metres. The ensuite, which has the lower height, has the minimum setback of 1.5 metres. In any case, if the application is considered against relevant design principles the setbacks are required to reduce the impact of building bulk on adjoining properties, provide adequate access to sun and ventilation and minimise the extent of overlooking. As the screen will not contribute additional overshadowing from that already created by the new building and assists in maintaining privacy, these principles are deemed to be met. With regards to building bulk, the screens are 1.65 metres higher than the previously approved roof level and make an overall height of building of 4.5 metres. The screens are around a small roofed garden and are therefore 2.34 metres in length. If considered as a separate wall, the roofed garden would require a setback of 1.1 metres. The screen is of a separate material to the rendered brick walls and articulated from other sections of wall so that their bulk is minimised. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the southern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The privacy screening is for a short length and does not significantly impact on issues of
building bulk, does not increase overshadowing to the adjoining property and minimises the extent of overlooking to the adjoining property.
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013- 2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment 2. Supporting submission for applicant - URBIS
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 12
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 18 April 2017 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screens for the roofed garden to be designed to restrict views from the
neighbouring property to the south by installing solid perforated steel screens at a height of 1.65 metres in accordance with the deemed to comply provisions of Clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; and
(ii) the playroom window facing the southern boundary to be fixed and obscure glazed to a
minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level. Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clause (i) of the motion be amended by substituting 'roofed' with 'roof'. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 18 April 2017 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screens for the roof garden to be designed to restrict views
from the neighbouring property to the south by installing solid perforated steel screens at a height of 1.65 metres in accordance with the deemed to comply provisions of Clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; and
(ii) the playroom window facing the southern boundary to be fixed and obscure glazed
to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level. Carried 5/0
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 13
DV17.56 LOT 25 (NO. 26) BIARA GARDENS, MT CLAREMONT - DISPLAY HOME
SUMMARY:
The Town has received a development application for a proposed change of use to a two storey development at Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont. The two storey development was approved by the Town on 20 December 2016 and seeks approval to change its use to a 'Display Home'. Given that a 'Display Home' is a 'Use not listed' under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS), the application was advertised for a period of 21 days, and a Council decision is now required in accordance with Clause 11 of the TPS. The proposed display home is considered an appropriate use for this area of Mt Claremont, being within the final stage of St John's Wood residential estate. The applicant seeks approval for the dwelling to be open Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 1.00 pm and 5.00 pm. The Town considers that, due to the lack of parking available for visitors, the home should be open for inspection by appointment only. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND:
Application: 0063DA-2017 Owner: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Applicant: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Use not listed Land area: 286m2
At the meeting held on 20 December 2016, Council granted planning approval for a two storey dwelling at No. 26 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont. A Building Permit was issued on 8 March 2017. DETAILS:
Development description • A two storey dwelling was approved on the subject site on 20 December 2016. • The lot is located within the final stage of the St John’s Wood residential estate. • The site abuts a communal car park for the subdivision to the north, Stephenson Avenue
to the west, and No. 28 Biara Gardens to the south. • The applicant seeks approval for a display home for a period of 12 months from the date
of completion of the dwelling. • The home will be open Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm.
The applicant anticipates between one and two couples per opening. • With regard to parking, the one staff member can park in the garage, and the applicant
advises that customers can park in the driveway or use the communal car park next door which has five allocated bays.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 14
• The plans show a display sign 3.1 metres high by 1.03 metres long and 0.2 metres wide within the front setback area and adjacent to the northern side boundary (shared with the communal car park).
Applicant's justification The applicant has not provided written justification for the application. Neighbour submission In accordance with 'A' advertising procedures, the application was advertised for a period of 21 days. The Town sent letters to owners of 15 properties in the vicinity outlining details of the application and inviting comments. At the conclusion of advertising, three comments were received, two objections and one no objection. Objections included elevated noise levels impacting on the quiet enjoyment of their property, unreasonable intrusion on their privacy, increased traffic levels and unacceptable congestion in Biara Gardens. A summary of the comments is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Land use A display home is not specifically mentioned in the Scheme zoning table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of any of the use class categories. It is therefore considered as a "Use not listed" and assessed under the provisions of Clause 11 (5) of the Scheme. Accordingly, the application may be determined if the Council considers that the propose use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the particular zone. The "A" procedures of Clause 37 of the Scheme may be followed prior to considering the application for planning approval. As a display home is an unlisted use in the Scheme, there are no specific standards to which the proposal must conform. The most relevant policy relates to Non-residential Development in Residential Areas which aims to ensure non-residential development adjacent to residential areas is compatible with adjoining residences and does not detract from the amenity of adjacent residential areas. The home has been designed in accordance with the relevant development standards contained within the R-Codes and the Town's Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, which take into account the amenity and privacy of adjoining landowners. The opening times proposed are for walk-in traffic, but given the nature of this subdivision and the large amount of construction in the area, it is considered that having the home open without restrictions on visitor numbers could result in congestion and parking issues. For this reason, it is recommended that the home be open by appointment only. Car parking The site is located on the western side of the final stage of the St John's Wood Estate. The property is located adjacent to the communal car park. The garage of the two storey dwelling is set back 4.2 metres from the front boundary. This setback is insufficient for the provision of customer parking on the driveway within the property unless the garage door is open. Due to the nature of this subdivision and the premium level of homes being built in the area, it is anticipated that should the home be open to the public during certain viewing hours, a large number of visitors may be possible. Due to the nature of the subdivision and lack of visitor parking, and that Council has already approved a number of display homes within the estate, it is recommended that the application be approved on the condition that it is open by appointment only, and that only one appointment is permitted on site at any one time.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 15
Whilst there is the communal car park next door, this has been designed for use by the residents and is considered unreasonable for these bays to be taken up for the purpose of a display home. The two objections received raise parking and traffic issues. With building works able to occur on one of the two days that the display home is open, it is considered that there is the potential for parking and traffic problems with work vehicles and visitors to this display home. For recent approvals of display homes in Biara Gardens, conditions imposed have required the home to be open by appointment only and a maximum of one appointment at any one time. Clause 37 provisions In accordance with the 'A" provisions of Clause 37 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the application was advertised for 21 days to owners of 15 properties in the vicinity. Three submissions were received during the advertising period. The display home use is not permanent use and the property will ultimately become a private residential property.
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013- 2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of neighbour comment
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 16
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a display home submitted by Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont as shown on the plans dated 2 March 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the approval for the use of this site for the purposes of a Display Home is to expire
twelve (12) months from the date of completion of the dwelling construction. Continuance of this application past this date will be subject to further application and approval of the Council;
(ii) the home to be open by appointment only; (iii) a maximum of one sign on site relating to the display home; (iv) a maximum of one (1) appointment in the display home at any one time; and (v) all customer parking is to occur within the property boundary and is not to
obstruct vehicles or footpaths. Carried 5/0
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 17
DV17.57 LOT 334 (NO. 110) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - LANDSCAPING, TERRACES AND COVER TO ROOF ACCESS HATCH
SUMMARY:
The Town has received an application for modifications to the dwelling under construction at No. 110 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show a new front terrace, landscaping and front fencing and a roof cover to the hatch access the top roof deck. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to building height and, accordingly, is recommended for approval.
BACKGROUND:
Application: 0055DA-2017 Owner: Mr MJ Spreadborough and Ms D Pfaff Applicant: Wright Feldhusen Architects Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 902 m2
The Council considered the application for the two storey dwelling at its meeting on 23 September 2014 (Item DV14.125). The application was approved with the following condition:
"1. No roof or cover to be placed over the roof deck". An application to construct a roof over the roof deck of the dwelling was considered by Council at its meeting on 22 November 2016 (Item DV16.164). That proposal was refused as it was considered the height would create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape. DETAILS:
Development description • The site is to the southern end of Branksome Gardens within the City Beach precinct.
The property is surrounded by single residential dwellings. • Two storey dwelling currently under construction. • Site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary
with most of the natural slope being at the front of the existing dwelling before levelling out for the rear half of the lot.
• The dwelling has predominantly brick and rendered facades. There is a feature Colorbond metal clad wall at the rear of the dwelling previously approved by Council.
• The original proposal had an unroofed deck on the top level with the top of the balustrade at the maximum building height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level.
• The proposal is to provide a cover to the entry hatch to the roof deck for improved weather protection which results in a building height variation.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 18
• There are modifications to the previously approved landscaping within the front setback
area including new low walls along the side boundaries. A condition of planning approval will require these walls to meet the deemed to comply requirements of Planning Policy 3.1.7 - Fences and Street Walls.
Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the building height variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of 35 surrounding the subject site, being within a 100 metre radius of the subject site. Nine submissions were received from surrounding owners objecting to the height variation. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Building height (Clause 5.1.6 of the R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Max 7.5 metres Maximum 8.85 metres
Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.
The original house was approved as two storey with a flat roof and a roof deck above sitting well back from all boundaries so that it meets the 7.5 metre visual privacy deemed to comply provisions. The approved plans show the upper deck access via a stair well with a sliding glass access hatch. The current proposal is to cover the stair well with a glass enclosure to provide cover to the stairs for improved weather proofing. The glass enclosure has a sloping roof to follow the line of the stairs with a flat roofed section at the top with a door out to the open roof deck. The Town's Planning Policy 3.3: Building height states that building height is measured as the vertical distance from natural ground level to the top of the roof, wall or parapet at any point. Based on the natural ground levels provided for the when the dwelling was originally approved, the cover to the stair well results in a maximum roof height of 8.85 metres in lieu of the 7.5 metres which would be deemed to comply. The applicant argues that as the stairwell cover is well set back from boundaries and towards the centre of the dwelling that it won't be seen from the street and will have minimal impact on neighbours particularly as it will be enclosed in glass so predominantly see through.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 19
The applicant also notes that the dwelling is still within the overall height limit of 9.0 metres which would be permitted if the building was to have a pitched roof so that it is not out of context with surrounding dwellings in terms of its bulk and scale. In terms of assessment against design principles, the stairwell cover would not have any impact on access to direct sun for adjoining properties with the shadow falling within the boundaries of the property and over the roof the dwelling, therefore not restricting daylight to major openings or habitable rooms. It is not considered that the addition impacts on access to views of significance as the structure is small and of transparent glass. Whilst the Town previously had an issue with the entire deck being covered with a roof, this was because it was a much larger and higher structure which would further increase the overall height of the dwelling adding to building bulk as viewed from the street and adjoining properties. The proposal now is for what is arguably a minor structure and of lightweight, transparent materials which does not significantly contribute to building bulk. In addition, the additional height is well setback from the front of the house and is unlikely to have any significant impact on the streetscape, if seen at all. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies/does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the stairwell cover is transparent, lightweight and central to the building and will therefore
not result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties or the street in terms of building bulk or access to views of significance.
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013- 2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment 2. Supporting submission for applicant - URBIS
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 20
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for landsc aping, terraces and cover to the roof access hatch as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 23 March 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the
completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and
(ii) the solid fencing along the side boundaries to meet the deemed to comply provision of Clause 3.1.7 of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape, specifically the average height of the walls is to be no more than 0.75 metres and no higher than 1.2 metres within the front setback area.
Carried 5/0
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 21
DV17.58 LOT 809 (NO. 1) TURRIFF ROAD, FLOREAT - ANCILLARY DWELLING AND STORE
SUMMARY:
The Town has received an application for an ancillary dwelling at No. 1 Turriff Road, Floreat. The plans show an ancillary dwelling and store to be constructed in the rear corner of the subject site. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to lot boundary setbacks and plot ratio and, accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.
BACKGROUND:
Application: 0453DA-2016 Owner: Mr FTL Kwa Applicant: Francis Tak Lau Kwa Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1052 m2
This application was submitted in November 2016 with plans showing the raised ancillary dwelling. The applicant subsequently put the application on hold pending submittal of amended plans. The applicant then resolved to proceed with the original plans and the application was referred to adjoining landowners for comment in December 2016. The applicant then advised the plans would be further amended and the neighbours were advised to hold off making submissions until the amended plans were assessed. The applicant further amended the plans to increase the size of the ancillary dwelling and the amended plans were readvertised to neighbours during January 2017. An adjoining landowner made a submission objecting to the proposal based on the size of the ancillary dwelling. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the adjoining owners, amended plans were again in March 2017 which reduced the plot ratio for the ancillary dwelling by labelling portion of the building as storage area rather than as a second bedroom. The overall dimensions, setbacks and height of the building remained the same. These plans were again advertised to the adjoining landowner who previously made a submission and they have again objected to the proposal. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.
DETAILS:
Development description • The property is an existing single storey dwelling on the corner of Turriff Road and
Pearson Place within the Floreat planning precinct which adjoins single residential dwellings.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 22
• The existing dwelling on the site currently has second storey additions and alterations under construction.
• An ancillary dwelling proposed in the south/western corner of the lot with setback variations to the side/west and rear/southern boundary
• The ancillary dwelling is proposed to be raised off the ground by approximately 1.8 metres to allow for storage underneath.
• Existing stores on the site will then be removed so that the proposal will meet open space requirements.
Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the south (rear) and west (side) boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 25 Pearson Place and No. 3 Turriff Road, Floreat. One submission was received from the owners of No. 3 Turriff Road objecting to the size of the dwelling and the number of buildings already on the site. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Rear setback
Min 6.0 metres 1.0 metre
Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and
adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living
areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for
adjoining properties is not restricted; and • positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.
The proposed ancillary dwelling has a setback of 1.0 metre to the rear/southern boundary and a setback ranging from 1.6 metres to 3.3 metres from the side/western boundary. The dwelling is proposed to be set up off the ground by 1.8 metres to allow for additional storage area
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 23
underneath. This increases the setback requirement to the side boundary over that required by a single storey dwelling at ground level. Whilst it is recognised that ancillary dwellings cannot usually comply with rear setbacks as, by their very nature they are usually constructed in the back gardens of existing properties, this structure is particularly large and high and, due to existing buildings on the site, located right in the rear corner of the site thereby exacerbating the issues of building bulk on the neighbouring properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development, from the side and rear boundaries, do not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setbacks, combined with the proposed height of the proposed ancillary
dwelling and store, contribute to issues of building bulk for adjoining properties. Ancillary dwelling (Clause 5.5.1) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed
Plot ratio Maximum plot ratio of 70
square metres 79 square metres
Design principle: Ancillary dwelling for people who live either independently or semi-dependently to the residents of the single house, sharing some site facilities and services and without compromising the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposed ancillary dwelling and storage area has an area of 79 square metres and a wall height of 4.5 metres as the finished floor level of the dwelling is proposed to be 1.8 metres above ground level to allow for further storage underneath. The applicant has attempted to comply with plot ratio provisions be relabelling one of the bedrooms to a storage area but it is noted that this area still contains an ensuite and it would be difficult to control its use to a non-habitable room that would keep the ancillary dwelling within plot ratio requirements. In addition, it could be argued that the storage area could be considered an outbuilding and therefore would not meet these provisions of the R Codes either in terms of being attached to a dwelling and exceeding a wall height of 2.4 metres. It is not considered that the bulk and scale of the dwelling is such that it reduces the impacts of building bulk ono adjoining properties although it is noted that there are no privacy issues with windows being either obscure glass or with high still heights. In any case, it is considered that the amenity of surrounding properties would be compromised by the proposed structure. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed ancillary dwelling does not satisfy the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the proposed height and size of the proposed ancillary dwelling and store compromise the
amenity of surrounding properties.
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 24
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013- 2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for an ancillary dwelling and store as submitted by F Kwa at Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 13 March 2017, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of part 5.1.3 of the Residential
Design Codes of Western Australia as the reduced setbacks and height of the proposed building result in issues of building bulk for adjoining properties; and
(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of part 5.5.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the proposed size of the ancillary dwelling and store compromise the amenity of surrounding properties.
Carried 5/0
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 25
DV17.59 LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SINGLE STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING
SUMMARY:
The Town has received an application for single storey additions and alterations to an existing dwelling located at No. 148 Tower Street, West Leederville. The plans submitted show an existing character 'workers cottage' dwelling on the subject site, a new rear addition containing indoor and outdoor living areas as well as new fencing and landscaping. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) for 'lot boundary setback' and 'open space' and, accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0034DA-2017 Owner: Mr CL Broeze and Ms G Sinclair Applicant: Kukame Mckenzie Architect Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 293sqm This application was originally submitted in February 2017. Subsequent to an initial assessment of the plans and neighbour consultation, amended plans were submitted in April 2017 showing modifications to the street fencing, privacy screening for the courtyard, and site works. It is the latter set of plans which are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:
Development description • The subject site is located within the West Leederville planning precinct, to the north of
Cambridge Street and east of Holyrood Street. • An existing single storey traditional 'workers cottage' dwelling exists on the site, which is
to be retained. The site feature survey shows a slope of approximately 1 metre from front (south) to rear (north).
• As with other dwellings along Tower Street, there is currently no car parking on the site, the applicant has advised that on-street parking is currently utilised by the owners. There is no right-of-way abutting the site.
• A high brick solid wall exists within the front setback area, and currently screens the dwelling from the street. This proposal includes a new 1.2 metre high visually permeable fence that satisfies the Town's Streetscape Policy requirements.
• The additions are to the rear of the property and are single storey in scale and contemporary in nature, featuring a flat roof design. This roof is concealed from the street by the existing character dwelling, which is to be upgraded as part of this proposal.
• Lot boundary setback variations are proposed on the eastern and western sides of the rear addition. Most significantly, a nil setback is proposed to the eastern side boundary
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 26
for the new living area, where a 1.7 metre setback is required. This matter is discussed further in the assessment section below.
• Furthermore, a small open space variation is also being sought, being 43.5 percent in lieu of the required 45 percent. The site coverage of this development is discussed in the following report.
Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the site coverage and lot boundary setbacks of the proposal. The applicant argues that the overall length of boundary wall on the eastern side is increasing by only a small amount from the existing scenario. The existing dwelling is being retained, which will ensure a consistent streetscape. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the eastern and western boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 146 and 150 Tower Street, West Leederville. A submission was received from the owner of the property at No. 146 Tower Street, West Leederville. The neighbour has raised concerns regarding the proposed nil setback of the additions to the eastern side boundary and its potential impact upon existing indoor and outdoor living areas. Concerns were also raised regarding visual privacy and dividing fences. A summary of these comments is attached to the agenda. A dividing fences advice note is included with the recommendation, given the concerns raised by the neighbour in regard to the removal of existing walls and fences. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Nil
Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and
adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living
areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for
adjoining properties is not restricted; and • positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 27
The setback variation to the western side boundary is considered minor, given that the addition improves on the setback of the existing dwelling. No major openings are proposed, ensuring that privacy for the adjoining property is maintained. Regarding the eastern boundary wall, due to its irregular shape which features curved sides, the effective length of this wall is just over 5 metres and therefore the bulk of the wall is less than a traditional dwelling boundary wall or fence. The existing dwelling already contains a nil setback to the eastern side boundary. Taking into account the combined wall lengths of the existing dwelling and new addition, the total boundary wall length is approximately 16 metres. This is approximately 3 metres longer than the existing eastern boundary wall, as shown on the site feature survey. The impact of the boundary wall is further reduced through the provision of a new central courtyard, which provides separation between the existing dwelling and the rear addition, in turn lessening the perceived impact of building bulk. The flat roof of the addition, as opposed to a pitched roof, further reduces the impact of the boundary wall. The length of boundary wall proposed is not considered excessive in this instance, particularly given the small lot size and the fact that the existing character dwelling is being maintained. This means that the additions will not be visible from the street and will therefore positively contribute to the prevailing development context. It is also noted that many dwellings along Tower Street contain walls with reduced setbacks along eastern side boundaries. This further demonstrates that the proposed additions will not be out of keeping with the prevailing development context in this well-established area of the West Leederville precinct. Access to direct sunlight on adjoining properties will be maintained, given the north-south orientation of the site. The new boundary wall also affords more privacy between properties than at present, as outdoor living areas will be screened. This is particularly the case for the neighbour's rear outdoor living area, which at present has full view into the subject site over the existing dividing fence. The provision of screening to the central courtyard also further assists with privacy whilst still allowing for light and ventilation. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the impact of building bulk along the eastern side is minimised through the
irregular/curved shape of the boundary wall, inclusion of a flat roof design and provision of an internal courtyard that separates the original dwelling from the addition;
• the existing character dwelling is being retained, which already contains a nil setback to the eastern side boundary, ensuring that the rear addition will respect the prevailing development context and streetscape; and
• the new boundary wall affords more privacy for outdoor living areas on the subject site and adjoining properties.
Open space (Clause 5.1.4 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision
Proposed
Min 45% of site 43.5% of the site
Design principles: Development incorporates suitable open space for its context to: • reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or as outlined under the local
planning framework; • provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling;
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017
MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 28
• reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the expectations of the applicable density code and/or as outlined in the local planning framework;
• provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape; • provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits
and access within/around the site; and • provide space for external fixtures and essential facilities. The applicant has calculated compliant site coverage for this development; however the Town's calculation shows a slight variation of 1.5 percent. The extent of this variation equates to approximately 4.4m2, which is considered minor given the single storey nature of the proposal. The retention of the existing character dwelling ensures that, from the street, the additions will not be visible and therefore an established streetscape character will be maintained. This will be further enhanced through the provision of new open-style street fencing where there is currently a high solid wall. Despite the additional floor space proposed, adequate landscaping and outdoor living areas will be available to occupants of the dwelling. These areas include front landscaping, a central courtyard as well as the rear deck and garden that are easily accessible from within the dwelling. It is also noted that the proposal satisfies the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R- Codes for 'outdoor living areas'. As stated in the assessment for lot boundary setbacks, the proposal is not considered to have undue impact upon neighbouring properties in regard to building bulk, particularly considering the Residential R40 density coding and the prevalence of lengthy boundary walls on other properties along Tower Street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed open space provision satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the extent of the additions will allow for adequate landscaping as well as covered and
uncovered outd